Friday, September 17, 2010

Let Christine O'Donnell Speak for Herself

I don't have a crystal ball, and I cannot see into the heart of a single person on this planet, so backing this or that candidate becomes something like co-signing for someone else's loan. It puts one's credibility on the line. But I think a little perspective is called for in the case of Delaware's l'enfant terrible, Christine O'Donnell, and I am willing to give her the benefit of any doubt generated by ill-chosen statements on peripheral matters (is masturbation really going to be a national issue?) in light of her solidly conservative policy positions that actual do matter to the life of the nation.
The most common epithets being hurled is she's crazy...gaff prone...ill prepared...she has "baggage"...not smart. She cannot win. There goes the Senate.

Crazy, gaff prone, ill prepared, laden with baggage... compared to whom? Al Franken, the Jar Jar Binks of the Senate? The sleek and well-spoken Joe Biden, whose seat she is a candidate for? Chris Coons, the Delaware Democrat who is now presumed to be the shoe-in, the self-described Marxist whose communist epiphany came as a college freshman--an epiphany from which he has never swerved or disavowed? RINO in pachyderm's clothing Mike Castle, whose communications since defeat have been not with the winner of the nomination of his own party, but with the heads of the opposition party, Obama and Biden? (what could they possible have to say to one another?)

Keep in mind Castle was one of only eight Republicans who voted for the economy killing cap and trade scheme in the House. And this was not just another vote about which people of good conscience can disagree, live and let live, and let bygones be bygones; this is another sword of Damocles hanging over the future of America like Obama Care. It is life and death, in the literal, figurative, and economic senses of the phrase. The very nature and character of the republic will be determined by the next several Congresses as they attempt to undo all the hope and change. And even if he voted against the health care monstrosity (how hard was that?) , is there any doubt he would be of the party of mend it don't end it when the grown ups get around to sorting out the mess left by ramming that outrage through on the most blatant of party line votes?

Six years, the term of the office of Senator, affords ample opportunities to either stand athwart the liberal/socialist juggernaut or wave it on through. What do you think a Senator Mike Castle would have done? What do you think he has done his whole career as Representative Mike Castle?

I don't know the actual severity of O'Donnell's past--home foreclosure, over-due student loans, failed gender discrimination lawsuit--sounds like a lot. But lets not forget the "baggage" accompanying almost all of Obama's appointees, both successful and unsuccessful. Seems most of them are cross-wise with the IRS, but in ways that are considerably more corrupt than just being unable to pay. Timmie Geithner was well able to pay the thousands he was chiseling on--same for Tom Daschle, would-be secretary of HHS. Charlie Rangel, anyone? How about the entirety of the Black Caucus in the House, so corrupt they are trying to dismantle the House Ethics committee to head off investigations? Harry Reid and his multi-million dollar land deals? Not to mention the thousands of faceless DC federal employees who owe millions in uncollected taxes. But they, like all the rest of the elite, think taxes are for the "little people" "out there".

And that is O'Donnell's biggest sin when it comes down to it--she's one of the little people, not properly or adequately credentialed, from the wrong side of the tracks, daring to barge into the upper rooms of the blessed. Government by the people? Not by people like you, honey. In a former time, attitudes like hers were called "uppity".
Listen to her in her own words here (in a conversation with Pajamas Media prior to the primary election) and ask yourself why she would not be better than a weak sister RINO or God help us, an unreconstructed Marxist, in the US Senate. Even in view of everything the Dems and their little republican helpers are serving up from her past.

Innes adds:
Harold, you make a strong argument, though you may be the only one making it. Even Palin supporter William Kristol said this at the Weekly Standard: "In the Senate, Christine O'Donnell will almost certainly lose a seat that could have been won (cf. Oliver North taking the Republican nomination in Virginia in 1994 and losing that winnable seat—Republicans still won the Senate)."

Harold adds:
All the conservative intellectuals are against O'Donnell on the basis that she cannot win the general election, and thus the seat is lost to the Democrats. A number of things come to mind.
1. None of these same people thought the Senate was actually attainable before, so why now all the angst over O'Donnell blowing the big chance?
2. Saving a RINO like Castle is not on the Tea Party agenda, nor apparently for 62% of Republican primary voters in Delaware, certainly not all of whom are Tea Partiers. Do their opinions count?
3. When, according to the Republican elites, do voters get to discipline Republicans like Castle? Ever? Every election, it seems, is too important to lose a seat to the demands for orthodoxy from the right. Castle, Bennett of Utah, Murkowski of Alaska, the weak sisters of Maine, Voinavitch of Ohio, Richard Lugar of Indiana...the list is tiresome and long. They have been of the go along to get along tribe, riding the elite consensus sentiment that any Republican is good enough. All the while aiding and abetting the long drift into socialism. Well, now the people whose lives and resources have been mortgaged beyond their grandchildren's ability to pay have had enough of it.
4. This rebellion is a long wave sort of thing. It will take decades, if ever, to turn the ship of state off the course we have been bemoaning here since the threat of the Obami hove into view. If O'Donnell and a few others like her are not in the end electable, the platform they are running on (and the public enthusiasm for it) sure does put the fear of God into the party establishment, other RINOs, and conservative-leaning democrats. It sends the unmistakable message that this uprising is real and not going away.
5. In the recent electoral context characterized by Sarah Palin, Scott Brown, Chris Cristie, Bob Donaldson, et al., the Republcian party of Delaware has only itself to blame for running an unacceptably heterodox candidate like Castle, thereby allowing or even forcing a flawed Christine O'Donnell into the race. When will heads roll at HQ over that one?
6. Sadly, even if Republicans gain control of both houses in 2010, the Obami have enough czars and regulatory control in place to move their agenda along without Congress' approval. EPA, DOJ, and HHS on the forefront, the alphabet soup of other agencies, authorities, and operating groups no one has ever heard of already putting things in place, possibly already past legislative remedy.
7. We will need people in Congress willing to talk about disbanding, defunding, and prosecutions, a la Congressman Issa, to begin the pullback. Republicans like Castle will take the administration's and the New York Times' position on all of it. Until there are enough Republicans with spines to meet the emergency--and that is what we face here--the slide away from constitutional government will continue. We do not know where the point of no return is, or if we are already past it.
8. O'Donnell is no worse than any number of Democrat "Senators"--an office which is so degraded by the intellectual giants put up by the Democrats that she is no net lowering in any case. "Senator" Barbara Boxer; "Senator" Amy Klobachar; "Senator" Al Franken; "Senator" Patty Murray; unfortunately, one could go on and on. And how would she be worse than the likely winner, Chris "I'm a bearded Marxist" Coons?

Innes adds:
Harold, in her column yesterday, "Why It's Time for the Tea Party," Peggy Noonan cites Andrea Tantaros of the New York Daily News ("Stop Mocking the Tea Party") who agrees with what you say in your post here.

The current alternative from the left is even more cuckoo to voters: higher taxes, a new health care regime, more rights for terrorists, disregard for immigration law and constant apologies to other countries. Now that's nuts. So, with mud on their faces, both sides of the aisle are trying to shred the personal credibility of the outsiders. They've blasted O'Donnell for not liking porn and blasted Paladino for liking it too much. They call O'Donnell a liar in a year when the Democratic Senate candidate from Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, lied about serving in Vietnam, and Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters face serious ethics charges.

It's funny how the Dems are never afraid of running a Marxist. Does the press ever lament a move like that?

No comments: