That 47-51 Vote in the Senate
We got our vote in the Senate, and it was a pure party line vote:
The Senate on Wednesday voted down a repeal of President Obama’s healthcare law in a 47-51 party-line vote.
. . . .
Neither the result nor vote breakdown were surprises. No Democrats in attendance voted in favor of the measure and no Republicans rejected it. Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) were absent for the vote.
Something to keep in mind the next time the “Real Conservatives” support a hard-line Republican in a state that elects only moderate Republicans. When the “Real Conservatives” try to tell you that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE!!!!!!11!1!! between the “RINO” they are opposing and the Democrat they are about to get elected, remember votes like this.
To be blunt, Mike Castle would have been vote #48 for repeal. Chris Coons was vote #51 against. And Christine O’Donnell? Didn’t vote and was never going to be voting.
But hey. There is no difference between Chris Coons and Mike Castle. So please. Ignore electoral reality and keep backing the True Conservatives in the blue states.
Just please don’t come whining to us realists when you keep losing votes like this. Thank you.
P.S. That ruling that ObamaCare was unconstitutional? That came from a conservative judge appointed by Reagan. Our only hope that the ruling will stand? A Supreme Court Justice appointed by Reagan.
So if you want to support a “Real Conservative” for President who has no chance of winning, just to make a point, realize that we will lose more Supreme Court seats. And more chances to properly reject unconstitutional laws like this.
Stick to your pet candidate at the expense of reality by all means. Just don’t come whining to us realists when you suddenly find yourself with a liberal majority in the Supreme Court, and freedom-crushing monstrosities like ObamaCare are rubber-stamped with a supercilious limousine-liberal grin.
I have a feeling this post will be very popular. Are narciso and gary gulrud around to confirm this prediction for me?
Maybe I can get Mark Levin to call me a moron again. That would be fun.
Patterico (c218bd) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:39 amMike Castle wanted us all to pay kajillions more dollars for electricities cause he has a morbid neurotic fear of carbon dioxide molecules plus he lurved him some fascist fascist card check. That’s a big deal when you live in a little country what has an economy as anemic and sputtering and socialist and union-infested as our one.
happyfeet (ab5779) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:48 am30 years in the wilderness for my PRINCIPLES!!!!!!!
Is that flame bait I smell?
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:51 amWasn’t Scott Brown a TRUE CONSERVATIVE?
I forgot, that was different, principles are flexible depending on the week and circumstances.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:53 amSo one assumes that McMahon, and Fiorina, and take any third Senator,
narciso (e888ae) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:55 amMike Castle would not have voted for repeal of the health care law. He is a liberal and liberals love big government. He lost so get over it already.
mike (e58741) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:57 amHe got one thing right in this blog. “There is no difference between Mike Castle and Chris Coons”
mike (e58741) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:00 amPatterico – Get with the program. Losing only makes us stronger, or something.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:03 amWhile I do not necessarily disagree here, there is a recent counterpoint.
That pre-swear-in pork monster failed because several switched their votes late. They did so because, in their words, if they failed to vote against it, they would face hot primaries against Tea Party types despite their otherwise more-conservative-than-liberal position.
jim2 (851efa) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:04 amYou are going to see, Patterico, that many purists aren’t going to “get” it. You would think that the D votes would show them, but they will just insist, insist that a rino is no different. And that most voters want “true conservatives.”
Politics is the art of the possible, not the pure.
Votes like this prove it. And the purists are going to help create Four More Years, and more SCOTUS appointments. And, of course, a rino would appoint exactly the same people as BHO.
Oh well. A fractious thread will ensue.
Simon Jester (3ccbcf) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:05 amChristine is cute and she pulled in an impressive 5% more of the vote in a tidal wave year for Republicans than the last time she ran, so she had that going for her.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:07 amAnd furthermore, such counsel, 30 some years ago, would have said go for Baker or Connelly, rather than a newcomer like Reagan.
narciso (e888ae) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:09 amTwo true/false questions for ya, mike.
1. Mike Castle voted for Obamacare. T/F.
Patterico (c218bd) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:13 am2. There is no difference between Olympia Snowe and a Democrat. T/F.
Christine is an idiot weirdo but once Sarah Palin thrusted her into prominence everyone had to go along for the ride. Personally I think Sarah Palin was overcompensating for her absurd endorsement of Meghan’s coward daddy.
Hopefully she learned some valuable lessons.
happyfeet (ab5779) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:14 amCatle voted for the food security bill, for START, for the Dream Act, none of which can be considered
narciso (e888ae) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:17 amthe traditional social issues
“Mike Castle would not have voted for repeal of the health care law. He is a liberal and liberals love big government.”
mike – You mean just like Snowe and Collins yesterday in that 47-51 vote? Next.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:24 amWait wait wait. Two points: #1) the REASON this particular vote is news is BECAUSE McConnell was able to keep all of the squishes in line. It is RARE that the Maine Twins and others hold firm. But, it appears, THIS time, on THIS vote, McConnell had the necessary gumption and strength to twist the arms appropriately. I’ll grant that, in THESE circumstances, Castle too would have been a vote #47 for repeal. It is NEWS because it is UNUSUAL.
#2) BUT…Castle would NOT have been a vote #60 for repeal. See, part of the reason McConnell WAS able to keep all the RINOs on board was *they knew it would not matter*. Since repeal was going down to defeat regardless — they needed 60 votes to set aside the Point of Order — it was a SAFE vote for all concerned. The RINOs will easily be able to say to their left-leaning base “No, no, I didn’t vote for /repeal/…I just voted to proceed to a cloture vote on the amendment to repeal!” They will be able to say to their gullible right-leaning consituents “Sure, I thought we could benefit from debate on replacing OCare…so I voted to set aside the budgetary point of order, but it failed”
It’s a win-win — and OCare stays. It was safe.
But Castle (nor Mookaskly, nor the Maine Twins) would NOT be a #60 on that POO, nor a #60 on cloture, nor a #51 on passage.
BobInFL (bae5a3) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:28 amI wasn’t wild about my vote for Mark Kirk last fall but he did good yesterday. And he had a good line about algore and has changed his view on global warming. (Of course, maybe he saw the 2 feet of snow we got on tues-wed as well). There will be votes down the road where I will disagree with Kirk but he is a 100 times better than the corrupt D that he ran against. While I would not say that Kirk is a conservative–in this screwed up state, Illinois, I will take what I can get.
BT (74cbec) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:32 amI have a box full of clown noses should anybody need a replacement today.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:34 amSo many times over the past half-century we have followed the advice of the “pragmatists” and been led into the swamp of an ever increasing Leviathan, that diminishes our Liberty & Freedom.
Occassionally, a stand must be made!
It took the election of Teh Won to remove the blinders from the Indies that the modern Dem Party did not have their, or the American People’s at large, interest at heart regardless of the rhetoric to the contrary.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:36 amI think this is an unnecessary jab in the eyes, P. Prior to the 2010 primaries and elections would you have predicted that all Repubs would have voted this way? Is there no chance Snowe or another might have voted with the Dems had the 2010 elections been less stridently conservative?
I think it is easy to say that those who want to be “purists” will never win. It is also easy to say that if you vote for an “R” because they are an “R”, and you get a Specter who changes Party on you, you haven’t done much good.
But the majority of people are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. If you want to condemn an “ultra-purist” position, fine, but I don’t think you are winning any friends or arguments by lumping everyone one mm to the right of you with ultra-purists. Did some along the spectrum make a mistake in going for O’Connell than Castle? Maybe. Should the people that pushed Castle say, “Stupid purists” and push him again next opportunity? Maybe not. Maybe they should try to get a candidate with a little more conservative credentials rather then just thumb their noses at the more conservative voters in DE and get a better overall candidate.
As Simon Jester said, “Politics is the art of the possible, not the pure”, but sometimes people don’t agree where the “possible” line is drawn. I didn’t like having the choice to vote for Specter in 2004, but I did, and look where it got me.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:36 ampatterico
i think in the end we can’t be sure what would have happened. if the tea party didn’t end the career of mike castle, then yes, he probably would have been in the senate. and let’s stipulate that castle would have voted in favor of repeal.
But what about Olympia Snow? would she have if castle was there and murky didn’t barely survive and so on? what about all the other moderate republicans? would they have? Maybe if castle survived the primary, snow would have felt safe voting for obamacare. and thus today’s vote would have been more like 45 votes against obamacare, instead of 47.
Bluntly, what is sticking in my craw about this argument is the infamous “butterfly effect.” small changes have large and unpredictable final results. which is a way of saying, that the correct answer is that if castle was elected, it cannot be known if we would have been better off. yes, we would have had more republicans, but they might have been less willing to vote the party line.
i mean i want to be clear. i don’t want you to think i think i have the answer, either. and certainly in 2008 i made my choice. i hated mccain-feingold as much as you did, and wanted to see mccain punished. but i held my nose and voted for the man because i knew he was better than obama. but i think you are trying to prove a point that ultimately can’t be proven or disproved.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:47 amDidn’t the exit poll show that Coons would have beaten Castle? So what is this really about? If we were going to go down anyway, wasn’t it better to do so with a candidate we could actually support rather than one we’d have had to hold our noses for?
