I Hate Republicans--A Disgusting FIt of Pique

This is a disgusting fit of pique by the same crowd that handed super majorities to the Democrats in the first place.

Foxnews is reporting that the NRSC is refusing to back Christine O'Donnell in the general election even though she is the clear choice of Delaware Republicans.
Party fractures on full display, Republican aides told Fox News Tuesday that O'Donnell would not be getting national fundraising support. State party leaders had warned that O'Donnell cannot compete against Democrat Chris Coons and vigorously backed Castle, a nine-term congressman and former governor.
This, more than a reflection on the O'Donnell campaign, shows the very real disdain that establishment Republicans have for us unwashed--tea-partiers and conservatives. I was ambivalent about the O'Donnell campaign before, now I want her to win in the worst way.

The establishment Republican party, maybe even more than the Democrat party, is one of the main obstacles to real reform in Washington. The American people are demanding reform but the establishment doesn't care. They want to shut out real conservatives where they can and co-opt them where they succeed.

Many people think that 2010 is another 1994. I hope not. I don't want another Republican takeover until conservatives have successfully taken over the Republican party. This is the message that the rank and file sent in Delaware tonight, this is why they sent the progressive RINO Castle packing. But they still don't get the message.

I don't know if O'Donnell is a good candidate or not. But at this point, I don't care. I want her to win. Scratch that--I want the Republican establishment to lose.

I am tired of Republican lip service and betrayals. I want a purge. I want a witch-hunt. I want them all gone. Every last one of them. I want litmus tests. I want lots of litmus tests. I want to fold the big tent. I want to burn the big tent. I want conservatives darn it!!


  1. Before we go all knives out on this one, from which candidate should the NRSC divert funds? Sharon Angle? Miller? Paul? Rubio? Typically national committees do not get involved in races where the nominee is way down in the polls. It will almost certainly not give any money to either of the NY Senate Republican candidates, or the Maryland Senate candidate, or any other candidate that is ten points down in the polls. Conversely it probably won't be spending any money on Demint, Hoeven, or maybe even Toomey, or other candidates that look like locks.

    This isn't about the NRSC being spiteful. It is backing Miller, Angle, and Paul even though they all beat the establishment candidate. There are a finite number of resources, and they are best placed where the candidate is in a real battle. Now if the next poll shows O'Donnell is close, then the NRSC will almost certainly get involved.

  2. Sorry Paul, announcing that on election night is a fit of pique. If what you said is true, they we be quiet and sit on the sidelines to see if she can get close. Instead they try to undercut her 5 mins after her selection. There is no spinning that.

  3. The NRSC didn't announce anything. Some aide speaking on background said that the NRSC isn't getting involved until she proves to be viable. How is that unreasonable?

    Again, there are finite resources. Every dollar spent on O'Donnell is another dollar not spent on a candidate in a toss-up election. I'd actually be pissed if the NRSC spent money on long-shot candidates and diverted money away from someone who really needs it. And if O'Donnell makes it a close race, they better damned well get involved.

  4. Oh, and don't get me wrong, I'm not enamored of the national committees. As someone on Ace pointed out, they've done a terrible job of recruitment in some places, and have unneccessarily gotten involved in primary races. I have no love whatsoever for any of national committees. I'm just not going to rip the NRSC over this decision.

  5. This is awesome in every way. So many of us see ourselves in these beleagered candidates. What if I, typical Joe six-pack, were to make a run to further the conservative cause? I would be villified by both the media and RINOS, they'd go after my family, they'd call me an ignorant, ill-bred hick with an inferior education, clinging to my guns and religion.

    Screw them. Good Americans are standing up everywhere for conservative values, and they no longer need the NRSC to make decisions for us. Goodbye. Dismissed.

  6. Patrick, I share your attitude toward the national and state GOP committees, but Paul Zummo has it right. This is not the NRSC being spiteful. It is the NRSC playing unsentimental hardball politics by allocating limited resources where they have the opportunity to do the most good. There will not be any funding going to Maryland, Vermont, Hawaii or Oregon either. It is just the same kind of triage the DCCC is doing right now in pulling resources from seats they no longer believe they can defend.

