The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

The Day After Delaware

September 15th, 2010 by Myrhaf · 19 Comments · Uncategorized

I don’t listen to Hugh Hewitt a lot lately, but I did today because I suspected that he had supported Mike Castle as the most electable candidate in Delaware — according to Hewitt’s very conventional wisdom — and I wondered what he would say the day after Christine O’Donnell had beat his man.

My suspicion was right. The first caller accused Hugh of being behind the curve on O’Donnell. It hit a nerve and Hugh lost his temper, saying that no one could challenge his conservatism. It was an odd thing to say, as no one was challenging Hewitt’s conservatism. Hugh used his lawyerly tricks, shutting the caller up by shouting a question at him — then when the caller tried to answer him, Hugh hung up on him. Republican pragmatists are unnerved by the principles of the Tea Party Movement.

The Republicans’ inability to think in principle is insane. Mike Castle voted for Cap and Trade, potentially the most devastating piece of legislation ever thought up by our politicians. The law amounts to an assault on industrial civilization; it would destroy the economy. None of that matters to establishment Republicans like Hewitt and Rove. O’Donnell has baggage!

These people are worried about baggage? If Britney Spears ran against Castle, I’d vote for her.

In all his blustering, Hewitt made a strange, though revealing, remark. He said (quoting from memory), “Some of those Tea Partiers are pro choice, so they’re not good conservatives.”

That’s right, Hugh. They’re not good conservatives. The Tea Party is not about being conservative, it’s about shrinking government. Hewitt is not entirely comfortable with the Tea Party Movement because it is not a religious right movement. This is not the 1980’s. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have nothing to do with what is going on now. There’s a new ideal on the right.

George W. Bush was conservative; spending and regulation exploded during his presidency. The Tea Party Movement is not happy about Bush’s big government policies.

Hewitt defended Rove’s attack on O’Donnell, calling him a genius. Rove of course is the mastermind of the Bush presidency, responsible for such big government programs as the prescription drug bill. But Rove got Bush reelected, so in Hewitt’s eyes, he is a genius. Forget that Bush’s policies damaged the economy, weakened confidence in the Republican Party, and led to Obama-Reid-Pelosi. Bush won two elections, and all that matters is the election of the moment. Tomorrow will take care of itself.

****

I’m dubious of the CW that O’Donnell can’t beat Coons, a man who once called himself a “bearded Marxist.” (I thought that was Barbara Boxer.) Now he’s a clean-shaven Marxist, which I guess makes him a moderate among Democrats.

O’Donnell is only 16 points behind the Marxist, whatever his tonsorial state. With the Republican wave building, anything can happen. Today Harry Reid called Coons his “pet.” Such brilliant rhetoric coming from the Democrat leadership could close that 16-point gap fast. We’ll keep an eye on it.

UPDATE: I watched a little cables news to see how they were covering all this. Sean Hannity is a complete waste of time. He asks a liberal guest a loaded question the guest doesn’t want to answer because he knows it will make him look bad. The guest says his talking points instead. Hannity cuts him off and asks his question again. The guest fails to answer again. Nothing of interest gets expressed in the exchange of gotchas. Why not try to explore ideas in good faith? Just notching up quick points is so tedious.

19 Comments so far ↓

  • madmax

    O’donnell is very socially conservative. I guess right now all that matters is that we get limited gov’t Republicans but I think it is going to be inevitable that the more pro-limited gov’t the candidate, the more religious they will be. Secular Republicans are almost always socialists.

  • Myrhaf

    Apparently, O’Donnell does not believe in evolution. She will be a religious dolt who votes against cap and trade. I can live with that. Right now our survival depends on stopping the madness of the Democrats. We need to buy time, and that means electing people who worship the zombie god.

    The big divisive issues of 20 years ago — guns, God and gays — are not the focus of the Tea Party. Ironically, the man who made those issues irrelevant said in 2008 that Americans turn to those issues in bad economic times. The bad economic times our President has brought us have instead made Americans focus on economic issues.

  • dismuke

    I have yet to figure out exactly what all the “baggage” she has that they are talking about. I haven’t followed it all that closely – most of what I have picked up in the aftermath commentary essentially boils down to: she drinks the sort of coffee served in truck stops and gas stations.