Milhouse (d84b40) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:53 amCastle and O’donnell and my pet Coons were all crappy. We are only discussing degrees of crapitude.
JD (d56362) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:59 amThat’s an extremely unreliable indicator. for one, the entire state had just chosen between O’Donnell and Coons, skewing any poll regarding Castle and Coons.
Are you suggesting someone is being deceptive about what this is really about? I think it’s really clear. Castle, a popular and successful governor who was the only successful statewide republican in Delaware, was likely to win that election, despite your evidence.
We weren’t, but even if you just think we had a fighting chance with Castle, or a slim chance (when in reality we would have won, easily), you are granting we would have ‘gone down anyway’ with O’Donnell. Pick the most conservative candidate who can win. It matters a lot.
Coons will be around for a very long time, and there will be close votes at some point where this mattered a lot.
And you didn’t have to hold your nose for O’Donnell? That’s ridiculous.
Castle voted for Cap and Tax, so I grant that you also have to hold your nose for him, and I grant that it sends a message of fear to all other Republicans that we were willing to throw away a sure win in that state (and we surely did) over someone being too moderate. That will have some benefits, but I think we should nominate the most conservative candidate who can win.
BTW, Milhouse, are you saying Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections? If not, explain your insistence on notoriously unreliable exit polls that are well known as evidence Gore and Kerry won.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:02 amJD has the issue, I think. We tend to believe in good versus bad. Truth is, the choice (generally) is between “less bad” and “very bad.”
But there will always be people who disagree with this.
Simon Jester (3ccbcf) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:02 amThat’s fair.
Castle would have been a vote against Obamacare. I can imagine if Miller and one other conservative had won, this would be even more painful, but I think eventually we’re going to face a time where this crappy Castle guy could have saved the day. And frankly, most of his dumb votes were ones that didn’t matter (much as democrat ‘moderates’ go conservative when it’s not a close vote.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:04 amI think there’s a much more constructive issue.
There’s different degrees of effort. It was lazy to endorse O’Donnell at the last second (which has burnt half the Palin bridge to my vote in a primary). It was lazy for the Tea Party to rely on someone who would happily run third party, had all the problems I’ve repeatedly brought up, and had no experience.
What would have taken more work would be to ID the RINO they wanted to beat well in advance, and run a Joe Miller. Somewhere in DE is a smart, well spoken, honorable veteran or businessperson, who agrees with O’Donnell’s policy platform. But that takes a lot more work than we saw from O’Donnell’s most prominent backers.
It takes a Rubio.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:10 amHis support of cap and destroy was noxious.
JD (0d2ffc) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:15 amAhem, except Miller did run, and he was shredded by those ‘Corrupt Bastards Club’ up there, and they
narciso (e888ae) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:16 ampulled every trick and rewrote every rule to keep him out.
Obviously, that’s true, Narciso, and I used the Miller example because it’s simply a fact that it’s hard as hell to win, even if you do everything right.
But that’s how you do it. In my opinion, Miller would have won if the process had been honorable (which isn’t a meaningful point these days).
I don’t feel sorry for Castle. As JD says, his cap and tax support is extremely offensive. This isn’t about Mike Castle; this is about nominating people with a shot of winning, in order to preserve the republic as much as we can.
If you wanted to beat castle, you should have done your homework. Because doing it this way led to a Senator that is going to be around for a long time, and happens to be far worse than Castle.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:21 amBTW, it’s also not about O’donnell. She paid the price for her sins many times over. I admire anyone who is willing to jump into the hellfire of the liberal media, especially as a conservative candidate with flaws, running in a blue state. We got smear stories about her pubic hair, for God’s sake.
So at least she was willing to try to sell conservatism in a place that needs more effort. But she never had a chance to win, partly because of character issues. Just look at Palin’s lazy facebook endorsement. It was detail free ‘she’s the only conservative’ and late. 2010 was unlike 2012 in that we have several conservative leaders floating around who aren’t personally running for anything. They should have IDd the races they wanted a ‘true’ conservative to win earlier, and did the homework. A last minute desperate endorsement that has no chance of general election success is a major failure. That is really what ticks me off about this race. It’s not how bad Castle or O’donnell is.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:26 amSome of us recall when the “realists” where whining over an unelectable candidate named Ronald Reagan.
I would suggest sticking to your guns, but if one has no guns to stick to, it would be moot advice.
karen s (48c2ea) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:34 amMike Castle was not against Obamacare, he would have voted the same as Coons. O’Donnell would have voted against it, and if Castle and his clubby Delaware GOP elitists (and the GOP media elitists) hadn’t put their own egos ahead of the good of the country, O’Donnell would have had a fighting chance.
eaglewingz08 (74f660) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:35 amAnyway, the die is now cast. There are no democrap conservatives or moderates in the US Senate, they are all liberals and take their marching orders from Harry Reid and Obama. Goodbye, to you yellow tailed democraps in 2012. The only thing that might save your hide is a Supreme Court decision throwing out Obamanationcare.
To the House, God speed in defunding Obamanationcare.
OK, so sometimes when people say someone faces an uphill battle (as Reagen indeed did face) you can have a little faith, or look at a candidate’s resume.
Reagan was a brilliant campaigner. He didn’t even look like he was campaigning, but he could convey a presidential and optimistic sentiment to this country. He also was a successful governor of the most difficult to govern state in this country.
I don’t understand how O’Donnell is like Reagan. Again, I’m not bashing her… I’m pointing out that if we wanted to run someone like Reagan, we should have started earlier and worked harder.
I also note that we have real-world proof about this race. O’Donnell really had no chance, and lost to a massive margin. You can’t point to a 30 year old election at a different level with a completely different candidate as an effective rebuttal.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:37 amConsider it a miracle that Senator Brown voted for repeal. Otherwise it would have been 46-52. With a Senator Castle, at best, it would have been 48-51. Your complaint is without merit in the present; and without value to our future.
Also, please recall: when Castle lost, he took his mouth, his money, and his supporters out of the game. Had he been worthy, as adults are worthy, he would have thrown himself into O’Donnell’s campaign to ensure her success. He is unworthy of membership in the Republican Party, and of any claim to adulthood.
Sic semper tyrannus.
DaveO (d57886) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:38 amActually, eaglewing, this isn’t the truth. Sadly, this particular race got very heated, and people started lying to the ignorant about castle. He’s a gay adulterer who supports impeaching Bush, etc.
He actually made a comment that we weren’t able to legislatively overcome Obama’s veto. It was quite clear he was in opposition to Obamacare. But his statement was torn out of context and twisted to the opposite of what he said.
And when people repeat these myths, they just make it harder to make informed choices in a primary. If your O’Donnell candidate can’t win without lying about Castle being a gay adulterer who supported porkulus and Obamacare, that’s a strong indicator that your candidate is very weak.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:41 amWell there was a focus on Vinson, but would Baker or Bush have likely appointed him, therein lies the comparison.
narciso (e888ae) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:43 amCastle didn’t owe O’donnell his support. Remember, O’Donnell’s campaign called him a gay adulterer, and ran very harshly against him. O’Donnell had run as a third party candidate in the past, against the GOP nominee.
It would have been nicer had Castle simply kept his mouth shut entirely, but I don’t think it’s fair to ask someone to support the person who demonized them with lies. We should be allowed to keep our personal honor. If someone said you cheated on your wife with a man, would you be willing to give that person lots of money? I wouldn’t. Let’s not invent BS morality.
It’s without value in the future? You really think Senate seats have no value in the future? Don’t you realize we lost more than one winnable seat? Coons will be around for ages. It means quite a lot in the process of negotiating bills to get one or two more votes.
If you’re just saying you don’t care that we lost this seat, ever, then why even talk about this? Purity is not worth losing over. Those grapes were not sour anyway.
You have a point that we are far from able to overcome Obamacare right now, mostly because Obama has the veto. But that’s not the only issue out there, and we don’t really know what’s in the future. The fact is, the Senate is nearly evenly divided, and each seat is incredibly valuable.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:46 amThat’s sadly very true. Bush 43 made much better calls with judges, and I think Mccain would have been pretty good too. We’re just more aware of this as an issue than we used to be. Reagan and Bush 41 both made mistakes here.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:48 amThe long game.
John (7517b5) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:50 amPatterico’s head.
If one compromises, continually, with radicals the change you get will always to radical. Just a matter of degree. The point should be better candidates, better campaigns. Further compromises from where we are today just gets us that much closer to joining the form of protest that’s going on in Egypt today.
cedarhill (4072c2) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:50 amwell said, Cedarhill.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:56 amIt depends on how desperate one feels circumstances are, and the level of trust one gives a candidate. To many who feel circumstances are now grave, and find trust hard to come by, principle is the fall-back position.
