Search This Blog

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Christine O'Donnell for Senate: "Delaware Crossing the Washington!"

Christine O'Donnell's primary win in Delaware has thrown establishment Republicans for a loop. Falling all over themselves attacking her, they promise not to support her candidacy despite her stunning win. The National Republican Senatorial Campaign, a group that recently solicited me for cash, won't put any money in O'Donnell's battle. She hasn't got a chance, Republican pundits say, and are busy making sure their prediction of defeat is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Karl Rove, who solicited tea party support last year for establishment nominees, is having a tantrum over O'Donnell's win and engaging in personal attacks. Why? Because the party machine would rather help Democrats win (like Dede Scozzafava  did in New York) than work for candidates who actually support the conservative principles outlined in the Republican Party Platform.

Jim De Mint, who did endorse O'Donnell, called the attacks "Republican cannibalism." Others have picked up on a comment made that her win represents "Delaware crossing the Washington." The O'Donnell win is a shot across the bow of the Republican establishment's yacht. Two thumbs up for freedom lovers in that tiny state who trounced Castle 53% to 47%. It certainly was no cliffhanger like the tea party win in Alaska when Murkowski, another liberal in Republican clothing, fell to Joe Miller, a little known lawyer from Fairbanks.

Let's take a look at Mike Castle, the career Republican defeated by O'Donnell, who is so beloved by the Republican establishment. He's pro-abortion, pro-gun control, boasts of increasing school-based health clinics (notorious for promoting contraception and abortion), favors embryonic stem cell research, opposed restricting the transportation of minors across state lines for an abortion, voted against banning abortion in foreign aid funding, supports gay rights. Need I go on? What exactly is "moderate" about this man? It would clearly be better to have an open Democrat in the seat than this RINO who would be working to expand his "moderate" positions for bi-partisan agreement with his anti-life comrades across the aisle.

Now let's take a look at Christine O'Donnell, the candidate the Republican establishment is calling a "nut."  She's pro-life across the board and pro-family, an unapologetic Christian. She opposes gun control and favors control of our borders. She opposes pornography and has called masturbation "a sin." O'Donnell is a pro-abstinence Catholic and a fiscal conservative.

As a voter, who do you resemble more - Mike Castle or Christine O'Donnell? The fact that this traditional young woman is being attacked as a "nut job," not only by Democrats but by Republicans, shows exactly how out of touch they are with the American people. Christine O'Donnell looks like me and many of the voters I know. She is a common sense, principled conservative who believes morality matters. That's why she's such a threat to the hill where morality equals pragmatism, where the most important issue is reelection.

The Republican establisment says nominating conservatives is useless if they can't win in November. They quit before they begin. And they are patently wrong! The only way to change the Republican party is to refuse to nominate their "moderates" who often favor positions that would have horrified voters in the 1950s. Is a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Republican any good to us? No. It just gives us one more vote for Planned Parenthood and homosexual rights. Principles are important and fundamental principles cannot be compromised. And if it takes some election losses to get that message to the Republican pharisees, so be it. If they want to win, they will learn to back conservatives.

Pray for Christine O'Donnell and help her make up financially for the lack of support from the Republican Party. Never give to the party hacks who use your cash to support morally bankrupt candidates like Mike Castle. Give to candidates and to groups you can trust to support only pro-life, pro-family candidates. You can donate to Christine O'Donnell here.



Read more:

Delaware Senate Race: A Kamikaze Republican and the Tea Party
Mike Castle Ain't Backbone
Michael Castle on Abortion
Pence Thinks O'Donnell Can Win in Delaware
Pro-Life Christine O'Donnell Defeats Anti-LIfe Mike Castle
Rove Bashes O'Donnell

 

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is terrible for the Republican Party, conservatives in the Tea Party included. Ms. O'Donnell cannot win in Delaware; she has lost twice already. Delaware is a liberal state, and it will not vote for someone as conservative as O'Donnell. Think about it: a moderate Republican who can win is better than a conservative who cannot win. Why is this so? Because the alternative to a moderate Republican is a liberal Democrat. Mike Castle would have voted for Republican control of the Senate, thus putting in place pro-life leadership compared to proabortion Democratic leadership that future Senator Coons (D-DE) will support. Additionally, the GOP's chances of winning the Senate are much lower now.