    The evening of the election, I read an article quoting someone gathered at what turned out to NOT be Castle’s victory party say that he would support the Democrat and whine “the animals have taken over the zoo.” Interesting quote. But that is exactly what the Leftist world view is of the Tea Partiers and the public in general: we are a bunch of zoo animals in need of all-knowing “keepers’ of the Mike Castle ilk. This person should go over to the “bearded Marxist.” That’s where his heart is anyway – and they deserve each other.

    The very best commentary I found on this (apart from Myrhaf’s previous posting which I only just noticed a few minutes ago) was on the RedState.com blog by someone named Ben Domenech. I know nothing about Domenech and, to my knowledge, am not familiar with anything else he has written. But I think he hits the nail on the head (though I suspect Hewitt’s head is too thick for it to sink in. The good news is that here in Fort Worth/Dallas Hewitt’s program has been relegated to a 12:00 AM to 3:00 AM air slot – and on a station that is owned, no less, by the same company that syndicates his program! And it is a station that operates on vastly reduced power after dark!).

    Below is the Domenech passage that caught my attention. The full posting is at: http://www.redstate.com/ben_domenech/2010/09/14/dont-repeat-the-mistakes-of-the-past/

    “Conservatives should not tolerate the likes of Mike Castle because of the simple fact that a 51 member Senate with Mike Castle is a Senate where Mike Castle is the most important vote in the room. As Specter and others before him, that Senator will set the terms of policy debates, determining in advance what can succeed and fail. Those who advance the argument that a majority with Castle is better than being in the minority tend to place priorities on Senate committee chairmanships and staff ratios and lobbyist cash…

    As a friend of mine in the business of campaigns and elections has said, electing moderates simply to secure a majority for Republicans is a self-defeating proposition. We’ve seen this play out time and again. Career politicians abhor principle, and adore power and fecklessness. Their presence in Washington provides constant aid and comfort to the Left. They dilute the brand, confuse voters and sell out conservatives just at the moment they are needed most.

    It’s not about being right rather than winning, it’s about the definition of winning in the long term, which cannot be done with elected politicians who don’t believe in conservatism.

    In the end, it’s really that simple.”

    [Emphasis in original quote]

  • dismuke

    One more thing on O’Donnell – the trashing of her by Rove and others and the initial report that the NRSC was going to refuse to support her has resulted in a huge backlash. The result is that she has raised over $870,000 through her website http://christine2010.com in just a little over 24 hours after winning the election.

    I would love to see her win if for no other reason than to watch the reaction of Rove and others who deemed her chances as “impossible.”

    And I agree that the CW on this is not necessarily applicable. Sure, Delaware is a heavily Democratic state. But not all rank and file Democratic voters are hard core Leftists.

    There are a lot of different reasons why people associate with a given party. There are some people who wear a party label in the same way others conform to a particular clothing style: they want to “fit in” with whatever group of people they belong to or regularly interact with. Such people are not especially ideological or political and are actually quite clueless about such things. They just don’t want to get the grief and demonization they will endure in a state such as Delaware if they identify as a Republican. So they publicly identify as Democrats and, in most years, vote that way as well.

    But maybe this year is different. Perhaps even such clueless people are beginning to get a clue – at least on a very superficial and implicit level – and realize that something is terribly wrong right now and have a dim sense that Obama, Pelosi & Co are dangerous and certainly do not have the county’s best interests at heart.

    And perhaps they know or have seen some Tea Partiers and have listened to the arguments they have put forth. Perhaps they have, in the privacy of their automobiles or homes, tuned in to certain talk radio programs or commentators on Fox (I read an article recently where a union organizer complained that, whenever he made door-to-door visits to union members to recruit support for the union’s political agenda, he would frequently look through the door and see a television set tuned into Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity). And perhaps in the utter privacy and secrecy of their own minds they have thought: “gee – these people on the other side are making some very good points, points that I cannot deny or refute.”

    Such people might never admit to having such thoughts and doubts. But they don’t need to. One gets to vote in private (unless they pass card check and they are trying to unionize you!).

    I don’t think it is impossible this year for there to be a certain number of ordinary “truck stop and gas station coffee drinking” non-Leftist rank and file registered Democrats who, in the utter privacy of the voting booth, act on a gut feeling they don’t fully understand by casting a vote for the other side. And then they will walk out and never admit that they have done so.

    I think that is how a Christine O’Donnell could possibly win this year.

  • Joan of Argghh!