If you feel there is still wiggle-room, you strategize. If you feel catastrophe is imminent, you take your stand. People differ in how close to catastrophe they think we are. I think it’s pretty dire.
jodetoad (7720fb) — 2/3/2011 @ 10:12 amPalin/Castle/O’Donnell…
I find it interesting that Palin did not endorse COD until the 9th of September – five days before the Primary Election.
I think it is more significant, as has been noted above, that Castle took a walk, thumbing his nose at the choice of his party’s voters, and revealed himself to be a “summer soldier” in the GOP ranks.
If Republicans, particularly Conservative Republicans, have to rely on the integrity of the Mike Castle’s and Lisa Murkowski’s of the world, we will never attain political supremecy over the Goo-Goo squishes of the political world who will always couch their language in the “feel-good/wouldn’t it be nice” camoflage of the Left, as they lead us to the “showers”.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 2/3/2011 @ 10:12 amComment by Dustin — 2/3/2011 @ 9:46 am
No, Castle owed the Republican Party his support!
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 2/3/2011 @ 10:13 amThis isn’t really about defending Castle or criticizing O’Donnell for me. It wouldn’t have helped, partly because no one reasonable respects a man who supports someone who did as O’Donnell did to Castle. If we wanted a candidate who could unite the GOP and gain the support of those they vanquished in a primary, Castle’s not the problem. O’Donnell’s campaign is. It was focuses on winning the primary, and did so in a way that was not compatible with this allegiance you seek from Castle.
I don’t need liars. Castle and O’Donnell both were quite harsh towards eachother, and neither of them would have been believable in supporting the other. I don’t want to oblige people to lie. Castle’s campaign said that O’donnell had ethical issues. No one should be obligated to endorse someone they don’t trust, just because they have the (R) or the (D).
At the end of the day, this is a problem where people like Palin (and many others) wanted to make Cap and Tax completely toxic for any Republican, and didn’t concern themselves with winning this Senate seat. Castle being honest about O’Donnell had nothing to do with it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 10:19 amReasonable people can disagree on this, though. If AD is concerned with a fracturing GOP, and wants a bright line rule that everyone support our nominee, I think that’s a good thing to want. I just have a different issue I prioritize over that.
Frankly, I was amazed Rove endorsed O’Donnell after that primary.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 10:22 amReally, Dustin, when did Rove do that, then again Rove had impeccable judgement with his support for
narciso (e888ae) — 2/3/2011 @ 10:26 amChaffee and Specter, that worked out well.
Just going off my memory, Narciso, but I distinctly recall Rove being asked if he endorses O’donnell on FNC, and him replying that he most certainly does, and also endorses all GOP primary winners.
Listen, I’m not pretend Rove’s endorsement is meaningful for a conservative who seeks guidance on who to vote for. But after that DE primary, I was surprised the ‘RINO’ side made any effort to support O’Donnell. I’m saying they crossed the line, and their (R) doesn’t take that away.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 10:29 amI think Cap & Tax should be completely toxic to the politicians that have, and do, support(ed) it.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 2/3/2011 @ 10:33 amThey should be cast out into the wilderness, and fed to the jackels.
Fair enough. That’s an objective worth some cost.
Worth Coons? I think reasonable people can disagree on this as well.
But at least this makes much more sense than saying you’re so unwilling to accept Mike Castle as Senator that you’ll go down a path that only leads to Senator Coons.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 10:43 amDustin,
Facts are facts. Castle, upon losing the primary, failed to be a Republican, even In Name Only. Period. Such a demonstration of his character was enough to satisfy most of the voters in Delaware that the primary voters got it right the first time.
2010 is 2010. We’re focused on 2012 now, and the odds for a Conservative takeover of the Senate, WH, and maintaining the House looks better each week. Castle is done. Any who support him now should reflect on whether they are in this for personal power, or power for it’s own safe, or for our great Nation.
If it makes you feel any better, that Wicked Ole Witch O’Donnell is in the same league as Dino Rossi of Washington: perennial runner, perennial loser. So she can’t hurt you anymore.
So who’s recruiting candidates in Delaware and Washington at present?
DaveO (f0ebaf) — 2/3/2011 @ 11:20 amA counterfactual assertion. This post is fantasy. I can do that, too.
To be blunt, Mike Castle didn’t vote and was never going to vote. And if the RINOs had supported O’Donnell, who is less nutty than Kuchinic (among other legislators) O’Donnell would have added 1 vote to the losing side.
As long the majority of voters in the US believe there are no limits on government power, it doesn’t matter whether RINOs or DEMOs win.
More importantly, with Castle’s defeat, RINOs in the House and Senate could continue to talk about how “Republican” they were while voting for Obamacare.
tehag (a2b69f) — 2/3/2011 @ 11:26 am“Ignore electoral reality and keep backing the True Conservatives in the blue states.”
Didn’t you advise against issuing the Declaration of Independence because it would alienate moderate Tories?
tehag (a2b69f) — 2/3/2011 @ 11:28 amSorry, but your whining about “Real Conservatives” is, well, pretty whiny.
A vote for a “RINO” is nothing more than slow submission to progressive ideology. Abandoning prinicples in order to reach across the aisle to accept and promote the enemy’s ideology (yes, progressives are liberty’s enemy) will never lead to a civil Utopia. It will lead to progressive policies becoming the norm across the land. Always has, always will. Go Roe!!!
Progressive ideology and Liberty are mutually exclusive.
Sooner or later Castle would have shoved an ideological shiv into Conservative backs (don’t take that literally!). He did so before, it is in his character and character matters when it comes to political leaders.
Principles matter too. Maybe it’s time for you to stick up for some. If more people did there wouldn’t even be a RINO debate because they would all scurry over to the Democrat party where they rightfully belong.
Marko (dd04a9) — 2/3/2011 @ 11:42 amThis was my thinking as well. His refusal to endorse the Republican nominee suggested that if he had been elected, he would have pulled a Jeffords or a Spector, and left the party altogether. I am in no way convinced he would have been the 48th vote for repeal.
While Scott Brown is not a conservative, he never claimed to be one. But he did campaign on opposition to Obamacare, so his vote was expected.
NJ Mark (ebc589) — 2/3/2011 @ 11:48 amSomeone said, “It’s better to have your enemy in your sights, than a traitor in your ranks/midsts.”
Castle, as a Republicanqualifies as a traitor to Republican ideals.
Also, the other RINOs are quite capable of vote counting, and will vote with Republicans when it is to the advantage of their political careerism.
Tim from Nashua (fa3d0e) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:00 pmThis vote was strictly for show. Everyone knew/knows this bill is not going to become law in the 112th Congress.
Since it was just for show, it does not matter that Castle’s vote was not there, if we assume he would have voted for repeal.
However, if he had voted against it, or if his victory had given a different RINO the courage to vote against it, the value of the show vote in drawing the line between the parties would have been lost.
O’Donnell bashers will have to wait for a much better example to make their case at all convincing.
Roland (ab3879) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:30 pmWho did you support for DE Senator, then? Castle ran as a Republican, O’Donnell ran third party, against the GOP Primary winner. Facts are facts.
Castle didn’t owe you or O’Donnell an endorsement of someone who said he was a gay adulterer, or lied about his position on Obamacare and Porkulus.
It’s a shame you don’t understand the word “honor”. it’s a two way street.
Castle has a long career, and while he wasn’t conservative enough for me, your answer is Senator Coons, so I say your plan sucks.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:30 pmThis is a ridiculous prediction, though. Castle was moderate, not extreme liberal.
a lot of people have worked very hard to deceive the GOP to convey the notion that Castle is incredibly liberal, but he wasn’t. He opposed Obamacare, for show or for real, he would have voted against it. Period. Anyone saying otherwise is either being unfair to opine in ignorance, or intending to deceive.
The point here is that there is a huge difference between castle and coons. Castle wasn’t a traitor, he was a moderate. He didn’t lie to anyone about his POV. He was quite frank about it.
I don’t mind an effort to elect a more conservative Senator than Castle would have been, but the extreme ‘traitor’ nonsense is pure laziness. Find someone better. O’donnell wasn’t that person, because her nomination = Senator Coons for decades. Find someone better, instead of believing lies about how horrible Castle was on issues like Obamacare.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:35 pmI don’t know why you address this at me. It’s as though you’re not reading my comments at all.
It’s not like I liked Castle. I just really really don’t like coons. You say O’donnell didn’t do any harm as though Coons isn’t a Senator. Ridiculous.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:36 pmYour plan would have got us Senator Castle, which happens to be a sucky plan too, Dustin.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:37 pmI think the 30 years in the wilderness guy posted about this vote. But I couldn’t understand what he was saying.
This post is about as popular as I predicted.
Since mike didn’t answer my T/F questions, I invite others to.
