Delaware primary: Ruling Class vs Country Class

By
September 13, 2010

Odonnell_poolside2

"Yes, that’s Christine O’Donnell beside the pool at the fabulous Venetian Resort Hotel. And, no, she wasn’t wearing a bikini. She did, however, agree to wear the famous fedora I borrowed from Da Tech Guy," Stacy McCain captioned the video of his interview last summer with the tea party favorite vying for Delaware's "Biden Seat" in a primary battle that has pitched Republican against Republican in a bitter clash of Ruling Class vs Country Class, establishment vs outsider (see below).

By Sissy Willis of sisu

"This has been a complete out-of-state operation … It's not been a local campaign. It's not had local donations," keened Delaware Rep. Mike Castle as it began to dawn upon him that someone had changed the rules in the "closer-than-expected GOP Senate primary he's locked in against tea party favorite Christine O'Donnell"

And he's right. The usual suspects among the Northeast Corridor fuddy-duddy community were tut-tutting, The Right Scoop had the video, and 140-or-fewer-character reports like Rich Lowry's tweet about Charles Krauthammer's latest oracular pronouncement on Special Report were lighting up the 'sphere late afternoon …

Either you were for the party-sanctioned left-leaning candidate or you were flaunting (thanks to ms docweasel in the comments for the usage correction) flouting Bill Buckley's caveat about electability. The old-boys network's narrative of choice: A limited-government conservative could never win the general in deep-blue Delaware. How then to explain the fact that presumably limited-government candidate O'Donnell had been good enough for the GOP establishment in previous elections? Again, electability was the excuse for throwing her under the bus with their "Nuts and Sluts" offensive. But the tea partiers weren't buying …

Full story here.

Please consider supporting RiehlWorldView with a small donation
, by shopping at Amazon via our Associate link in the sidebar or by re-distributing our content across the Web with the options below. Thank you.


Comments:
  1. Lisa Graas says:

    I don’t mind the “party-sanctioned” as much as I mind the “left-leaning”. It’s the left-leaning that bothers me.

  2. Ad rem says:

    Hmmmm…if Castle loses, how long will it take him to announce himself a Libertarian or go for the “write-in”?

  3. zf says:

    You hit the nail on the head, Sissy. How many perfectly good conservative candidates throughout history would have been in Congress or other parts of the government if they hadn’t been passed over in favor of running more “moderate” Republicans in the name of electability?
    People need to stop focusing on poll numbers and tactical analysis and understand one thing: you don’t really know who’ll win an election until near the end. Elections are very emotional and human creatures: they aren’t always rational and predictable. They can change suddenly and without warning and numbers can mislead.
    Sure, there’s a chance O’Donnell could lose against the Democrat candidate if she beats Castle. But I’d rather take that chance than see Delaware with two liberals running against each other and no matter which one wins, we all lose.
    People are using the same logic to back Castle that they did with Scott Brown. Yeah, and that really worked out great didn’t it?

  4. Sally says:

    You’re not doing this woman any favors by posting this kind of picture of her. Is she running for the Senate or Miss Delaware? It kind of makes the election about the guy who’s served his constituents faithfully for the last 40 years so whatever else you say about him he has to be taken seriously and the pretty girl at the pool clowning around for the camera and doesn’t have to be taken seriously about anything.
    Delaware will decide in a few hours how serious they choose to be about all this. I’m fairly sure they’ll go with the one they think will be most effective in representing their state’s interests. Which is what the election is about, right? Who can best represent Delaware.

  5. Ad rem says:

    Sally.
    Just what in this picture suggests to you O’Donnell is clowning around? Is she in a bikini? What exactly do you mean by “this kind of picture”? All you have is a pretty young woman smiling for the camera. Sheesh….what a prude!

  6. barfo says:

    It’s not very “conservative” to constantly play the victim card.

  7. Jim Ryan says:

    Support for Cap and Trade is a deal breaker. Let the Dems have the seat.

  8. Dale says:

    It’s not “very conservative” to spend more time and energy attacking candidates who aren’t members of the good old boy’s network than you spend attacking democrats. If you sabotage republicans in favor of progressive RINOs, you’re not giving the voters much of a choice.

