Althouse: "Christine O’Donnell, whose candidacy was supported Tea Party activists and backed by Sarah Palin, stunned Republicans Tuesday night..."

September 14, 2010

"Christine O’Donnell, whose candidacy was supported Tea Party activists and backed by Sarah Palin, stunned Republicans Tuesday night..."

"...by beating a party-backed candidate, Representative Michael N. Castle, in the Senate primary in Delaware."

I don't know that much about O'Donnell, but I was dismayed by efforts to portray her as unstable because she went to court after she was subjected to what she thought was sex discrimination. And I don't know much about Castle, but why was a 70-year-old man running for a first term in the Senate? That struck me as self-centered vanity at odds with the interests of his party — which was particularly suspect given his RINO record. So — good for O'Donnell.

UPDATE: NRSC reverses itself. A little slow on the uptake. They need to readjust their attitude fast.

248 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 248 of 248

Shanna said...: This is a local issue. The local republicans (who seem to be a small portion of the Delaware public) voted for this person. They voted for her because they are sending a message, I suspect. That doesn't always make people happy who look at it from a national perspective.

And I think we've seen the "this person is a crazy/idiot/nut/slut" thing too many times to take it seriously. It's the boy who cried wolf.; 9/15/10, 8:57 AM
Fred4Pres said...: Mike Castle, by your Benedict Arnold attitude, you show that Riehl, Levin, Stacy, Smitty, and Palin were right. You are no better than Scozzafava.

Hey Mike, what did the five fingers say to the face? SLAP!; 9/15/10, 9:00 AM
garage mahal said...: Love the smell of GOP civil war in the morning.; 9/15/10, 9:04 AM
roesch-voltaire said...: Call me a RINO but at least I can touch myself when I want to, and I still am open to evidence when someone like Madawaskan presents the full story on geezer, Mike Castle who never voted to impeach President Bush.; 9/15/10, 9:08 AM
Peter Hoh said...: If you're NOT happy with the entrenched politicians spending your grandchildren into penury, then elect me and I'll help put a stop to it.

And if it turns out that they can't put a stop to the spending, then what?; 9/15/10, 9:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Congressional Awards Committee ("current"):

Will the honorable gentleman from New York please rise.

(thunderous applause); 9/15/10, 9:09 AM
Anonymous said...: I would rather lose supporting a conservative than win with a status quo, squishy Republican. The 00's and now the new decade saw an unacceptable increase in the size and scope of the federal government. I damned sure blame the Democrats, but I also blame the establishment Republicans. To continue to vote for Republicans that assuredly will not try to effectuate conservative principals is the functional equivalent of supporting liberalism.

I'm not angry and I'm not irrational: I'm fed up.; 9/15/10, 9:10 AM
Clyde said...: @ Peter Hoh

Tar. Feathers. Torches. Pitchforks. Rope.

There are a lot of lampposts in Washington, D.C. Just sayin'.; 9/15/10, 9:13 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: The NRSC National Republican Senatorial Committee is refusing to send O'Donnell any money or support. The good old boy network is bound to try to keep power for themselves and to try to thwart the Tea Party candidates and to thwart the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

A few months ago the NRSC called and asked us for money and we not so politely told them to go fucking pound sand, that we would send money to candidates that WE wanted to support because they were not supporting the people WE want.

We have been proven right....yet again.

The Republican establishment better get their heads out of their asses if they want to get ANY support or want to win any races.; 9/15/10, 9:25 AM
Phil 314 said...: Here's a nice review of the Tea Party Patriots organization as an example of the Tea Party movement. A nice analysis with no ax to grind.

HT Reason; 9/15/10, 9:26 AM
Anonymous said...: These people who now lament the fact that we might not be able to repeal Obamacare - they're the ones whose so decisively lost the House and the Senate in the first place.

Suitable for framing.; 9/15/10, 9:26 AM
Phil 314 said...: I hear the Tea Party talk about taxes. That's important but that an effect of this

I'm waiting for a grass roots movement of folks saying

I don't need this. My kids need a future!

How many Tea Party ralliers were on Medicare? How many received mortgage tax deductions?; 9/15/10, 9:34 AM
Humperdink said...: I am amused at what I read about the Dingell race in Michigan. He is in a panic. Dingell and his dad have held the seat since 1933. When I first read about their combined tenure I had to laugh.

Irony of ironies, his dad comes in during the depression, the kid could leave during one.......but, but, he's done such great things for his district.; 9/15/10, 9:39 AM
Phil 314 said...: One guy who is talking about entitlements; 9/15/10, 9:43 AM
Phil 314 said...: And the courage of the Republican Party to address entitlements

In fact, only 13 House Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors, and Republican leaders, hoping for gains in the fall and, ultimately, in 2012, seem concerned at the possibility that the Roadmap may eventually become something candidates will be forced to take a position on. After all, what candidate wants to talk about major changes to Medicare and Social Security?; 9/15/10, 9:47 AM
Phil 314 said...: So from the above perspective, the O'Donnell victory was the most recent winning hand in the ongoing poker game on the Titanic.; 9/15/10, 9:52 AM
Big Mike said...: Mike Castle violated Reagan's eleventh commandment. He deserved to lose.