Let’s see if I get any takers.
I predict no response or minimal response.
Patterico (251360) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:39 pmCoons replaced Biden, so it is not like we are any worse off. If Castle wanted the chance to run against Coons, he should have gone out and won the Republican primary.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:40 pmDifferences between Scott Brown and Mike Castle:
1. Brown is good-looking and charismatic, while Castle is not.
Patterico (251360) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:42 pm2. ?
Dustin, you missed my point entirely. This vote is a bad example of what Patterico wanted to show.
Roland (ab3879) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:45 pmI suspect the O’Donnell bashers will eventually find a good example that makes the case better. Meanwhile, it is entertaining watching you trying to jam square pegs into the round hole.
“…in the same league as Dino Rossi of Washington: perennial runner, perennial loser..”
Maybe, maybe not. But Rossi was clearly a victim of voter fraud.
Imagine the Left’s response toward endless recounts that result an a Republican win?
Oh, wait. We know the answer to that.
That is the point that conservatives don’t get: the Left is playing to win by whatever means. So by all means, go for purity.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:45 pmI understand your point and agree with it mostly, Patterico. But as I’ve mentioned at other times, occasionally it is useful to vote against an “electable” RINO in a primary pour encourager les autres.
This is just an application of game theory to politics.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:45 pmI don’t get how a symbolic vote in the Senate reinforces this idea of a choice between pragmatism or purity. And i think it is also more than a bit unfair to broad brush people that did not care for Castle as demanding purity. And, I do not understand people’s fascination with continuing to argue about O’Donnell and Castle and my pet Coons,
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:45 pmI see the point, folks. But then you have to be prepared for many, many Left of center wins…as in SCOTUS appointments.
That all has to be okay.
The solution to keeping “Squishy” Republicans from running? It has to be long, long before the general election. That is where Team R is not doing its job, in my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:47 pmThere are a lot of “conservatives” gloating right now over this. Not only did Coons get to vote against repeal, Harry Reid got to vote against it. In any other year, he would have lost to a competent Republican.
I got your “principles”. Right here (symbolically grabbing crotch) …
East Coast Chris (c31a9b) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:47 pmI will just reiterate the point in #’s 21 and 22. It is not ours to know with certainty “what ifs”. Perhaps Castle would have been one more vote in a loss for Repubs. Then again, perhaps a Castle victory would have weakened the message that Repubs were energized by the Tea Party component, and some like the Senators from Maine would have felt free to vote for ObamaCare. We will never know for certainty.
To be in favor of cap and tax to me is 99.9% the hallmark of someone I would not vote for, if given an option. To be in favor of it one has to agree with a host of assumptions about environmental policy, energy policy, and economic policy, assumptions that I think are hogwash.
Castle was a problematic candidate, O’Donnell was a problematic candidate. hopefully next time the Rpubs in the state can get better candidates and stay united behind the winner.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:57 pmIf it hadn’t been for RHInos Snowe and Collins the healthcare bill and the stimulus would have been dead. Their initial votes allowed these bills to move forward and eventually become law.
diana in texas (e026d5) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:06 pmStill harping on O’Donnell?
Senate could have been 100-0 for repeal and it would make no difference b/c POTUS was not going to sign. WTF does one or two votes matter?
Christ you love to beat a dead horse no matter how 199.25% wrong you are on the subject.
Why don’t you beat the dead horse that a RINO Yack-Off Senator from Maine is the one who allowed the bill out of committee?
Torquemada (2a42d3) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:17 pm2. There is no difference between Olympia Snowe and a Democrat. T/F.
OK, I’ll bite – there is a significant difference, but regarding this vote, I don’t believe that Snowe would have voted no if it was actually close. Why? Because all it took was a phone call from Obama to roll her when the bill was still in committee, and the Dems desperately needed her vote to keep it advancing. Her response, if I remember it correctly, was something along the lines of “history called.” Really, that one did it for me, I hope the Tea Party challenges her and she gets run out of town on a rail on just that incident alone. Simply disgraceful, and she knew well that her constituents did not want that bill to be passed.
Dmac (498ece) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:29 pmDamn, both posters above beat me to it. The point still stands, though.
Dmac (498ece) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:30 pmIf a Law is declared null and void and they knew bho would veto it,it was just to get the vulnerable dems to support ,defend and own it.The senate and presidential campaigns are starting sooner than you think ,and this is just more ammo for 2012
Dein (92a828) — 2/3/2011 @ 3:22 pmBut, the Supreme Court is not the only way to defeat ObamaCare nor the best.
The entity that passed it is the best place. It should be a practical political issue not a constitutional one. Leg 1 of 3 has been gained. By 2012 it looks like leg 2 and maybe leg 3 will have been gained.
In practical terms right now it looks like no Republican can defeat the incumbent. It just depends on how you handicap each possible candidate as to who gets closer to the “maybe” mark. Some say polls; some say “fire in the belly”; some say dull but effective. But, there’s no agreement. Interesting that there isn’t much talk of nominating a RINO presidential candidate to win over some blue states.
T D (7d9cc1) — 2/3/2011 @ 3:22 pmyes i sure that voting for republicans that run for office as conservatives and then govern as liberals in washington is a good strategy. that is how we got obama. are liberal policies somehow better if the one voting for them is a republican. the only one that benefits is the RNC.
tommy mc donnell (397858) — 2/3/2011 @ 3:33 pmI agree that the President wouldn’t sign the repeal, but don’t you think a 100-0 vote to repeal would have a decent chance of overriding a veto?
Some chump (e84e27) — 2/3/2011 @ 3:59 pm“…Harry Reid got to vote against it…”
Harry Reid won because the NV GOP did a miserable GOTV job in Clark and Washoe County’s (where the election was decided) – some of which could be “payback” for Angle defeating their fair-haired candidate (it is not only the SocCons in the GOP who can sit-on-their-hands during an election – the Country-Clubbers and Establishment have got it down to a fine art).
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 2/3/2011 @ 4:15 pmBack to civics class with you, Torquemada you genius.
Come back when you have learned about legislative overrides.
Patterico (c218bd) — 2/3/2011 @ 4:45 pm3. Olympia Snowe voted for ObamaCare. T/F.
Everyone who says strong Republicans are better than weak ones: I AGREE WITH YOU. That’s not what I was asking.
I was asking whether Snowe or Castle were different from Democrats in terms of their approach to ObamaCare.
Yes, Snowe enabled the bill to go forward. But ultimately she voted against.
If you think we should have no Castles, to encourage others to vote more conservative, I respect your position.
If you think there is some benefit to having only solid people on your “team” even if it means you will lose votes, I can respect your position — but I disagree, and I ask you not to whine when your rejection of non-solid people costs us important votes or Supreme Court justices.
However:
If you honestly think there is no substantive difference whatsoever between how Castle and Snowe voted on ObamaCare and how Democrats voted, I do not respect your opinion because you are misinformed and factually wrong.
Patterico (c218bd) — 2/3/2011 @ 4:58 pmI am totally serious in asking this question: Do schools even have civics classes anymore? They sure do not teach American history.
elissa (9efa48) — 2/3/2011 @ 4:59 pmThe folks who think Castle would have voted with the Republican leadership are correct.
Part of the infuriating thing about Castle was the fact that he had a “moderate” reputation while voting with the GOP leadership whenever the vote was close OR they wanted every member to vote one way.
He was 100% faithful on party-line votes.
By the way, to all of you who helped O’Donnell beat Castle in the primary…THANK YOU!!!
Delaware Democrat (134474) — 2/3/2011 @ 4:59 pmVirtually nobody has answered my T/F questions. Instead the “True Conservatives” beat their chests and ignore my point.
I think I predicted this, didn’t I?
I am. Maybe it’s time you woke up and saw that I want the same things as you — I just believe in doing things that actually get things accomplished in the real world.
Patterico (c218bd) — 2/3/2011 @ 5:08 pmNo, actually. Castle was a candidate in the primary. No one is a nominee until and unless they win the primary.
He didn’t win, so at no time was he the party nominee.
He might have been the hand-picked candidate by The Powers That Be, but that means nothing.
O’Donnell won the primary, and as such Castle – if he were an adult – should have supported his party’s nominee.
McCain supported Bush when the latter became the party’s candidate, Hillary supported Obama, etc etc etc.
It is the mark of an adult in politics to suck it up when you lose and back your party’s pick. An inability to do so is telling about one’s convictions. It says “I was only in this for me, and since you don’t like me I’m taking my ball and going home”.
I didn’t care for COD, but she was better than Castle, and FAR better than Coons.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/3/2011 @ 5:09 pmThanks Scott!!
Delaware Democrat (134474) — 2/3/2011 @ 5:40 pmI agree with Aaron that we can’t be sure how one variable (like Castle beating O’Donnell) might have changed things. But if you want to do that, then why not wonder whether the Republican establishment’s insistence on Castle scared off more credible GOP contenders in Delaware?