You say that "if Republicans want to win, they will learn to back conservatives." This is true in most places of the country, but the northeast is not one of these regions. You will probably counter with the example of Senator Scott Brown (R-MA). Scott Brown is not typical of northeast politics. He won for a number of reasons: (1) his down-to-earth, likable personality, (2) the poor quality of the Democratic nominee Martha Coakley, and (3) opportunism, running during the healthcare debate pushed him over the top. O'Donnell is not as lucky as Scott Brown was. She is not a good candidate; she has lost twice and cannot raise money. Chris Coons in Delaware is a formidable candidate and near perfect ideological match for Delaware. The political environment will favor Republicans in November, but it will not be as favorable as it was in January. The most recent poll from PPP has O'Donnell trailing Coons by 16 points, 50-34.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

How many times did Lincoln lose before he was elected president?

These are the same tired arguments that have kept pro-lifers on the Republican plantation for thirty years with little to show for it. Babies are still being murdered in massive numbers and embryonic stem cell research promises to dwarf those numbers to date.

In view of the number of believers at the foot of the cross, I don't think the primary goal is winning at all costs, including integrity.

Jon said...

I agree with Anonymous. Nominating candidates who can't win in certain states hands the elections to proabortion Democrats. The majority of "red states" will elect Republican, pro-life senators. There are many more red and purple states (where the Republicans can hold one or even both senate seats) than blue states. Because of the sheer numbers, there should be a large amount of prolife Republican senators plus a handful of prolife Democrats bold enough to buck the party's proabortion position. A Republican majority, even if there is a small contingency of proabortion senators, will select prolife members make up the leadership team. Therefore, under Republican leadership, which is made possible often times by picking up seats that only a moderate can win, will be more inclined to advance the prolife agenda.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Well, the seat was held by a pro-abortion Republican who could be counted on to vote with the liberal Democrats.

Frankly, I'd rather have an enemy who's standing in the light than one who's pretending to be something he's not. Win or lose, O'Donnell's candidacy sends a strong message to the Republican establishment that they better start grooming candidates who support the party platform and can hold Republican leaning and independent tea party patriots. We're turning out to be a pretty large voting block!

Kevin J Jones said...

"A Republican majority, even if there is a small contingency of proabortion senators, will select prolife members make up the leadership team. Therefore, under Republican leadership, which is made possible often times by picking up seats that only a moderate can win, will be more inclined to advance the prolife agenda."



This is the optimistic reading.

The alternative reading is that electing "moderate" Republicans allows them to consolidate power and gradually marginalize pro-lifers within their party, sabotaging a party pro-lifers thought was theirs.

This is already happening with same-sex "marriage."

People backed Schwarzenegger over the "can't win" conservative McClintock. And Ahnuld declined to defend Prop. 8 in court. That's what pragmatism will get you sometimes.

Anonymous said...

We need to stop, stop, stop panderring to "party politics" folks.

It has not, is not, will not work.

Rather vote for a truly Catholic (or other Christian) person who will *not* compromise on the non-negotiable moral issues than pander to the likes of McCains, Roves, etc. (i.e. RINOs)

Enough is enough!

Catechist Kevin

Matt M said...

Don't believe the naysayers - who knows they may be employed by Cass Sunstien! Christine is the right candidate because THE PEOPLE CHOSE HER! The GOP "establishment" can go jump off a cliff. We are not following their counsel anymore. Stand on principles and speak from the heart. I haven't given money to a candidate in 15 years but I will give to Christine and I live in NJ!!!!

JB said...

Wow! I am shocked and saddened to see posters suggesting that it is better to vote for someone who supports "moderate" social positions because they (SUPPOSEDLY) have a better chance to win and would be better than a true liberal winning.

This thinking is plain wrong and it is what is wrong with the United States public.

We need to vote for the person who supports what is RIGHT and JUST. PERIOD. In other words. We need to do the RIGHT THING with our vote every single time. If a bad candidate ends up winning, that is not our fault.

This is like saying that we should give in to terrorists and pay ransoms for captured hostages because "otherwise they may get killed." We do not pull the trigger - THEY do.

Sad. sad.

Anonymous said...

In conservative states, Republicans need to nominate true conservatives. However, in states that either are leaning Democratic or are solidly Democratic, conservatives cannot win, and there are countless examples of this. If Republicans in blue states nominate conservatives who cannot win the votes of a sufficient amount of Democrats and independents to win, then aren't the Republicans who nominated the unelectable conservative indirectly helping to elect a liberal Democrat?

