Arlen Spector would be so proud of you John.

John, what exactly is the point of “winning” if you're not going to overturn Obamacare? It's not like we're going third party, or even asking the Republican party to change its ideology or policy positions. We just want, for the first time in modern history, for the GOP to ACTUALLY stand for what is SAYS it stands for. If the Republicans acquire power and DON'T put a repeal bill on the table (which they won't if Castle is the 51st vote), the entire party is toast and we'll be back to Obamaland in 2012.

John is busy channeling his inner “Newt” and showing the world what squishy really means.

Seriously if john is a true conservative i am so far to the right I don't think there is a “title” you can slur me with.

I understand both points of view here, but I have to lean with John.

Think of it this way. This seat has been solidly Democrat for 40 years. The conservative candidate has no chance of winning. Put a moderate Republican in the seat and give them people a chance to see how well a red tory (what we call right leaning centrists in Canuckistan) will work over that of an outright lieberal. Move the state to the right with the RINO, then down the road you may have a chance with a more conservative candidate.

I don't know whether or not Castle will legitimately be able to derail a repeal of Obamacare on his own. But if you only have 50 seats without Mike Castle, looks like your chances would be even lower, to me.

Here's my take, and it may not be a popular one: I am ready for this exhausting battle of ideologies that has been going on my entire life to play itself out. I no longer believe this country can move past its current set of problems and set a course for the future with one foot in two opposing ideologies. One side eventually has to win and one has to lose. Moderate politicians obstruct the ability of this battle to conclude itself, and therefore, though I'd prefer conservatives and libertarians always win out, if that's not possible I'd rather see a liberal in a seat than a moderate, becausae the liberals will at least provide the ideological leverage to carry the battle forward. Obama/Reid/Pelosi have done immeasurable harm to this country, but they have at least brought this battle closer to a conclusion than Bush and the RINO's ever did. Let's get on it with it.

“You don't change the country for the better by losing elections.”

You don't change the country for the better by selling out your principles just to get votes for Liberals with an “R” after their names, either. What the hell has happened to you, John?

“Put a moderate Republican in the seat and give them people a chance to see how well a red tory (what we call right leaning centrists in Canuckistan) will work over that of an outright lieberal.”

What does that mean, “how well a [moderate Republican] will work?” You mean how well he will work with Democrats to push Obama's agenda just like any other Liberal? We don't need and don't want kind of “working well,” thank you.

“To put conservative principles into action, we have to get people elected to office.”

You mean, Conservative people. So-called “moderates” will not put Conservative principles into action; they despise our principles even more than Democrats do. Conservatives should help moderates get elected just like blacks should help KKK members get elect… oh, wait; they do, and look how well that's worked out. So now we Conservatives should help people who despise us, give us lip service during elections, then do everything in their power to keep us in our place once they get elected? I don't think so.

This is really an election about two bad choices. Castle is an establishment RINO looking to use the seat as a victory lap for his political career. O'Donnell is by all available information, a rather unaccomplished and disorganized pretender that has never held elected office and really has no business running for US Senator if we're going to contend that experience and qualifications matter.

The more I think about it the more I want to say screw Castle. O'Donnell has no resources and it's an auto-win for the Democrats, but Castle is exactly the kind of career insider left-veering politician we want to purge from our ranks. Castle and Democrat Chris Coons are virtually carbon copies of one another, only Castle has been around longer.

It may be worth submarining Castle to send the message to the GOP, even if it costs us the Senate majority (which realistically it won't anyways). Better to concentrate on the House which has proven reliable conservative leadership than to hand the RINO establishment the keys to the Senate by electing another phony career RINO.

“I believe it's better to have a hammer with a cracked handle than to have no hammer at all.”

That is until you take a big swing with the broken hammer and it flies off and hits you in the face.Then it would have been better to have no hammer at all.Thats the feeling I get everytime a RINO flies off and joins the Dems to give them political cover for one of their asinine proposals that they force upon the taxpayers.