Frankly, I doubt Congress would even be voting on repeal if it hadn’t been for the Tea Party and the primary wins of candidates like O’Donnell and Angle. O’Donnell and Angle may have lost but their primary victories and the Tea Party in general were vital in making Republicans remember to keep their election promises. If not for that, I suspect we’d be seeing the GOP talk about ways to tweak ObamaCare instead of repeal it.
DRJ (fdd243) — 2/3/2011 @ 5:46 pm1. My ears are ringing, tinnitus?
“To be blunt, Mike Castle would have been vote #48 for repeal. Chris Coons was vote #51 against. And Christine O’Donnell? Didn’t vote and was never going to be voting”
I swore I would no hold my nose and vote for Mav, but somehow, dumb luck or genius, he found Palin and very briefly closed the gap to within the margin of error.
She got him at least 5% of the popular total. Would we be better off if more of the so-cons had been pliant? Today, indubitably, in two years, probably not.
Is the loss of Castle more painful than DeRossi, Fiorina? The cost in resources of the former loss was just a tad less.
But the quoted query is answered easily. Had Coons been absent Warner or Lieberman would have been required to vote, or DE’s pride stay home and preside.
Is the damage to DE of an unruly electorate greater than that of CA?
gary gulrud (790d43) — 2/3/2011 @ 5:46 pmI’ll answer your T/F questions:
1. Castle voted against ObamaCare and his overall conservative rating is between 52% and 56%.
2. I’m sure there is a difference, including how they would vote on ObamaCare. But the question is not only how they voted, but why. I think the fear of primary opponents like O’Donnell and Angle plays a role in getting those Republicans to sign up for a Party vote. Even if they know candidates like O’Donnell and Angle will lose in the general election, how many GOP Senators think they can do what Lisa Murkowski did?
DRJ (fdd243) — 2/3/2011 @ 5:54 pmThat is the point that conservatives don’t get: the Left is playing to win by whatever means. So by all means, go for purity.
Not just the Left. The political class as a whole, both those that use the label Democrat and those that use the label Republican.
The first step to understanding the mess this country is now in, is to understand that while some individual Republican politicians are sincere conservatives, the Republican party as a whole is just as geared to winning and controlling power as the Democrats. Talking like conservatives is a useful tool for most of them, and nothing more; and even most of the sincerely conservative ones don’t adhere to the idea of a limited government in any consistent fashion.
kishnevi (20f609) — 2/3/2011 @ 5:57 pmThat’s funny. I live in Washoe County, and the GOP did a good job of getting out the vote. How else would you explain Sandoval’s win in the gubernatorial race?
Angle was a terrible candidate. It wasn’t the fault of the NV GOP, blame rests solely on Angle’s pitiful shoulders.
What galls me the most is the purists nominating crappy candidates like O’Donnell and Angle, and then blaming “the establishment” Republicans when these crappy candidates get trounced in the election.
Some chump (e84e27) — 2/3/2011 @ 5:57 pmSo, in the end JD and some others are purists, which is the same as being democrats, because in the end, the result is the same, you enable a loser candidate like coons to get elected.
It isextremely difficult to undue wha the Supreme Court has wrought.
Its a shame soo many here can’t see the obvious, we have those who think that conservatism means winning all the time, which in any lesson in life should tell you otherwise.
And this is at the expense of their children, who will suffer unimaginable harms as we weaken further while the world literally grows in strength. Our economic might is our very freedom, the core of which resides in the fight for self reliance and self determination – neither of which are Democratic aims, standards, traditions or goals.
Its a shame that we have Palin, ODonnell, That Angle woman in Nevada that couldnt unseat a lousy politician with tepid support, Tancredo which cost us a Governorship, and what the hel happened in Colorado. Then we had a corrupt, sleasy lying candidate Miller in Alaska who ran TV and Radio spots that Murkowski was voting for Healthcare that netted him a questionable razor thin win which was embarassingly undone a few weeks later.
Lets all pray that these look at me, look at me’s stay out of 2012
EricPWJohnson (92fc6f) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:00 pmI think the post ’10 election meme that I heard in the media that infuriated me the most – as outright fabrication – was that it was the TEA Party’s “fault” that the GOP did not take control of the Senate.
That was clearly a meme intended to attack the TEA Party falsely and ignore that it was TEA Party enthusiasm that changed things so much from ’08 to ’10 – because the GOP party establishment did nothing effective.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:08 pmYou are a effin liar, epwj. At least you are consistent.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:10 pmIt wasn’t so long ago that the Republican establishment was worried the far right would stay home and refuse to vote for candidates like McCain or Romney. Now you’re praying for conservatives you dislike to sit down and shut up? How foolish.
DRJ (fdd243) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:10 pmEPWJ, Tancredo did not cost us a governorship. The Democrats pulled a trick they had been holding onto for awhile to undermine MacInnis in the primary, that caused a real nutcase to get the nomination. But regardless, there just wasn’t anyone in the state who could defeat the Denver mayor Hickenlooper who has successfully cultivated a non-partisan, above it all, sham persona.
In four years, when Colorado has tired of Hickenlooper’s amiable incompetence, things will change in Colorado.
What was more puzzling was how the in-the-bag media protected the carpet-bagger Bennett from his own incompetence, mouth-in-foot syndrome.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:12 pmelissa…
AD-RtR/OS! (78d2a8) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:13 pmThe lack of, or the inability to teach, a proper grounding in American Civics is one of the great untold scandals in K-12 Education today.
And all History is taught looking through the Post-Modernist Lens – meaning it is not History, but Propaganda.
Delaware returned Biden to the Senate 6 times, where he learned Mubarak wasn’t really a dictator,
narciso (e888ae) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:13 pmand Hezbollah was forced out of Lebanon, another
one of his achievements was given a raspberry by
Judge Vinson, in a footnote in his opinion,
_______________________________________
There is no difference between Chris Coons and Mike Castle
I can understand people thinking like that if they’re surrounded by like-minded people. IOW, if their spouse, significant others, father, mother, nephews, nieces, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, co-workers, colleagues, boss, supervisor, etc, are 100% rightwing/conservative. IOW, if they’re living in an echo chamber.
But if they’re living in the real world and still cling to the notion of the art of the perfect, then they’re ridiculously naive and foolish. And I’m saying that as a rightwinger—but as one who — yep, gets really POed when my candidate or ideas don’t get thumbs up on election day — but who also realizes that the human mind is like the human fingerprint: No two are alike, ideologically and otherwise. At the voting booth and elsewhere.
So my proclaiming “my way or the highway” is ultimately self-defeating and guarantees nothing.
Mark (411533) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:19 pmJD
Purity – it becomes you
SPQR
Spinning works at least for the spinner
DRJ
Still obiquely giving credit to the Tea Party doesnt give rise to the fact that they dont care about whats best for the country, just whats best for them
EricPWJohnson (92fc6f) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:21 pmKastle would not have supported a repeal vote. Moderate republicans and RINO’s made it possible for obama to get elected. No thanks. I will vote for a conservative any day. Reagan won by a landslide. Gee! Obama and Jimmie Carter look a lot alike. Two wimp socialist big gov’t losers.
ktr (cc6f35) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:21 pmepwj…
AD-RtR/OS! (78d2a8) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:27 pmPolitics is when 50%+1 of the people decide that what is best for them is best for the country.
In ’08, that decision went one way;
and after a bit of introspection and the performance of the 111th-Congress,
a great many people decided that they had made a mistake, resulting in the results we saw in November.
JD
BTW, are you stil supporting a person who deliberately put the lives of the man who runs this blog and his young family in danger and still give him money? A guy who has slandered him, tried to interfere with his career?
Just a thought before we believe any of your unfounded opinions
Its a fact that you are aware of this and yet you stil continue
EricPWJohnson (92fc6f) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:27 pmI blame Sarah Palin. And epwj. Because without her, we wouldnot get epwj’s idiocy.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:29 pmAD
the 2008 election was much closer than you think – the Coric hit piece on Palin coupled with recent ultra high petro prices gave the nudge.
Many blamed Republicans, but they hadn’t been in power since the Fall of 2005 when the pending elections paralyzed everthing in Washington
EricPWJohnson (92fc6f) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:30 pmSorry, I meant fall of 2006
EricPWJohnson (92fc6f) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:31 pmEpwj – in case you are not aware of it, I do not seek your acceptance or approval. If Patterico cares what blogs I read, I have no doubt that he will pick up the phone and call me. Yur attempts to manufacture a fight are no less silly than those that have tried this before you. Get over yourself.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:31 pmComment by AD-RtR/OS
They are also not taught how to think.