    I would much rather we lose with O'Donnell than win with Castle. Unfortunately, I am afraid that is exactly what we will do.

    Hopefully there will be enough newcomers in the Senate that Mitch McConnell will be returned to the rank and file.

  7. Paul You are correct. Why should O'Donnell get money and that guy in VT not?

    People need to clam down. There is a lot of tribalism and conservatives in this race that could not back O Donnell' are now being called RINOS.

    Sore Winners Sore Losers makes bad election year. People need a cooling off period

  8. Nope. Pat is right. If it was a matter of funds alone, they would sit on the news in the hope that she could get close.

    This is the "Moderates" read: (those with no principles) and who like to "compromise" (read: give in) on life issues like Mike Castle trying to hide *their* daggers behind "being practical".

    In an election cycle where it has become ABUNDANTLY OBVIOUS that conservatives in swing state situations (which is what Delaware is) can make up huge deficits in the polls. Moderates are reacting negatively to being exposed for what they are: lukewarm fence-sitters.

    The idea of an aide feeling comfortable stabbing a newly minted GOP nominee in the back and having no fear of getting fired for it? That comes from the top; his boss believes it too, and his boss is a RINO. They know very well how the media will spin this, so it is intentional.

    Not supporting O'Donnell is one thing. Stabbing her in the back is entirely another.

  9. I've ran a few political campaigns and never...I mean NEVER has the party (in the form of the NRCC or the NRSC) come out and told the press that they will NOT be pushing money into a race.

    If politics is war, you don't tell your opponent which hill you're attacking. The NRCC or NRSC typically reserves ad time in races all over the country and then pulls it out and pushes more in before the ads actually go up based on what the polls say.

    And to say that the NRSC has made its mind up here using just the polls is inaccurate, I believe. Polls this early in a race are somewhat meaningless, especially after a divisive primary because the party is split and when you ask Republicans in the middle of a primary fight would they vote for the other Republican in the general you get a lot of "Hell no" answers which skews the poll. Often, those Republicans will come home in November.

    And let's face it, independents and Dems aren't paying that close attention yet to the Republican candidates so they're likely not very aware of who O'Donnell even is. The NRSC knows this.

    Their announcement last night was spite. I've never seen an announcement like that before.

    I've been on some real dogs of campaigns too who had ZERO shot of receiving NRCC funds but the NRCC still said nice things about us to the press and acted as if there was always the possibility of them coming riding in over the hill to help. They never told the press they wouldn't be helping. It's as Patrick says -a fit of pique.

  10. Would the NRCC prefer that the Democrat win?

  11. "Many people think that 2010 is another 1994. I hope not. I don't want another Republican takeover until conservatives have successfully taken over the Republican party. This is the message that the rank and file sent in Delaware tonight, this is why they sent the progressive RINO Castle packing. But they still don't get the message."

    I think this is wrong. If the Republicans fail to take Congress, the ones who will be blamed will be the ones most likely to lose: Angle and O'Donnell. Rightly or wrongly, the national party will feel vindicated in their choices of moderates. Many conservative-leaning voters will also think that they can't win with true conservatives and return to voting for those who are electable in primaries. Anything other than tremendous gains in the fall elections would be a cataclysmic set back for conservatives.

  12. But gains without ideological clarity or cohesiveness do nothing for us. A "Republican" win that doesn't advance a conservative pro-life agenda does nothing for me.

  13. Two things: First, 2010 better be another 1994, or in 2012, there won't be any pieces left to glue back together. Second, I also wish the Republicans would become conservative before winning, but that's no reason to grant the Dems the power to finish the destruction they have set in motion -- an amnesty for illegals would so skew the voter base as to give Obama the dictatorship he seems to crave.

  14. Bill,
    Mike Castle is an amnesty supporter. How would he have helped with fighting amnesty?

  15. The Archbolds are right.

    And the problem they identify is not just this one-time occurrence, either. For all the talk of social conservatives not being "team players", it is the RINO establishment that is a bunch of sore losers who take their ball and go home whenever they get beat by grassroots conservatives.