    Y’know, Democrat voters will vote for moonbeams if it’ll get them what they want.

    The “christers” boogeyman does NOT exist. It’s the liberals who will control your bedroom, your womb, your life, and your eventual and much more controllable death. So what if some fundies believe in green cheese? So what if O’Donnell thinks masturbation is a sin?

    Damn and blast! Joe Biden thinks he’s relevant. That’s far scarier.

  • Andrew Dalton

    The “christers” boogeyman does NOT exist.

    http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a62.shtml

    Boo!

  • Myrhaf

    I believe Hugh Hewitt opened his show today talking about this blog post. Not entirely sure, as he didn’t not mention the name of the blog, but it sounded like this post. He called me “one of these new atheists.” Not sure what that means. He also called me a dummy because I have not been reading the signs at the Tea Parties. Most of the signs look to be about limited government to me. He began taking calls, asking Tea Partiers to call in. He wanted to find out who they were. He says the Tea Partiers are Republican voters energized. During a call he mentioned something about some people claiming the Tea Partiers are anti-religious. I didn’t write that TPM is anti-religious, but that it’s not focused on religious issues.

    Hugh Hewitt was the first to say that some Tea Partiers are pro-choice, and therefore not good conservatives. I was just agreeing with him!

    Yes, I imagine most Tea Partiers are conservatives, but the movement is not about conservatism, it’s about limited, constitutional government. Social issues are not the focus of the movement.

    Hugh, if you’re reading this, next time will you mention the name of the blog? I’ll stop being abusive when I criticize you.

  • dismuke

    Something I figured out a while back is that a lot of people who are in the public spotlight to some degree or another google themselves (imagine what you would have thought 15 years ago if someone spoke of people googling themselves!). And many probably twitter themselves as well.

    The reach that a single individual can have via the Internet is amazing. You can say what needs to be said about someone – and there is a chance that they might actually even notice it.

    As for Hewitt, I’m not sure what sort of staff he has but it is possible that whoever does his show prep is the one googling his name.

  • Fareed

    This woman is not a limited government Republican and neither are any of the other Tea bags out there. All of them want to expand state powers in various areas.

    If you wanted to stop the Democrats then this crazy woman is not the route to go. The GOP had a chance to take the Senate but they just through out a sure-shot Republican Senator and are running someone likely to lose. In New York they nominated a fanatic on state control of reproduction who will have zero chance of winning. These crazies are going to make many voters think twice about throwing out the bastards they have in.

  • Myrhaf

    Fareed, you are correct that O’Donnell is a social conservative, but she has some good ideas on the economic side. We need Republicans who will stop Obama-Reid-Pelosi’s big government policies. Castle has a record of voting for the worst of those policies, so O’Donnell is the better choice, even if she is a longshot.

    In the unlikely event that O’Donnell tries to outlaw masturbation, I will fight against her with one hand on the keyboard.

  • Fareed

    Myrhaf

    Even if I grant your premise, which I don’t, the conclusion is wrong. You say you need Republicans who will stop Obama. Except that the Republicans, to do that, would be much stronger if they held the Senate. It was going to be close there, O’Donnell will guarantee the GOP keeps the Senate. Even a liberal Republican would be better to accomplish your goal as they would hand control of the Senate to the GOP. Second, O’Donnell is contaminating the free market brand with her nutty ideas. She is discrediting the very economic policies you want.

    We heard this same sort of logic when it came to Dubya and look at all the harm he did because people said they had to stop the Democrats. All they did was strengthen the far left in the DP while discrediting the Republicans, allowing the Far Left Democrats to take power. This logic backfired badly before. And it is just as faulty today as it was then.

  • Embedded I

    Fareed, I have not done anything like an exhaustive look at O’Donnell’s campaign positions, but it certainly appears the media is prepared to talk about anything else but. All the more so if what they find they can use to make her look ridiculous. As Myrhaf noted, they took no time at all to start that practice when a Republican makes news.

    O’Donnell wants to eliminate two important taxes to help business recover. That alone is stunning, and outweighs any masturbatory, witchery or truck-stop coffee habits she may or may not have. She also wants to maintain the GWB tax cuts, at least temporarily.

    Let’s hope that enough people in Delaware get that message, stop playing the kindergarten game of gossip-phone, and run Coons out of Delaware.

    Let’s hope it gives small government voters the belief that their vote for small government will actually lead to that result. At last they can feel their vote counted!