A main reason for education many years ago was so that people could read the Bible for themselves and not be dependent on what others told them. Now “education” is the process of being taught what to think, and this some call progress.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:32 pmEPWJ, and ignorance does not work for you. No matter how much you insist upon maintaining yours.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:32 pmDifferent year, Scott. O’Donnell did run as a third party in a different year, so those screaming that O’Donnell was great in comparison to Castle on this basis are freaking crazy. Castle, at worst, didn’t support someone who trashed his family on a deeply personal level. When called on it, O’Donnell was quite sleazy about it, apologizing to the wife rather than the slandered Castle (as though she pitied the victim of a gay adulterer). So we have Castle, who didn’t support the nominee, and we have O’Donnell, who in years past, ran against the GOP nominee in the general election.
I think this is a silly line of reasoning altogether, since the topic is who to support in a primary, and basing that on something that happened later is ad hoc and irrational.
The fact of the matter is that if you want to purify the GOP of Castle type moderates, you need to prep the battlefield by cultivating a real candidate. otherwise, you are simply making the GOP caucus smaller. And in a very real way, that pushes the entire nation to the left.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:36 pmWell he must be the life of the party in Dubai,
narciso (e888ae) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:37 pmExactly. A moderate republican would be miraculous in DE. I know a lot of people cannot discuss Castle without demonizing him, but if you actually look over this guy’s career, it is startling just how much it takes for a Republican to be viable in DE. He was a very strong governor, with great name recognition and relatively low scandal. He was business friendly and had many balanced budgets and low tax years.
And add onto that, he was extremely moderate. As in 50:50.
That’s what it took for the only Republican who ever wins statewide elections in DE (and did so many times).
I’m not saying any GOP nominee has to be that moderate. But it isn’t easy for a Republican to win in that state, so if you want to, you need to figure out a way, instead of ignoring reality with poor candidates.
Sliming Castle won’t do anyone any good. It’s not like he hid that he was moderate. He’s not ashamed of it. I prefer a much more conservative congressman, but I’ll take the most conservative who is viable, every time.
I don’t mean to bash Angle or Miller, who I think were better than they get credit for being, but if we had managed to win those three elections, the world would be a better place.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:40 pmCastle could have won the primary, if he hadn’t acted like associating with conservatives, wasn’t like scraping barnacles, on docked ships. Tom Ross, is like Ruedrich, if the polar bears weren’t chasing him.
narciso (e888ae) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:43 pmJD,
No, I think it puts into a proper context the fact that you support someone who deliberately put the young family of this man here in the crosshairs of someone who is considered a problem, a potentially serious problem.
If you seem to be okay with that – then its something for people to consider when you make your comments on others character –
Something to think about JD
EricPWJohnson (92fc6f) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:47 pmWho gives a f@ck about this? Barcky is ignoring the findings of Federal judges, being held in contempt of court for dishonestly screwing over the oil industry drilling, and we are still arguing over the wicked witch of the east and some squishy RINO that would crush the economy with cap and destroy, but by golly, he would be the 48th vote to repeal that unconstitutional BarckyCare.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:52 pmSPQR
I agree with your assessment of Colorado, however the fact that people may tire is an ackowledgement that the problem of these self serving doomed runs will harm the country – no one should have to tire of someone
EricPWJohnson (92fc6f) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:54 pmYour lack of character is quite evident, epwj. And as much as you and Scottie and your buddies like timmah and Yelverton try to start fights between others, I ain’t gonna back down any more.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:55 pmJD
If Odonnell wasnt thrust into the spotlight by Palin, and Angle then we might hve also caried Colorado as well – I doubt California but also Washington was lost as well due to the onslaught of negative goofy publicity
Today we may have seen a 51-49 vote to repeal it and force a president to ruin his re-election chances forever.
Thats the point
EricPWJohnson (92fc6f) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:58 pmJD
I am just pointing out the obvious, as you attack my character quite constantly, its only fair to point out that you support a slanderous individual, who put the lives of Pat’s family in potential danger – you can either deal with this in your own way or keep attacking me – upon which I will keep on pointing out your character thats documented
EricPWJohnson (92fc6f) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:00 pm______________________________________
If there were people of generally rightist inclination who should have been stone-cold sober about the reality of the politics all around them, it was the ones in Delaware. It’s not like such folks had every reason to believe most of their fellow Delawareans were very sensible, practical and conservative.
So some of the biggest fools last year were the voters who believed the big flake (aka Christine O’Donnell—who wasn’t even certifiably rightwing) deserved to be elected in both the primary and general election.
Conservatism that isn’t paired with at least a bit of tactical savvy — or idealism that chooses to be blind — is setting oneself up for disappointment—assuming such a person truly disdains a society full of left-leaning nonsense and doesn’t want to be a long-suffering outlier and martyr.
Mark (411533) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:03 pmI do not attack your character. I point out when you lie about me, and others. If that reflects on your character, it is your doing, not mine.
Care to document how a primary victory in Delaware cost votes in NV, CA, and WA? This should be entertaining.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:04 pm#83 As usual missing the damn main point. Counselor you are good with little thingies like most good navel gazing lawyers, but you suck pretty hard on big thingies.
O’Donnell is irrelevant for this vote much as Sharon Angle was. Both are irrelevant over the next two years. What is relevant is getting RINO out (like the two Maine folks) b/c they do nothing to advance the Center-Right positions most of us have.
But even 100-0 in the Senate does not get repeal without 2/3 of the House? Which we don’t have either. Civics Class anyone?
But again, forest, trees. Fighting battles but losing wars.
Torquemada (2a42d3) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:04 pmJD, makes a very good point, Obama will raise taxes, crush industrial development, in petroleum
narciso (e888ae) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:05 pmextraction, health care, force the Central Valley
to run dry, like the Aral Sea, yet one still gives
him the benefit of the doubt
We may have seen … If … It is possible …. It is all conjecture. Nothing more. If your aunt had nuts she would be your uncle.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:05 pm_____________________________________
and we are still arguing over the wicked witch of the east and some squishy RINO that would crush the economy with cap and destroy
I sympathize with you, but you have to keep in mind just how much nonsensical liberal sentiment has overtaken much of the Western World (ie, mindless Eurosocialism—Greece/France/Spain/Netherlands, etc) over the past several decades. And, of course, how much of that dominates the Third World—and if America can’t come to the Third World, then the Third World will come to America (hello, politics of California, politics of urban America!!)
The mindset of limousine liberalism — and one doesn’t have to be wealthy to be guilty of that type of phoniness and two-face behavior — is quite popular among lots of people in today’s era of hipness, sophistication, worldliness, trendiness, loungechair-consumerism, and I’m-okay-you’re-okay.
Mark (411533) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:17 pm
L.N. Smithee (7d1237) — 2/3/2011 @ 11:21 pmARRRRGH…What Snowe said was “When history calls, history calls,” a variation on the maddeningly popular pronouncement about avoiding “being on the wrong side of history,” an incredibly shallow thing to think, much less say. Someone who says such a thing has subjected their own judgment to others’ speculations regarding the social norms of future generations. It’s an expression of fear that they will be harshly judged by their grandchildren if they don’t just go with the flow right this second — a flow that almost always travels from right to left (socialized medicine, same sex marriage, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc.). That expression only comes out of the mouth of someone who is not sure what to think until they calibrate what everybody else thinks. That is not the trait of a reliable leader.
At what point in the election process are we to abandon the conservative?
Should conservatives simply not run? Or if they do run, we should not vote for them in the primary? Or if they win the primary, should we not vote for them in the general?
If we succeed at convincing no conservatives to run (because they embarrass us and make us sad), what measuring stick will we use to determine:
1) how liberal the anointed non-conservative republican is?
and
2) how popular the conservative candidate might have been if he/she were ever allowed to run?
I find this concept of not supporting conservatives because they aren’t popular to be very counter-intuitive. If we don’t support them, aren’t we guaranteeing that they’ll be unpopular?
Cooter (f1ab34) — 2/3/2011 @ 11:24 pmPatterico’s take here is un-informed with regard to party-line voting on procedural matters.
This was a budgetary point of order raised by the GOP. It required 60 votes to pass. On such procedural votes, the party caucus normally demands a party-line vote, and does not allow a vote of conscience on the merits. Whipping the vote in this manner can be enforced by various caucus punishments.
Getting 2 or 3 more GOP Senators last election, regardless of whether they were RINO’s or Club for Growth Conservatives, would not have changed the outcome.
IT is no different than when Susan Collins announced she favored repealing DADT and would vote to repeal, but she would not vote for cloture so long as Maj. Leader Reid didn’t allow an open amendment process for the bill.
Under regular order, a Senate bill is limited to 25 amendments. The Senate Leader determines which of the submitted amendments will be voted upon on any given bill. When the Maj. Leader doesn’t want a bill amended in any fashion, he simply “Fills the Tree” with 25 amendments of his own, none of which will pass.
While its often commented on that the minority party uses the filibuster more often now than ever in the past, the fact that always gets ignored is that the Maj. Leader has resorted to “Filling the Tree” more often now than ever in the past, and the use of filibusters is directly in response to the limiting of the amendment process in the Senate in this fashion.