    * Jim Jeffords, unhappy with conservative leadership on various Senate committees (and the fact that he didn't get some pork project he wanted) decides to become an "independent" and caucus witht the Democrats, giving them control of the Senate;

    * the establishment-backed Lincoln Chafee takes GOP campaign contributions and then decides to run for Rhode Island Governor as an "independent";

    * the establishment-backed Arlen Specter and Charlie Crist take GOP campaign money, realize that even with that edge they're going to lose to more conservative grassroots-supported candidates, and then bolt the party to run as a Democrat and an "independent", respectively;

    * the establishment-backed Dede Scozzafava takes GOP campaign money, realizes that all the GOP grassroots are supporting the Conservative Party candidate, drops out of the race and endorses the Democrat;

    * the establishment-backed John Ensign loses the GOP primary for his House seat and then goes on Chris Matthews' show to talk about how racist and mean-spirited the GOP grassroots are;

    * the establishment-backed Lisa Murkowski loses to a more conservative opponent in the Alaska GOP primary for the U.S. Senate and has flirted with running as a Libertarian (before the LP heads nixed her) and is currently contemplating a write-in campaign;

    * the establishment-backed Mike Castle loses to a more conservative opponent (despite relentless and RNC-coordinated personal attacks upon said opponent -- let's not forget the RINO establishment's "nuts and sluts" gauntlet through which any conservative woman running for office must negotiate - see also, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Nikki Haley), and, upon losing, decides not to endorse the GOP nominee and the national leadership backs up that non-endorsement by announcing they will not support her with much-needed campaign money.

    Leon Wolf, in his scathing review of Meghan McCain's "book" has also identified the problem:

    "By far the biggest problem the Republican coalition has right now is moderates who refuse to accept defeat at the hands of conservatives. Think Dede Scozzafava endorsing the Democrat in NY-23. Think Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter bailing the party and running against the Republican when it became clear that they would lose their primaries. Think Lincoln Chafee currently running as an independent for Governor of Rhode Island despite the NRSC spending millions to help him defeat a conservative in the primary. I defy Meghan McCain to identify a conservative candidate who acted or behaved in this way towards the party after a primary loss.

    We know the problem is there. So, what is the solution? (I'll offer that in my next comment.)

  16. The solution to the problem I just described is this:

    The GOP doesn't support us? Then we don't support them. It's time to drop out. Walk away.

    The Republicans have a prime, yet wholly unearned and undeserved, opportunity for historic gains in this year's elections. What have they done to merit it? The recent actions by the GOP prove that the party establishment has not learned their lesson after 4 years in the wilderness.

    So, why should we reward them by putting them back in power just so that they can go back to the same old, same old that they were doing the last time they were in power and that was used by the media and the Democrats to discredit conservatism (even though it wasn't conservatism).

    The GOP thinks they're going to win big in November? So, what if we taught them a lesson by snatching victory from them? What if we stayed home on election day or voted 3rd party?

    Okay, the downside is another 2 years of Democrats controlling Congress and the White House. A lot of damage can be done in that 2 years.

    But a lot of damage can be done if we return the GOP in its current form to power, as well. They don't respect us. Just look at how they've treated our candidates. Just listen to the calls for a "truce" on abortion. Just watch as the establishment types in the party, the "conservative" legal community, and the "center-right" media stumble all over themselves to push for same-sex marriage. Our presence embarasses them. They don't want us here, as their sore-loser actions clearly indicate.

    They don't support us? Then we don't support them.

  17. The check is in the mail as of this morning. They must have read your rant.


  18. I'm with Jay. After a great argument like that how could you be against him?

  19. People like me paid little attention to primaries until just very recently. What caught my attention was a Weekly Standard piece printed a week ago. In it, the author described Mike Castle as a moderate while digging up dirt on O'Donnel (it appears all of it was true). But it wasn't O'Donnell's past behavior that got me interested (after the last 3 decades, it appears that being a loon is the first requirement for national office). What got my attention was the Weekly Standard's revision of Castle's moniker. To call Mike Castle a Moderate is like calling Barney Frank a Centrist. Castle's voting record as govenor and Represenative are about as liberal as one can get.