Coons has described himself as a Marxist. In six weeks the people of Delaware will have the opportunity to choose between an allegedly extreme fiscal conservative and a person who proudly describes himself as being a member of the far left fiscal extreme. I hope they choose wisely.

I hope they remember what happened in "Indiana Jones" to the person who did not choose wisely.; 9/15/10, 9:59 AM
former law student said...: The Althouse point--why in hell is a guy running for a first term as senator at age 70--seems to have occurred to Delaware voters as well.

I note the professor is a mere 11 years younger than Castle -- he could easily be her brother. Will she be too old at 70 to try something new? When is she planning to put herself out to pasture?; 9/15/10, 10:05 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: C3:

Pointing out Tea Partiers partake of Medicare and Social Security benefits is a nice diversionary tactic.

But I bet we could find $200 Billion in cuts to fed spending that most people would not even notice except for those who are on the fed gravy train in Washington.

Afterall, $200 Billion is only 7% of fed budget!; 9/15/10, 10:16 AM
jungatheart said...: c3
"So from the above perspective, the O'Donnell victory was the most recent winning hand in the ongoing poker game on the Titanic."

It would seem so.; 9/15/10, 10:16 AM
Kirk Parker said...: 1jbp,

OK, please find me one actual person who today believes Reagan did the right thing in Lebanon.

WV: asmat - something you spread on the floor to sit on.; 9/15/10, 10:17 AM
jungatheart said...: fls:
"I note the professor is a mere 11 years younger than Castle -- he could easily be her brother. Will she be too old at 70 to try something new? When is she planning to put herself out to pasture?"

Althouse doesn't even know that 60 is the new 50.; 9/15/10, 10:18 AM
GMay said...: One more time:

There was no surplus under Clinton, only a projected surplus. The Republican congress should get most of the credit for that, but then they blew it under Bush.

wv - crater: v - what our congress does to the economy; 9/15/10, 10:36 AM
Humperdink said...: Castle aka... the "best electable conservative" ....voted for cap and trade. Who knew?; 9/15/10, 10:38 AM
Shanna said...: These people who now lament the fact that we might not be able to repeal Obamacare - they're the ones whose so decisively lost the House and the Senate in the first place.

Indeed. Also, last I checked, the goal of the RNC, RNCC, RSCC, whatever is to get republicans elected. Why are they second guessing the states choices? If they aren’t going to spend money on a race they don’t think they can win, that is prioritizing. If they aren’t spending money for ideological reasons or gold ole boy network reasons, that’s a problem.

I don't like the national party getting so involved in primary races, anyway.; 9/15/10, 10:49 AM
former law student said...: There was no surplus under Clinton,

Ah, but there was when the effect of inflation was taken out. This fellow recast the National Debt data in constant 2000 dollars. You'll see the National Debt decreased two years running under Clinton.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

Debt reduction as a percentage of GDP looks even more impressive.

Using the raw data GMay cited shows that the National Debt went up 150% under Reagan, compared to 40% under Clinton. Obama is the first Democratic President since Truman to increase the National Debt, while every Republican since Reagan has done so.; 9/15/10, 11:09 AM
former law student said...: Obama is the first Democratic President since Truman to increase the National Debt, as a percent of GDP

Sorry -- editing fail.; 9/15/10, 11:13 AM
KCFleming said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/15/10, 11:52 AM
David said...: While you might be well advised not to click post after conceding you don't know anything about Delaware, there was the fact that the state and national GOP heavily recruited Castle, and that he said he'd merely serve out Biden's term (thru 2014) and not seek re-election (taking the age issue off the table); and that he never really had a shot at running before, as the seats were held by Biden and Bill Roth (fellow Republican). Maybe he could have run against Carper, but why give up a safe house seat?; 9/15/10, 11:57 AM
dick said...: I am on SS and Medicare but then I paid for it over 40 years at max amounts. It is not an entitlement; it was planned to be and is an insurance plan for seniors. If the Dems had kept their mitts off it as it was planned in the beginning then there would not be a problem with the SS and Medicare. It was the Great Society era that lumped these funds into the general revenues that made them a major problem. Until that happened the two were kept strictly separate and the govt had the basic revenues to play with.

At the same time if I had been given an opportunity to manage my own funds that were withheld for SS and Medicare, I could certainly have done a much better job of it and be way ahead of where I am right now but no option was given to do that. As a result we now have a SS and Medicare fund that is made up of IOU's from the fed and all the money is going to feed the latest boondoggles the feds come up with to use every single buck they can get their sticky fingers on.; 9/15/10, 2:31 PM
dick said...: Shanna,

The Dem party is doing just that. There was an article in several newspapers and on several political blogs about how the Dems are looking for races they think they can win to put their money in and neglecting those races they think they can't. That is prioritizing and it is incumbent for the national parties to do to make the best use of what funds they have.; 9/15/10, 2:41 PM
Original Mike said...: "Open primaries are moronic".