So, when the GOP was voting against cloture on the repeal of DADT, it was not because they all opposed repeal, but because they were voting their objection to the procedures employed by the majority to limit debate and block amendments from being offered by the minority.
The party line vote on the point of order on repealing the health care bill was similar. While their might be Dem Senators willing to vote to repeal the bill, they won’t break party ranks on a procedural vote like this.
shipwreckedcrew (436eab) — 2/4/2011 @ 2:15 amOf course Mike Castle would have voted for repeal, he voted against the original Obamacare bill, but the mindless Christine O’Donnell worshippers lied about that during the election and were telling people that he voted for it, they continued the drumbeat that he was against repeal, even though he was on the record FOR REPEAL.
O’Donnell won because she lied about her accomplishments and she lied about Castle’s record and his personal life.
Now Delaware will have 35 more years of a Democrat in that Senate seat.
Delaware Republican (b58b83) — 2/4/2011 @ 6:18 amYou know that’s ridiculous, with his votes on cap n trade, and the Disclose act, his obstructing the counterinsurgency campaign of Petraeus, his putting obstacles in domestic oil drilling, it seems he was running for the Democratic primary, as Chafee and Specter had done before, This is what the likes of Tom Ross want, as long as they have a seat at the table, but don’t do anything to actually obstruct this administration. Wth, did Rove think he was doing mouthing DNC talking points, auditioning for Coons campaign, did he forget that if it wasn’t for the fancy footwork of Luskin, ‘revising; his testimony, he would have in the same shoes as Libby
narciso (e888ae) — 2/4/2011 @ 6:26 amThis ‘controversy’ is a joke because the DE GOP is a joke. O’D was the best they could do in 2006 and 2010.
DE is NJ’s rural backwater, a cipher. CA will furlough more ‘citizens’ from its prisons this year.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 2/4/2011 @ 6:53 amNo, Castle was better than O’D. Even though O’D’s policy stances were much better. Anyone who can win beats anyone who can’t.
Like it or not, Castle won a large number of statewide elections, and O’D lost a large number of them.
I suspect DE could have done better than Castle, though. But we didn’t. Instead of bashing Castle over and over to make excuses for a massive failure that led to Coons, we should constructively look for better candidates than O’D. And when we fail to find someone who can win, we need to stick with the moderate winner.
Those who actually lied about Castle’s stances, or ignored electoral reality, are responsible for Senator Coons, a substantial harm to this country vs a Senator Castle. It’s not much to ask that people simply take responsibility for what they did.
I’ve seen some say they do accept that responsibility, and in order to make Cap and Tax politically toxic, they say it was worth it. Fine. But take responsibility.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:07 amWho gives a f@ck about whether we elect people who will vote to overturn ObamaCare, indeed.
If you think the topic I wrote about is stupid, there are other threads. Me, I think it is a significant issue whether we are going to work to elect people who will defeat this monstrosity and others like it by a) voting to repeal it (in the case of Senators) or b) appointing judges who will overturn it.
There are those who agree with me. If you don’t, feel free to register your disagreement. As you obviously do.
Patterico (c218bd) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:09 amAnd it’s not like I’m just bashing the Tea Party because they happened to lose. This really was an insane nominee choice. Even great nominees will lose sometimes, but it’s important that we at least try to win.
It’s beyond pathetic to see O’Donnell’s fans blame Castle’s lack of support for O’Donnell performing exactly as predicted. That’s part of why she was a poor candidate… she badly split the party by having too hostile a campaign, and unlike Castle, had nowhere else to get more votes because she was so unappealing as a leader.
It’s was a long series of people being quite unfair to Castle, claiming he impeached Bush and was gay, and now he’s at fault for O’Donnell losing badly. That’s just so silly.
Even if we had nominated a Miller, we would have had a very hard time. but I can live with a hard fight, with great risk, if at least we have a chance of winning. Let’s not nominate those who actually have no chance at all. I’m not asking for much, and I do want more conservative leaders than Castle *if it’s actually possible*. Just remember that Castle would have been the most conservative DE Senator we’ve seen in a generation. A miracle for the GOP, that we squandered for nothing.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:17 amIf we have a Senate that votes 100-0 to repeal, in what reality would we lack 2/3 to repeal in the House?
And killing ObamaCare is the war. THAT is the big fight.
But I agree with the thrust of your main point, which you have articulated poorly but which I take to be that getting Obama out of office is the top priority.
Why do you think I am writing this post? Because I don’t want us to repeat the mistakes of Delaware on a presidential scale.
Based on the reaction I see in this thread, I am not optimistic. However, blog commenters are hardly representative of the electorate. That is why so many think that a Christine O’Donnell or a Sarah Palin can win.
Patterico (c218bd) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:18 amI think Rico and Dusty have a patriotic obligation to move to DE and whip their sorry hinders into shape.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:26 amThere are still sizable chunks of this country,that see the Ice Berg, then look at the purpoise at the prow of the titanic. Even in 2010, the Year of the Tea Party, a candidate that made Pete Wilson seem like Tom Tancredo, lost, to the tune of 160 million dollars, the facts didn’t matter, the slur did. Jeb was slimed in ’94, by Walkin’ Lawton, accused of trying to shred Social Security, how that could happen as a governor, isn’t quite explained.Romney was too by the Kennedy machine in the Globe, Christine did about 5% than any other state wide candidate that wasn’t Bill Roth, in a generation
narciso (e888ae) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:28 amFact: Castle voted against Obamacare as a Congressman.
Fact: O’Donnell Lied about Castle intending to change parties should he be elected to the Senate.
Fact: Castle led in every poll by double digits over Coons.
Fact: O’Donnell never led in any poll.
Fact: O’Donnell spent $6 million dollars, the most of any Delaware statewide candidate ever, and still did the worst of any 2010 Delaware statewide candidate.
Fact: O’Donnell had to be sued by her college to pay her bills. Only after a court case and 16 years after the fact did she pay up.
Fact: O’Donnell stiffed campaign staffers in 2008.
Fact: O’Donnell had not had a real job since 2004 when she was fired by a conservative think tank. She lived off of campaign contributions.
Fact: O’Donnell’s home was due to be sold at a sheriff’s sale due to non payment of her mortgage when she was bailed out by a former boy friend.
Fact: O’Donnell’s flunkies promoted the Castle gay smear.
Fact: Castle would have served until 2014 and had committed to supporting 2 possible very conservative successors.
Fact: Coons will hold this seat now for 20 years. We now have a Liberal Democrat for another generation instead of a moderate Republican for 4 years.
Great Trade for conservatives.
orestes (6d7005) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:29 amorestes is obviously someone willing to sacrifice his principles at the drop of a hat.
/Real Conservative
Patterico (c218bd) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:32 am139. Indeed, CA, the world’s eigth largest economy is a catastrophe worth flapping our toothless gums about.
DE, drop dead already.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:36 amGary, that’s not unreasonable of you to say.
I do need to back up my POV with some kind of effort to get better candidates. I’m hoping to do so in Texas for the primary (since I work in Texas). We may have a great fight for a better conservative than we have had in this seat. For the general, I’ll give a few days to a swing state, but I’ll probably be focused on the presidential election.
Patterico’s way busier than I am, and I think he does more for the cause with his blog than he’d do in person.
But anyway, you’re right. It’s time for action, seeking better candidates.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:38 amI find this concept of not supporting conservatives because they aren’t popular to be very counter-intuitive. If we don’t support them, aren’t we guaranteeing that they’ll be unpopular?
Who is “we”? Conservatives? They are not a majority in DE. Why are the O’D supporters continually unable to grasp a simple fact?
Gerald A (360b7b) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:43 amLook, this bickering BS about COD and Castle is retarded.
Castle wasn’t the nominee. Might he have won had he been? Maybe.
But he wasn’t. So speculating on that topic is pointless.
Was COD a better pick than Castle? Again, we have no true way of knowing.
What we know is that when told by his party that he would not be the nominee, he got mad, took his toys, and went home. That speaks volumes about him as a person and as a politician to me.
And if I had known that he’d do that before he actually did it, I would have actively worked against him.
I would rather lose with someone who holds stances I agree with on more issues than win with someone who does not.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:49 amTaking the long view, I remember Clayton Williams, and that was a campaign only surpassed by Paladino
narciso (e888ae) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:49 amlast year, in it’s incompetence,that’s the answer
to how you kept Anne Richards
narciso – We had another example of a chance for True Conservative Purists to practice their principles last Fall here in Illinois. Mark Kirk, sort of squish in my opinion, won the Republican primary. He was facing Obama’s pal and mob banker Alexi Giannoulias in November for the seat Roland Burris had to vacate after taking over from Obama.
True Conservative Purists if they stuck to their principles should have not voted in that race or voted third party or write-in. For me, reality intrudes, that was a completely stupid decision and tantamount to handing the seat to another Obama crony Chicago machine politician. As it was Kirk barely won.