  9. barfo says:

    ” If you sabotage republicans in favor of progressive RINOs, you’re not giving the voters much of a choice.”
    And when Joe Miller’s staffer called Lisa Murkowski a prostitute over Twitter that was what?

  10. Demosthenes9 says:

    >>People are using the same logic to back Castle that they did with Scott Brown. Yeah, and that really worked out great didn’t it?<<
    Actually, yes, Scott Brown DID work out great. Remember Brown’s “I’m 41″ ? That caused the Dems to have to use some very underhanded legislative gimmicks to get Obamacare passed.
    That, in my opinion finally pissed off the more “main street” crowd (as opposed to us political junkies).
    So yeah, everything considered, Scott Brown has worked out just fine.
    Oh, “but he doesn’t always vote with the Repubs” you might say ? Well, let’s see, how often do you think Martha Coakley would have voted with the Repubs or the Conservative position?
    Again, that’s the “calculation” that some here seem not to be able to fathom. That yes, having someone vote with the Republicans even a good part of the time is better than handing the seat to someone who will almost NEVER vote with the Repubs.

  11. zf says:

    The lawsuit/lying about Princeton story has more than quite a few holes: Levin tore it apart in 5 mins:
    http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=429956895945
    Yet, supposedly the Weekly Standard “report” with its shady/anonymous sources and baseless accusations was sooooo compelling that it singularly and immediately proved she (O’Donnell) was “unstable” and shouldn’t be supported. And apparently the WS story was so compelling that people are quoting it as gospel and blindly accepting the WS interpretation/version of events without doing any checking of the facts themselves. That’s is why the conservatism of the Castle crowd is so open to question, they seem to be going grossly out of their way to install a liberal from Delaware in Congress over a true conservative and if they are going that far could it be because those liberal Castle policies don’t trouble them too much? Hmmm.
    Now Patterico is claiming Levin is being “elitist.” That’s rich, Patterico is defending an elitist candidate from an elitist obsessed Delaware GOP establishment who votes for elitist liberal policies and simultaneously Pat is attacking the tea party country class candidate using elitist thought and language…and he has the nerve to call Mark an elitist?
    And Pat, calling someone a RINO is not elitist. Elitism is when you think you’re better than someone merely because of their class or station in life or educational background and regardless of their virtues and character. We’re not saying we’re better because of something you can’t control or that is inherent to your character or what job you have, we’re saying we’re better because we are not engaging in the stupid things you are voluntary and with complete free will are choosing to do. And yeah, true conservatives are better than liberals and RINOs, not because of any inherent status, but because of the bad thnking that make one a liberal or RINO. Don’t confuse judging of a persons decisions and viewpoints with the same thing as judging someones social status/class.

  12. barfo says:

    “Elitism is when you think you’re better than someone merely because of their class or station in life or educational background and regardless of their virtues and character.”
    I believe Levin said Patterico’s opinion didn’t matter because he hadn’t published a book like he had.
    Sure sounds like elitism to me.

  13. Demosthenes9 says:

    >>>>I believe Levin said Patterico’s opinion didn’t matter because he hadn’t published a book like he had.
    Sure sounds like elitism to me.< <<<
    Point to barfo. 1-0 :)

  14. ms docweasel says:

    “Flouting”, not “flaunting”, Dan. You flout the rules, you flaunt your new dress.

  15. Sissy Willis says:

    Thanks for the usage note, ms docweasel, duly noted and corrected.
    Now here’s one for you: This is guest blogger Sissy Willis, author of the above piece.

  16. syn says:

    Is the GOP establishment aware of just how many formerly apolitical Americans, who for much of their lives never really paid much attention to politics, parties, chairmanships, liberalism, conservatism, NRO, Weekly Standard, etc are now passionately involving themselves in politics as a matter of their own survival?
    I would argue that the Tea Party represents a large percentage of formerly apolitcal Americans who have had enough and have converted to political activism.
    Those of us who are political junkies have based of much our analysis upon patterns of the past but nothing is normal these days; the ‘same ole same old’ cannot be applied to the equation.
    At the moment, the unknown is just how many formerly apolitical Americans are today vigorously politically active.