    The Weekly Standard not too long ago (2001-2006)was THE Beltway source for insider info. The editors of the WS are about as insider as you can get. And it is obvious, they saw Castle's run for the Senate as the key for the GOP if it can run the tables this November. If the GOP retake 10 Senate seats, the Weekly Standard would gain as well. It makes no matter if the GOP does anything usefull, as long as it controls the Senate's agenda. There is a lot of money and prestige being wired into the center of power. And it is the power that matters. As it turns out, quite a few Republicans think along these lines. Even Charles Kruathammer had to slam O'Donnell. It appears civility goes only so far. And I remember not too long ago about every GOP pundit, bigshot, and operator had nothing but praise for the late Sen Kennedy (God rest his soul). Calling O'Donnell unfit for office while singing praises to a man who not only had monumental "moral" issues, but wielded power like some Mafia Don is problematic at best.

    O'Donnell will probably lose in a few weeks. But, I think the word got out to the RNC and Beltway Courtiers.

  20. One solution to this mess seems rather simple: stop contributing to the NRSC, and send money directly to candidates who are good ones. Why on earth should we *gamble* on the *possibility* that the money is well-spent, when we have the option to do so directly, and be certain? (It's a bit like the reason I don't contribute to the United Way; why risk a 5%-ish chance of having the money support pro-abortion causes?)

  21. I've actually thought of a worthwhile compromise. Of course the timing is perfect given that primary season just ended. Vote for the Republican that can win in the House to stop the Obama agenda and for your conscience in the Senate to send the message to the GOP. The Democrats have too many really bad ideas to not think strategically at all and just sit out the election. Also, the agenda setting aspects of the majority in the House, makes just putting Republicans in there enough to derail most of Obama's legislation.

  22. O'Donnell will probably lose in a few weeks.

    Prior to the primary, she polled 25% down from the Dem candidate. After the primary, depending on who you listen to, she's down somewhere in the 11-16% range - probably because she and Castle split the Rep. vote in those polls. I wouldn't write her off just yet.

  23. Larry,
    I understand your point of view. In an atmosphere like this, anything can happen. But on the otherhand, Delaware isn't Texas. I read a bit ago that her opponent Tim Coons has a 50-36 lead in the polls. Not impossible odds, but if one considers that all it takes is one gaff, or one embarassing photo from a college frat party to sink a close election, the odds are not on her side.

  24. This may all come to nothing. The NRSC has decided to pony up and establishment members of the caucus challenged Jim Demint to put his money where his mouth is and he quite willingly committed to raising +$100K for her. From what I have pieced together from several places Coons had about $900K and O'Donnell had $20K at the start of yesterday but ends today with $800K. This may turn into a race after all.

    Wouldn't it be a really interesting experience to be in the room the first time she shows up in a GOP caucus meeting?

  25. The Archbolds describe to a T my thoughts on the upcoming election. I have no hope that the RINOs, who plan to ride the coattails of the conservative backlash into power, have any intent to honor conservative values once they get there. It's all about winning the power game.

    It's hard to get enthusiastic about the upcoming elections. It seems too much like a televised season of "American (Political) Idol". Add to that the discouraging thought that any of the shining new conservative stars, under pressure, could pull a Stupak, and cave when we need them most. I long to be proved wrong.

    "Don't put your trust in princes..." Ps 146:3

  26. Yes but I don't believe you would vote for a third-party candidate given the choice between that, a Democrat or one of these"establishment Republicans". I believe you would instead pick the "lesser of two evils" Republican, such as with McCain who was promoted here as the best choice in '08 when he clearly was not.

  27. I'm with you, vote every last one of them out!

  28. I hate republicans because they lie, lie, lie about anything that might my almost middle class life tolerable or let me keep my small business running while they spend incredible amounts of money on wars and give rich people and corporations tax breaks.


Post a Comment