  • Fareed

    Allow me to quote the statement that O’Donnell made and then dissect it for you. Here is how the LA Times reported her statement

    “Yes, I have my personal beliefs,” she said when asked about her views. “These are questions from statements I made over 15 years ago. I was in my 20s and very excited and passionate about my new found faith. But I can assure you, my faith has matured. And when I go to Washington D.C., it will be the Constitution on which I base all of my decisions, not my personal beliefs.”

    She says the statements were made when she was young. At that time she had a “new found faith,” which means a belief system she adopted wholesale from dead books without any intellectual scrutiny. But “I can assure you, my faith has matured.”

    What does that mean? Previously she held beliefs without reasons, on the basis of faith. Now she has a mature faith, which means what? How does the mature faith differ from the youthful faith? Faith is faith, it is still not reason.

    The second half of her statement is meant to address how she would vote on issues. It too avoids indicating anything of substance. She says that she will base all her decisions on the Constitution. Whoopee! What a meaningless statement!

    If there is one thing that most politicians agree upon it is that they all think they vote according to the Constitution. Believing the Constitution is like believing the Bible. It means nothing. Why is that?

    We can all debate what the Constitution means and we each come to our own conclusions. O’Donnell can happily vote for moralistic legislation, if offered the chance, and still proclaim she is within the Constitution as she sees it. The problem is that we have no idea how she sees the Constitution.

    Here are the sort of questions that O’Donnell needs to be asked before her invocation of the Constitution has any merit whatsoever.

    Does the Constitution permit government schools imposing religion on students in state schools?

    Are sodomy laws regulating the private sexual lives of consenting adults constitutional?

    Do the states have the right, according to the Constitution, to violate individual rights, in ways that the federal government does not?

    Were state laws forbidding interracial marriage constitutional?

    Are state laws forbidding same-sex marriage constitutional?

    In what ways are these two issues constitutionally different?

    Does government, at any level, have the constitutional power to ban sexually-explicit material?

    Does government, at any level, have the constitutional power to wage a war on drugs?

    As long as the politician doesn’t get forced to be more precise these weasel statements do a wonderful job of pulling the wool over the eyes of the voting public.

  • madmax

    Here is a link to O’Donnell’s speach.

    http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1092041

    Yes she is a Conservative but her speech is still more inspiring than anything I have heard from mainstream Republican politicians. Her speech gets good at around the 4:00 minute mark. I can’t count how many times she said the word liberty. Does any mainstream Republican even use the word liberty anymore. Also, she stressed limited government with few mentions to god. God was in there but the emphasis was on shrinking government.

    I think the non-Leftists of Delaware would be foolish not to vote for this woman regardless of her views on masturbation.

  • Fareed

    Everybody uses the word liberty. That conservatives use it a lot, but don’t mean it, doesn’t make them good.

    I wouldn’t vote for this clown anymore than I would the Democrat. Neither one believes in freedom no matter what rhetoric they use.

  • dismuke

    “I wouldn’t vote for this clown anymore than I would the Democrat.

    Well, Fareed – that just so happens to be the only alternative you have – the Republican or the Democrat. You also have the option not to vote. And in a normal year, I would say that would be an option worth considering – and one that I have taken plenty of times myself. And in a normal year, I would be receptive to your points.

    But this is not a normal year. We just so happen to be in a state of emergency .

    Let’s see…. we have just had socialized medicine imposed on us. Socialized medicine kills people. It kills people while they are on waiting lists. It kills people via death panels because monsters such as Dr. Ezikiel Emmanuel, (an Obama adviser) deems some people’s lives “too expensive” to save relative to their “social value.” It kills people by starving off innovations that could lead to life saving innovations – innovations I am hoping to come along to enable me to live a happy, healthy life in to my 150s or beyond.

    We have a regime in charge right now that resorts to STALINIST tactics as its default approach to any situation. Look what happened to the Chrysler and GM bond holders – and the fact that Obama got away with it. Look at the BP “shakedown.” Look at Kathlene Sibelius’s recent threat to health insurance companies that “misinformation” from them “would not be tolerated” – and, by “misinformation” she means any statement of fact the health insurance companies state against ObamaCare.