Broad principles are great, but you take the world as it comes.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:53 amIf you honestly think there is no substantive difference whatsoever between how Castle and Snowe voted on ObamaCare and how Democrats voted, I do not respect your opinion because you are misinformed and factually wrong.
Well, I certainly respect your views, even if you don’t respect mine in this thread. However, you present a false assumption here, IMHO – you claim that because she voted against it she was a reliable GOP vote on the issue. However, she gave the game away by voting for it to proceed – if she hadn’t cast that deciding vote, it most likely would never have seen the light of day. Why on earth would she have voted for it to proceed out of committee if she didn’t already have a favorable opinion about it at the outset? This is a bit like mind – reading, to say the least.
With all due respect, this is remarkably akin to the Kerry – ish reasoning of “she voted for it before she was against it.” I mean, come on.
Dmac (498ece) — 2/4/2011 @ 8:04 amBTW, any GOP Senator that would allow themselves to be swayed on such an important issue by a single phone call from Mr. Teleprompter doesn’t have a lot of credibility – and to make matters worse, she brags about it later and paints herself in some kind of bipartisanship glory. Jeebus.
Dmac (498ece) — 2/4/2011 @ 8:07 amDaley makes a good point as well – if the GOP had nominated a candidate with just a smidgen less conservative bona fides then the one we were left with, our state would be on the road to much better circumstances today.
Dmac (498ece) — 2/4/2011 @ 8:09 amFor some reason I’m going to repeat again what I’ve said, to go along with others repeating what they’ve said.
It should be clear to everyone that using some standard as your “perfect” candidate before you vote for them is doomed to failure. There will never, ever, be enough agreement on a “perfect candidate” to get a majority, maybe not even a plurality.
But, if one compromises to the point of electing someone who will switch parties, or undermine the party’s efforts in a major issue such as the “Gang of 14” with Supreme Court appointments, then maybe electing the “best electable candidate” wasn’t such a big help afterall. [The one exception is if you’ve elected a Republican in name but Marxist in fact as #51 you at least have the committee chairs for your trouble.]
Somewhere in-between “purity” and the person who will switch parties will be the best course, but people of good will and intelligence will at times have different opinions of where that is and there will be no one right answer. O’Donnell was a bad candidate, but I think anyone for cap and tax was a bad candidate. I think one had to buy into too many false assumptions to be in favor of that to be trusted. How does one chose between two bad candidates? Get a better one, I hope.
And I still say that it is of only minimal value to guess “what if”. Would it have been better had all “Tea Party” backed candidates be like Rubio and win? Of course. Would that ever be likely? Of course not. Did the showing of Tea Party enthusiasm send a message? Of course. Has that been helpful? I think some, but no one knows for sure.
Take Specter for example. One election year he is seriously challenged in the primary by someone more conservative. With the help of conservative Santorum and Bush he wins the primary and gets re-elected. He then takes positions like on card-check that are so unpopular with the Repub base he knows he will have no chance there next election cycle, so goes Democrat. Well, the Dems love that he’s defected, but not that much, because they know he can’t be relied upon, so not only would he not have won the Repub primary, but he can’t win the Dem primary either. Meanwhile the Repubs get a more conservative senator. I think any Repub needs to think about that before they cast too many votes unpopular with the conservatives.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/4/2011 @ 8:11 amHistory called, and Snowe let her country down by voting for something unconstitutional that she hadn’t even read, because someone popular told her to do that.
That’s how she’ll be remembered. Kinda funny when someone takes a short term approach to such an important job in the name of ‘history’. What an arrogant attitude.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/4/2011 @ 8:11 amThe person who actually started the Tea Party (but who didn’t plan to) was a options analyst who works at CNBC, and his name is Rick Santorelli, you ignorant asshat.
Go get your updated DU talking points and get back to us – that stuff’s moldier than Greek cheese.
Dmac (498ece) — 2/4/2011 @ 9:56 am“Tim” is yet another Yelverton cowardly sock puppet.
JD (fc6858) — 2/4/2011 @ 9:57 amTim – The Democrats thank us for the worst thrashing they have taken in more than 50 years?
Have Blue (854a6e) — 2/4/2011 @ 1:04 pmWe say you’re welcome and come back in 2012 for more.
My Dear Gerald A (aka #145):
You said, “Why are the O’D supporters continually unable to grasp a simple fact?”
We “grasp the facts” just fine Gerald. We understand that our favorite candidate won’t win every time. And we know we sometimes have to make compromises (didn’t we all end up voting for friggin’ John McCain?!?)
But here’s the thing you are “unable to grasp”: After 8 years of Bush and 12 years of a Republican congress that lost sight of the fundamentals, the last election had to send a message to everyone that we were serious about our principles. We had to proclaim very loudly that we would no longer stand for spending, debt, and handing over more of our future and our freedoms for a penny and a promise.
See, Gerald, we believe that the reason the mushy middle doesn’t vote for Republicans is not because Republicans aren’t sufficiently liberal. They don’t vote for Republicans because they don’t get what they stand for and they can’t trust Republicans.
The problem with conservatism isn’t WHAT we believe. The problem is that what we believe isn’t being communicated effectively by our leaders (or many blog commenters for that matter).
The last election was a long-term investment. We expect our adherence to principles starting with the last election and continuing through 2012 to pay off and pay off big.
You might not see it. But we saved the party. The seed has been planted in the minds of the voters: we’re no longer the party of “Not Democrats,” we’re now the party of Conservatism. A principle that saves lives, feeds people, and leads to peace and prosperity everywhere it’s tried.
Trust me friend, I “grasp” what I’ve done just fine. I rest easy. And I don’t feel one lick of regret.
P.S. You asked who “we” is. “We” refers to people who adhere to the belief I just explained.
Cooter (f1ab34) — 2/5/2011 @ 12:51 amBlame the messaging!
Patterico (11ac24) — 2/5/2011 @ 1:28 amBy the way, here’s another thing we “grasp” that you don’t think we do: O’Donnell sucked as a candidate. She was terrible. And yet, she won the nomination and even got some people to vote for her.
But here’s what you don’t “grasp.” There are good conservatives in Delaware. In 2012, when Carper is up for re-election, there will be conservatives in the race that wouldn’t have been there if not for O’Donnell. She proved that conservatives can be nominated. She proved that being a conservative was not an automatic disqualifier for the nomination. And any competent conservative watching was thinking, hell, I could do a better job than O’Donnell … and I might just win.
That, my friend, was the point of this exercise. To send a message to conservatives that it isn’t conservatism that loses elections. It’s bad conservative candidates that lose elections.
Again, you might not appreciate it, but we just steered the party right … and they won.
Cooter (f1ab34) — 2/5/2011 @ 1:36 am160. With a nod to DRJ, the best of the thread.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 2/5/2011 @ 5:11 amhttp://www.palintv.com/2011/02/05/governor-palins-speech-at-the-reagan-100-freedom-dinner/
narciso (e888ae) — 2/5/2011 @ 6:53 amCooter
“But here’s what you don’t “grasp.” There are good conservatives in Delaware. In 2012, when Carper is up for re-election, there will be conservatives in the race that wouldn’t have been there if not for O’Donnell. She proved that conservatives can be nominated. She proved that being a conservative was not an automatic disqualifier for the nomination. And any competent conservative watching was thinking, hell, I could do a better job than O’Donnell … and I might just win.”
You are historically wrong on the facts and tremndously wrong on your analysis. Your post shows you have no clue.
Delaware Republicans have nominated principled Conservatives time and again. You seem to ignore people like Senator Bill Roth and Governor Pete DuPont. The O’Donnell train wreck cost us a true conservative in Colin Bonini for treasurer.
Other great Conservatives such as Ray Clatworthy also have run for the U.S. Senate from Delaware.
Christine O’Donnell was a deadbeat who could not hold a job. People don’t vote for someone like that.
The Conservatives who will run in 2012 will not come out of the woodwork. They are already around and working hard. They also pay thier bills and work for a living instead of living off of Campaign Contributions from out of state dolts.
orestes (6d7005) — 2/6/2011 @ 7:57 amAh and how well did Chatsworthy or Copeland or Ting, do. And Roth was voted down last time, in favor a cipher like Carper.
narciso (e888ae) — 2/6/2011 @ 8:00 amOkay, if Castle had won, all else being equal, the vote would have been 48-50. Still a FAIL. Marginally less of a FAIL, but still a FAIL. That’s reality.
Rich Fader (295108) — 2/6/2011 @ 10:41 am“164.Ah and how well did Chatsworthy or Copeland or Ting, do. And Roth was voted down last time, in favor a cipher like Carper.”
So you are saying now that conservatives can’t win in Delaware. Fine, then what is the point of nominating someone mouthing conservative principles while living the life of a deadbeat.
orestes (6d7005) — 2/7/2011 @ 6:36 am