Give me a true conservative candidate anytime or let the Libs stay there and show how dumb they really are.

“O'Donnell has no resources and it's an auto-win for the Democrats”

Then it's an auto-win for the democrats either way, but I'd rather have an honest Democrat in that seat than a lying, backstabbing closet Liberal with an “R” after his name.

Agreed. Reagan has been the only real setback to the liberal agenda (seeing as the liberal agenda began with Woodrow Wilson).

Get on with it! (Monty Python accent)

John, let me put it to you this way: 24 hours ago I had never heard of Christine O'Donnell, and was paying exactly zero attention to the Delaware Senate race. But after hearing the crecendo of establishment Republican talking heads at NRO and elsewhere coming out of the woodword to lecture me that the conservative couldn't win and I should support the RINO, I went out of my way to find O'Donnell's website and chipped in $10 this morning.

I mean that if you can convince Delaware to move a little bit to the right, you have a better chance of electing an actual conservative next time around. While John McCain supported the bailouts, he was also one of those who stated that Freddy and Fanny needed to be reigned in, and so few listened.

I realize that the more polarizing you make the parties, the better the battle will go. However, America is already ridiculously divided. Do you want to divide it even more?

I really see it is six of one, half a dozen on the other on this issue. I think that neither option will help you in this matter, and I'm just barely, by only a sliver, leaning towards John's argument. I figure that having someone even 9 steps to your left is better than someone 10 steps to your left, and every little bit you can move the voters to the right helps.

In the end, neither option is going to do that much good.

Ditto. The people should be made to choose.

“You don't change the country for the better by losing elections.”

I think Barry Goldwater might beg to differ.

“I mean that if you can convince Delaware to move a little bit to the right, you have a better chance of electing an actual conservative next time around.”

 

I could see your point if Castle were anywhere near the right. He's an Obama Liberal, and that “R” after his name is a lie.

 

“While John McCain supported the bailouts, he was also one of those who stated that Freddy and Fanny needed to be reigned in, and so few listened.”

 

John McCain is another person I would have greatly preferred to lose to his opponent in the primary, and, were I an Arizona resident, I would not vote for him against an honest Democrat.

 

“Do you want to divide it even more?”

 

Sure, that's exactly what I'm after. I've said it a million times: I want to divide the country by only supporting Conservatives instead of Liberals who pretend to agree with me just to get my vote.

 

Note: That was sarcasm, in case you missed it.

The left right spectrum only has a few ideologies that span large areas of the spectrum.
On the left:
<commie-><-Nazi-><theocracy><———-Lieberal———->
The Lieberals make up the largest section of the left, but go too far and you hit the theocratic and dictatorial.
The Middle:
<blue dog=”"><centrist><rino red=”" tory=”">
All sides about the same length on the center spectrum (not proportional to the size of the left spectrum, left spectrum is much larger).
The Right:
<———-Conservatives———-><libertarians><anarchists>
Conservatives make up the largest portion of the right spectrum.

The theory here is that the farther left you go, the bigger the government, and the farther right, the smaller the government. Libertarians and Anarchists actually make up very, very small portions of the right spectrum.

Within each grouping, there are variations, with subgroups that have variations.

I just realized I should write an entire article on this. <-this was an ADHD moment

John, I believe, is slightly left of the conservative middle, about where I put the 'e' or 'r'. You're certainly still a conservative, but it has to be recognized that conservatives actually have a very wide spread of beliefs, as do lieberals. There are certain uniting principles in each major group, but still numerous differences among the groups, and subgroups of the major groups.</anarchists></libertarians></rino></centrist></blue></theocracy></commie->

Stupid auto HTML

Pretty awesome

If the seat is lost by a democrat, th people spoke they dont like the way democrats run things.
Giving them a milk sop rino is only going to keep the status quo and give them a reason to distrust GOP who they will rightly feel will say anything to win and wont stick to their platform.