Well said-I agree 1,000%. People should have to either join a party so they can have a say in its choices and candidates or keep out and STFU. Open primaries are like not keeping score in little league. Grow up and pick a side.

I grew up a long time ago, thank you very much, and along the way I picked a side; American. Unfortunately, either the Democrat or the Republican in any given race is going to be elected to represent me. It should be my right (and it is in Wisconsin) to vote in the manner that has the best outcome for my side. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the Democrat Party or the Republican Party.; 9/15/10, 3:15 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Original Mike,

So if a dozen of my close friends and I get together for the purpose of endorsing a candidate, you insist on having a say in who we endorse? Because that's what you're saying...; 9/15/10, 3:38 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Powerline defends the Buckley Rule here.

Think back to the tense vote-counting that preceded the passage of Obamacare. Even RINOs like Castle and Snowe fell into line. The problem wasn't too many RINOs; it was too many Democrats. This, then, is not the time to be squandering opportunities to replace Democrats with Republicans. If anything, we need to be more, not less, "prudential" this year, with the stakes so high.; 9/15/10, 3:55 PM
Original Mike said...: Kirk - From a practical standpoint your candidate doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell (unfortunate, but true) so I don't care. But more formally, is your candidate running in the primaries? If so, it appears that even your friends can't agree on whom to put forward, because that's the only reason they'd have to appear on a primary ballot.; 9/15/10, 3:57 PM
Original Mike said...: So yes, I get a say. But since I only get one vote, I won't be wasting it by voting for your friend(s), so no need to be concerned.; 9/15/10, 3:59 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Original Mike,

So you don't know what primaries are, then, or why we have them?; 9/15/10, 5:28 PM
Kirk Parker said...: reader,

Sorry, my original comment may have been too terse for its own good. I thought I was propounding an explanation of why Castle might have appeared unattractive to voters even though he wasn't a loon or motivated primarily by vanity. Sorry if that wasn't clear the first time around.; 9/15/10, 5:42 PM
GMay said...: fls tried this: "Ah, but there was when the effect of inflation was taken out. This fellow recast the National Debt data in constant 2000 dollars. You'll see the National Debt decreased two years running under Clinton."

If you want to buy off on data that excludes rather pertinent info to achieve the outcome you're looking for, knock yourself out. You're probably big on AGW too.

Tell ya what big guy, you manage your savings/investments without factoring in inflation and let me know how that turns out for you.

Bottom line, exactly as I stated earlier, there was no surplus.; 9/15/10, 6:18 PM
former law student said...: Tell ya what big guy, you manage your savings/investments without factoring in inflation and let me know how that turns out for you.

GMay's the one not adjusting for inflation, not I.; 9/15/10, 6:34 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Orig Mike:
If I was emperor, I'd have the parties pay for the cost of the primary election.

But I don't agree with your argument that non-members be able to vote in a party's primary election. If they could, why even have a party?; 9/15/10, 9:44 PM
Revenant said...: If only it was possible to repay the debt using "constant dollars" instead of, you know... actual money.; 9/15/10, 11:51 PM
GMay said...: Jesus FLS, I showed you proof of no budget surplus and all you do is obfuscate. To see you argue so dishonestly or from a position of ignorance on a daily basis is just painful.; 9/15/10, 11:59 PM
Kirk Parker said...: AJL,

"But I don't agree with your argument that non-members be able to vote in a party's primary election. If they could, why even have a party?"

I fear that, for some people at least, that's a feature, not a bug. But I surely don't get it--you can't destroy my freedom of association and still leave any of yours intact.; 9/16/10, 10:12 AM
former law student said...: OK GMay, you got me. If you choose not to make an apples-to-apples (constant dollar) comparison, you obscure the fact that the National Debt shrank two years in a row under Clinton, meaning his budget ran a surplus.

And I'm the dishonest one?

Whatever you have to do so you can live with yourself.; 9/16/10, 4:27 PM
GMay said...: Jesus Christ FLS, I posted
Treasury data that fucking disproves your claim and you're calling me dishonest?

I love how you come in waaaaay after the thread is dead and pull this shit. For fun, read Rev's remark to you. If you get it, you'd STFU. Sadly, you won't.; 9/17/10, 11:13 AM
koustubh said...: This is the perfect blog for anyone who wants to know about this topic. You know so much its almost hard to argue with you (not that I really would want...HaHa). You definitely put a new spin on a subject thats been written about for years. Great stuff, just great!
London Hotels; 6/30/11, 12:06 PM
chinkykapoor002 said...: this is amazing stuf...ia m keeping it in my bookmark... thanks for ur efforts and time unitech crestview; 10/9/11, 4:29 AM