    Quite frankly, right about now, I don’t really care if O’Donnell speaks in tongues. As long as she is a vote in favor of dismantling ObamaCare, as long as she is a vote against Cap & Tax and all the other totalitarian agendas being rammed down our throats by the Left, as long as she is a vote for the drastic spending cuts that are going to be necessary to prevent a total economic meltdown in this country (assuming it is not already too late) – well, at this point, we are in a position that we are desperate to have enough people to stop what is happening.

    Mike Castle, quite frankly, sides with the totalitarians on Cap&Tax, on spending and is very iffy about getting rid of ObamaCare.

    You can recite O’Donnell’s negatives all day long. You can explain how conservatism is not our friend. You can explain how, in the long run, O’Donnell’s agenda is dangerous in its own right and will lead to just a different flavor of totalitarianism. You could make such a case and I might very well agree with it. But, at this point in time, it is also utterly irrelevant.

    Worrying about the long run is kind of pointless if you may not live long enough to see it.

    If I am drowning and someone suddenly throws me a life preserver and a rope, I am going to grab it. I am not going to refuse it because the person who is throwing it has a shady character. I am not going to dither and wonder if the person might try to murder me sometime after I make it safely to shore. Maybe they will. But right how the immediate threat is I am about to go under and drown. So my only real option, if I choose to live, is to grab that rope and worry about dealing with the person who is throwing it once I get to the shore.

    Make no mistake about it: Obama and his ilk are totalitarians. They act like totalitarian whenever they get a chance. Look at their regard for free speech. Look at the Sibelius example I just mentioned. Look at the attempt on the part of that ugly cow from ABC News, Linda Douglass who was Obama’s healthcare propaganda minister and attempted to get American’s to snitch on their fellow citizens by asking the to forward “fishy” emails to the White House. Look at their failed attempt to isolate Fox News and deny it access to major government officials – an attempt that failed because it was so blatant an attempt at censorship that it alarmed even the Walter Duranty Media networks which stood up for Fox despite the fact that they despise Fox.

    The ONLY thing that matters right now is this: the totalitarian push by Obama/the Left MUST be stopped. If it is not stopped all bets are off. There is no long term to fight for – only a very nasty and painful collapse in which many hundreds of thousands or even millions of people might die. A full blown Weimar or Zimbabwe style economic meltdown in the United States would result in the collapse of the entire West. It would be a disaster without precedent. One cannot wipe out 50 or a 100 years of economic progress in an economy as vast and far reaching as ours without a massive number of people losing their lives in the process.

    That is the very real threat we find ourselves staring right in the face. In such a situation, the ONLY objective is to remove that immediate threat. If we fail to do so, then there is no long run to fight for. All there will be is bloody chaos. If we stop Obama now, then we have a CHANCE to turn some of the damage back and MAYBE buy us some time to fight for a better future.

    Right now, I will gladly accept O’Donnell’s help in fighting off Obama – and will gladly do so knowing that, at some point down the road, she and her ilk will also need to be fought off.

    Obama is an immediate threat. The bad sort of conservatives are a longer term threat.

    Right now, that is our ONLY choice – to fight off the immediate threat that wishes to kill us now or the long term threat that, based on their premises, will likely turn against us down the road.

    In such a situation, the ONLY choice one has is to take care of the immediate threat and HOPE that you can survive long enough to reach the day when you can focus on dealing with the long term threat.

  • Fareed

    ok, i will rethink this matter over

  • Andrew Dalton

    I think that there is a qualitative difference in what we should look for in a presidential or other executive candidate, versus someone running for the House or Senate. In the former case, the individual has a lot of leeway in setting broad policy, and so the person’s underlying philosophy is more relevant.

    But in the latter case, we’re looking for someone who will cast the right votes. As Dismuke said, we need to have a majority in Congress that will NOT pass cap-and-trade, NOT pass more health care regulations, NOT pass massive new spending bills — and it would be nice to repeal some of the mess that we already have, too.

    Unless a Republican legislative candidate has a record of spearheading dangerous legislation (e.g., John McCain), I’m inclined to support such a person in order to reverse, or at least whittle down, the Democratic majorities in Congress.

  • No Place at our Table — The New Clarion

    […] The Right in America consists of two incompatible elements: religious theocracy, and Americanism (a general term which includes Objectivists).  The Tea Party is an uprising of the latter group; it is a revolt, however incomplete, against the expansion of government power.  As such, it has caused great consternation on the part of both the Left and the Right, religious and/or conservative. […]