I have been called anarchist before.
I think that is a lot closer to what I am than the conservatives that John speaks for.

The conservative candidate has no chance of winning.

See, that's the thing. We don't really know if that's true anymore. Voters are really angry with the Democrats and a lot of infamously liberal seats are up for grabs. More than even the most optimistic polls would indicate, IMO. Who's to say the conservative has “no chance”?

Here you go…

Dear xxxxxxxxx,

We would like to thank you for your generous donation of $10.00. Your support makes it possible for us to continue our mission. We encourage you to ask your friends to donate at https://secure.piryx.com/donate/ObyCSaw9/Friends-of-Christine-ODonnell/fresh.

A receipt of your donation is included with this email.

Thank you,

-Christine O'Donnell Campaign Team

I believe I, too, could spare $10 of my hard-earned cash to help a Conservative win.

Respect has nothing to do with it: disagreeing with wing-nut erickson is ALWAYS the best thing to do. This self-serving, arrogant, full-of-himself huckster actually thinks he's somebody important in the conservative movement. NOBODY who is important in the conservative movement agrees – with good reasons.

BTW: erickson is now also support rino phony fiorina in california! Apparently he thinks we need more despicable rino traitors in the Senate; the current FRACKING-FIVE of AMNESTY-JOHN mccain, scott brown, collins, snowe and graham are NOT ENOUGH.

You know what….we heard this same argument LAST TIME and the R got majorities in both houses….and what did they do? JACK CRAP. All they did was try and do whatever they could to keep their jobs.

Did the shrink government and eliminate easy stuff like the Dept of Education? NO, they were gutless RINOs

Did they eliminate any entitlements? NO they were gutless RINOs and just 'reduced' them. Screw that, your either for them or think they should be eliminated.

Did they do ANYTHING to actually advance the conservative agenda? NO.

We don't need another EMPTY USELESS majority in congress that will do nothing.

They lost the majority LAST TIME because they did nothing, showed they were gutless pro-big government, democrat-lite and the public punished them for it.

>has never held elected office and really has no business running for US Senator

You have your priorities mixed up.

In my world that is +10, in your republican establishment world I guess that is -1.

As usual, when it comes to principles, CavalierX and President Friedman are the ones who are correct here.

It is better to lose with someone who you actually have idealogical faith in then to support someone who can win, but torpedo a bill/filibuster or crossover later.

A moderate Republican is not going to support the kinds of reforms you conservatives are talking about making.

If you are going to lose, then lose big. Don't lose with a wimper. Don't sell your soul for a few seats. Because later you will then be complaining about how Republicans aren't listening to you.

My point being is that she has zero record so there's no way of really knowing how she would vote if in office.

I know this story was featured on Rush today so O'Donnell is suddenly the Great Conservative Hope, but you can't tell me she's a qualified or ideal candidate in any way.

That being said, I do agree she's better than the turd sandwich/giant douche duo of Castle and Coons. Just because I'm not leaping onboard her bandwagon doesn't make me an “establishment Republican”.

How many time do you have to be told Vega. We do not take advise on which candidates we shoudl run from a pathetic Liberal partisan hack like you!

How many times do you have to be told, Stan?

I really don't give a shit what you take, or don't take.

Then stop wasting our time and John's bandwidth with your mind-numbingly STUPID advise on what candidates we do or don't need to run.

I am doing what I always do. State what is correct.

It's an accurate observation. Not advice.

It is more of the usual steaming pile of crap that you excrete on this board daily, Vega. Do you think anyone here care what a pathetic partisan hack and America-hating coward like you thinks we shoudl do about candidates from our side?

Your advise is as meaningless as you are Vega. So keep it to yourself.

You seem to care, Stan. That's why you are always sweating me.

I don't care how much you sweat when you respond to my posts, Vega. It is enough that you continue to rush back in and prove yourelf to be a fool.

there are still a few posters here that thing you have a bit of credibility left. But I'm sure you'll take care of that very soon.