  17. SM says:

    >”that’s the “calculation” that some here seem not to be able to fathom. That yes, having someone vote with the Republicans even a good part of the time is better than handing the seat to someone who will almost NEVER vote with the Repubs”
    We can fathom your calculation perfectly well.
    What you cannot seem to fathom is that while YOUR goal is to have a liberal Republican Party take power, it is not the goal of a large swathe of Republicans.
    I’m not even slightly interested in being told that Castle will vote with the GOP from time to time. To you, that’s a feature. To me, that’s a bug. Can you fathom that?

  18. Moobs says:

    dude patterico is defending an elitist RINO and he and his minions demonsthenes and barfbag on the vichy right haver a lot of nerve to call levi an elitist hack

  19. SM says:

    You know, there are a lot of other Senate races happening on the same day as this one. Races where we have a change to elect some decent candidates. I’d like to see the GOP Ruling Class expend a faction of the effort on those races as they’re spending on this primary in Delaware.

  20. ` says:

    `Levin is acting like a hack and patterico and I aren’t defending Castle. IF anything, I’m defending Powerline and Patterico and explaining why it makes tactical sense to hold one’s nose and vote for Castle.
    That you can’t get that is your problem, not mine Moobs.

  21. ` says:

    >>>>What you cannot seem to fathom is that while YOUR goal is to have a liberal Republican Party take power<<<<
    Hello ? THAT is NOT the goal. The goal is for the Repubs to take power to further block and roll back what they can of the Obama agenda. You need seats to do that.

  22. Joe says:

    http://fredbauerblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/opening-in-connecticut.html
    Hmmmmm, this is good.
    I wanted Simmons to face Blumenthal in Conn. But Simmons lost to WWW McMahon. Simmons was a veteran who could have stuffed Blumenthal’s lies down his throat. Still, Simmons was gracious and gave his support to McMahon.
    Now she is within six.
    There is a lesson here.

  23. Ragspierre says:

    “If returning to the fundamentals of Constitutional government is “radical” then the GOP needs to become the radical party. Until they absorb that, embraces that “radicalism” and runs candidates who believe in that fundamental principle, the wrong track numbers will continue to remain constant and the GOP will continue to be the clueless lesser of two evils, but not by much.”
    Bruce McQuain said it today: I’ve said it many times. People have to insist on a Constitutional Restoration.
    http://www.qando.net/?p=9389&cpage=1#comment-59357
    http://hindenblog1.blogspot.com/2010/03/humanity-towards-constitutional-rebirth.html

  24. SM says:

    >”The goal is for the Repubs to take power to further block and roll back what they can of the Obama agenda. You need seats to do that.”
    No, you do NOT need seats to do that. What you need to do that are CONSERVATIVE seats.
    The idea that people like Castle, Kirk, McCain, Graham, Snowe, Collins, etc are going to vote to repeal Obamacare is just pure fantasy.
    We have decades of experience with the consequences of electing liberal Republicans, and the lesson is that while the Dems are in power the country moves left, while when the Republicans are in power the country either moves a little more slowly to the left or else stays in place for a while.
    Maybe you think that state of affairs is acceptable. I do not.

  25. SM says:

    Simmons lost to WWW McMahon. Simmons was a veteran who could have stuffed Blumenthal’s lies down his throat. Still, Simmons was gracious and gave his support to McMahon.
    That’s the exception to the rule. Usually when liberal Republicans lose to a conservative in the primary, they do NOT respond by supporting the person they lost to.

  26. SM says:

    >”patterico and I aren’t defending Castle.”
    True. You’re attacking O’Donnell rather than making the case for Castle.
    >”I’m defending Powerline and Patterico and explaining why it makes tactical sense to hold one’s nose and vote for Castle.”
    In case you had not noticed, opinions differ on whether or not it does make tactical sense. Or, more importantly, whether it makes strategic sense.

  27. “Electability”. Buckley. Link the two and you win any argument with the elites.
    In 2006, I got so fed up with constantly being admonished for breaking Reagan’s rule about never criticizing a fellow Republican (today known as Assistant Democrat) that I re-registered as an unaffiliated voter. Now I’m not breaking that stupid rule anymore.

  28. barfo says:

    “a Constitutional Restoration” seems very vague, Joe.
    So vague it’s meaningless.
    How about some concrete goals?