I believe that Republicans must think before blindly nominating conservatives. This cycle provides great examples. In Alaska Joe Miller upset incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski, and in Utah Mike Lee was chosen over Senator Bob Bennett. Both of these Republicans represent deeply conservative states, yet they were consistently more liberal than the state. Given the considerable conservative tendencies of the two aforementioned states, these conservative nominees are guaranteed election, thus guaranteeing a more conservative Senate. I wholeheartedly support efforts by grassroots activists in conservative states to remove moderate incumbents. However, it is unwise to defeat candidates who can win in liberal states when their more conservative opponents cannot win. All that does is hand the election to the liberal, and it is counterproductive to the cause to advance prolife initiatives.

For example, it would be unwise for Republicans to defeat Senator Susan Collins and Senator Olympia Snowe, two moderate Republicans from Maine. These two women are more conservative than the alternative that Democrats will nominate, so having a moderate is the lesser of two evils. However, conservatives should seriously consider mounting primary challenges to the liberally-prone Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana. Both men represent staunchly conservative states and both states should have senators who reflect their people's beliefs.

Tea partiers have to make calculated assessments of whether or not primary challenges are beneficial.

Kevin J Jones said...

Original post: "As a voter, who do you resemble more - Mike Castle or Christine O'Donnell? ... Christine O'Donnell looks like me and many of the voters I know."

The trouble with this sentiment is that voters usually don't resemble successful politicians. "Someone like me" will be eaten alive or easily manipulated in Washington.

Anon: "Tea partiers have to make calculated assessments of whether or not primary challenges are beneficial."

There's another problem: If you can't consider ever voting for somebody in your primary vote, it's a lot harder to consider voting for him or her in your general election.

Voting pragmatically can prevent better candidates from emerging in one's own state. If the party keeps getting "unelectable" candidates from primary voters, it'll realize it has to work a lot harder to change the electorate's minds.

Pete said...

I live in Kentucky and have sent her a contribution. The Rachel Maddow MTV video, which was supposed to make us abandon her, backfired, as I excitedly realized she was a true sister of mine, the real thing! Mother Theresa said we are not called to be successful, we are called to be faithful, so let's support Christine because she is speaking the truth. God will slay Goliath again if she is one of the Davids of our time, I believe she can win, and faith, on many levels, is important. Don't you lose the faith before the battle has even begun, that's handing the evil one an easy victory.

Jonathon Moseley said...

Anonymous and others say that Delaware is a liberal State. No it is not. Those who offer such comments should get in the car and drive around Delaware. I did. I drove Christine O'Donnell around to campaign stops in 2008 as her primary campaign manager. Delaware is more like Virginia than the rest of the Northeast. In some parts of Delaware, you had better know your country music. Delaware ain't no Manhattan. Wilmington is the only part of Delaware that is Democrat-leaning. But these are Reagan Democrats. Many Catholics who are deeply uncomfortable with the policies of the Democrat party.

If you want to UNDERSTAND a little about Christine's race in Delaware, read:

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/1398714990.html

Jon said...

Delaware, as a state, is liberal leaning. It has gone Democratic for president since 1992, and in 2008 it went for Obama with 62% of the vote. Currently, seven of the nine statewide elected offices (governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, treasurer, auditor, state insurance commissioner, both senate seats, and the house seat) are held by Democrats. Democrats control both houses of the state legislature.

Delaware has its pockets of conservatism in Kent and Sussex counties, but New Castle County, where 60% of the state's population lives, is solidly Democratic, and the Democratic politicians in Delaware tend to be of the liberal variety. Besides, just because there are pockets of strong Republican support, it does not mean that it is not a Democratic state. Take Alabama for example. I think we can all agree it is a solidly conservative state trending more and more conservative. (Granted, the state legislature is still under Democratic control, but that is mainly the result of old ties the residents have to a traditional, southern Democrat.) That doesn't mean there aren't deep liberal pockets in and around the major cities; it simply means that the liberal areas are not reflective of the state as a whole. Similarly, the conservative pockets in Delaware do not reflect the entire state.

I do not intend to be rude, but if Delaware is not a liberal state as you claim, why was Ms. O'Donnell only able to garner 35% of the vote in the 2008 senate race? Compared to John McCain in the 2008 presidential race, she did two percentage points worse. (Could it be because O'Donnell is more conservative than McCain, and McCain, being more moderate did better in a liberal state?) Yes, she ran against popular, longterm senator Joe Biden in a favorable year for Democrats, but if it were a somewhat conservative state, why couldn't she at least get in the low 40s?