And still you sweat me. You said your opinion of my post, now get on with your life.

Thank you, D=Vega.

Ford lost to Carter. Carter was arguably the worst president of the 20th Century. And the damage he did lives on until this day. But he made possible Reagan, and the good Reagan did is, IMO, vastly greater than the bad that Carter did.

So, too we can hope for Obama. A true Conservative takeover of the R party with a balanced budget, an end to the genocide of babies, and someone able to stop Iran from starting Nuke War 2 while recanting on the health care bill would IMO be worth Obama.

Honestly, I did miss the sarcasm, el oh el.

I guess I need more information on the race, but how far left of Castle is the Obamacrat candidate? If it really isn't that far to the left, then you still run into six of one, half a dozen of the other.

“I guess I need more information on the race, but how far left of Castle is the Obamacrat candidate? If it really isn't that far to the left, then you still run into six of one, half a dozen of the other.”

Well, now; that's a very good question. And here's the answer: http://tinyurl.com/2797ecr It's the official record of the times Castle has voted against his party in the last couple of years, and on which bills. And it's a very long list.

I have one more thing to say to John Hawkins on this subject before logging out for the night: a quote about which he seems to have forgotten.

“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.”

- Ronald Reagan

I believe it was also said that a Republican could never win Ted Kennedy's seat

So with the conservative candidate trailing that far, it really doesn't matter whether the RINO (which looks more like a spy than a RINO to me) or the Obamacrat wins.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

I actually figure you're right on the tip of the right of the conservative spectrum, just before the libertarian spectrum. The anarchists don't actually have a spectrum. You're either an anarchist or you're not. Contrary to popular belief, the people that run around torching police cars aren't anarchists. Anarchists heavily oppose actions like that.

A couple of strategic points. A) Being ten points down to Coons while in a competitive primary is not at all hopeless. Of course, making up those ten points would depend on the endorsement of Castle & co. & building on the momentum of the primary win. Granted, the odds would still be against her, but realistically in this year, I think she'd have about a one in three chance of actually winning. To me, this meets Buckley's test of voting for the most conservative electable. B) Yes the Republican party is the tool we need to use to elect conservatives and pass legislation and having a warm body listlessly voting the right way on key votes having a Dem in there. But the problem is that Castle & his like do not just plug a whole in the front lines. He & his ilk erode the morale of the army as a whole, making it harder to recruit more troops and fight & win the key battles. Thats the big picture that we hard core pubs get accused of not seeing, when in fact I see the voter as comparable to the ruthlessly effective general who may need to order his panicky, fleeing RINO troops be shot rather than lead to chaotic retreat. That, BTW, will stiffen the spines of other RINOs otherwise inclined to get chummy with their colleagues on the other side and in the media. Just look at Graham & McCain of late.

Now, this all said, reasonable people can differ on the particulars of a particular set of candidates in a particular state. Still, there is major value in forcing RINOs to pay the only real price there is in politics-losing.

D, we may disagree on our beliefs, but when it comes to primaries.. you're right here… conservatives HAVE to take a stand somewhere. (as shown in Alaska for instance).

John, what happens when the next “Moderate” is a little more to the left… Oh, that's okay, he's still better than the Leftist… then the next one.. is a little more.. and a little more.

When do you say no to moderates? When they're exactly the same as the leftist you want out? By which point, it's too damn late.

And Miller had NO chance of taking out Murkowski… And Dewey defeated Truman.. yeah, those “no chances” never happen (yes, I know about the Dewey / Truman thing.. it was sarcasm :) )

I don't get this belief by John on the anti-O'Donnell it makes _zero_ sense, no matter how many tries he tries to spin it any way.

“So with the conservative candidate trailing that far, it really doesn't matter whether the RINO (which looks more like a spy than a RINO to me) or the Obamacrat wins.”

 

What matters is that we Conservatives should not support the RINO.