  29. Rick says:

    Heh! From Jim Geraghty’s “Morning Jolt” email:
    4. Addenda
    Apparently there’s some Senate primary in Delaware today. Not really a big race,
    I hear.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Cordially…

  30. Ragspierre says:

    barfo;
    It isn’t vague at all to me.
    Maybe this is one of those, “If you have to ask…” questions.
    How would YOU define the goals of a Constitutional Restoration.

  31. barfo says:

    “How would YOU define the goals of a Constitutional Restoration.”
    A meaningless bumper sticker slogan that hides a lack of concrete policy goals?
    How many Tea Partiers are willing to give up their Social Security and Medicare checks?
    None that I know.
    How many are willing to cut back defense spending and farm subsidies?
    ditto.
    etc.

  32. barfo — they PAID for that Social Security. Why should they give up the benefits of a deal they were COMPELLED to enter into?

  33. Ragspierre says:

    barfo.
    Now you have. I have no expectation of asking for a cent from Socialist Insecurity. It’s a little present I can leave for my grandkids.
    I would cut OUT farm subsidies, and I have an ag background. I would even reduce defense spending modestly.
    You need to get out more, man…

  34. SM says:

    >”How many Tea Partiers are willing to give up their Social Security and Medicare checks?”
    If it bothers you that people are skeptical about your being a conservative, you could always drop the liberal arguments and make a few conservative ones for a change.

  35. memomachine says:

    Hmmmm.
    “Hello ? THAT is NOT the goal. The goal is for the Repubs to take power to further block and roll back what they can of the Obama agenda. You need seats to do that.”
    No. You need *votes* to do that.
    And there lies the difference between filling seats and getting votes.

  36. barfo says:

    “you could always drop the liberal arguments and make a few conservative ones for a change.”
    They were good enough for Ronald Reagan.
    Still waiting for a definition of “Constitutional Restoration.”

  37. memomachine says:

    Hmmm.
    @ Demosthenes9
    “Point to barfo. 1-0 :)”
    sigh. Wrong as usual. “barfo” did not express a rhetorical point that countered Levin’s position. Having not written a book is not a “class”, “station in life” or “educational background”. It is in fact the lack of a substantial accomplishment and an affirmation of experience and productive thought.
    So no. Point not to “barfo”.
    Additionally “barfo” is wrong about the Miller staffer calling Murkowski a “prostitute” as anyone who actually spent more than 5 seconds on that deal would and should know. Frankly “barfo” hasn’t shown much in either knowledge or thought and your inability to see that frankly doesn’t impress me much.
    But then again so far being unimpressive has been your calling card.

  38. memomachine says:

    Hmmm.
    @ barfo
    “Still waiting for a definition of “Constitutional Restoration.”"
    It’s called Originalism. E.g. not a “living” Constitution. Look it up.
    Funny thing really. Most conservatives already understand the concept.

  39. SM says:

    “They were good enough for Ronald Reagan.”
    I had not noticed you making any Reaganesque arguments.

  40. Steve Poling says:

    WFB was one who’d regard the “flaunting” vs “flouting” usage issue as significant (if not important) as the question of Castle vs O’Donnell.

  41. Kelly says:

    …waiting for the “The Constitution also said slaves were 3/5 of a person, do you want to restore that too?” talking point…

  42. Kelly says:

    Memomachine is correct. Most conservatives know exactly what restoring the Constitution means. I don’t want Medicare. I don’t want Social Security. I would have much rather been able to privatize my retirement money instead of the nanny government stealing my money.

  43. Average Democrat Male says:

    Damn it!!! I broke a nail!

  44. barfo says:

    “I don’t want Medicare. I don’t want Social Security.”
    Can you list some Tea Party politicians who have publicly stated they want to end Social Security and Medicare (and haven’t issued a panicked retraction afterward)?

  45. Kelly says:

    What does that have to do with anything? You said you’ve never heard of a Tea Party member willing to give up SS and Medicare. I am willing to give that up. Tea Party does not equal Conservative, and as a conservative, you should know that.

  46. barfo says:

    “Tea Party does not equal Conservative”
    What does it equal then, Hope and Change?

  47. Kelly says:

    Google is your friend.

  48. datechguy says:

    That settles it we have to get my fedoras to as many GOP candidates as possible STAT! it brings luck