A Case for Mike Castle
Our reader Alex in Denver reminded us that William F. Buckley, Jr. once said that Republicans should nominate the most conservative candidate who can win. And that is one reason why I, who cheered when I learned Lisa Murkowski conceded to Joe Miller in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate, am joining Ace and Paul Mirengoff at Powerline in backing moderate Republican Mike Castle in the GOP primary to serve out the balance of Joe Biden’s term in the United States Senate.
“Alaska“, Allahpundit reminds us, “is a red state, of course, and even so, Miller’s eventual victory still isn’t quite fully assured.” Delaware hasn’t gone Republican in a presidential contest since 1988. Alaska hasn’t gone Democratic since 1964.
And much as we may grouse and groan about Castle’s imperfections, he voted against the “stimulus”, against Obamacare (and favors its repeal) and supports extension of the Bush tax cuts.
As Ace puts it:
Mike Castle will vote against us on 30% of stuff. You will not like him. I will not like him.
But I will like him better than the Democrat Coons, voting against us on 88% of stuff. And yeah, in a blue state, with a strong Democratic majority, he can afford to be one of the solid liberal votes for Obama’s socialist agenda. Because he is notgoing to have to worry about losing his seat for voting too liberal.
In a similar vein, Paul at Powerline opines:
I will say the following, though: (1) Delaware Republicans aren’t as conservative as Alaska Republicans, (2) O’Donnell seems like a less attractive candidate than Miller, and (3) unlike Miller, O’Donnell has little chance of winning in November, so Castle’s defeat in the primary would likely mean that the Dems hold a seat they have been expecting to lose.
Simply put, you can’t get an ideal candidate in every state. In Alaska, a solid libertarian conservative can win, but in Delaware, probably not.
12 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Right…the Bush tax cuts. Can’t wait to see how we can keep those, not cut defense spending, not cut Medicare or Social Security, and reduce the deficit, right Republicans? It’ll all come out of what? Cuts to the arts and foreign aid? I keep waiting to hear specific programs that the GOP will cut. Still waiting…
Comment by Mike — September 3, 2010 @ 1:14 am - September 3, 2010
He voted against Obamacare and the so-called “stimulus”? Good enough for me.
Mike, as for you: You must not be listening very hard.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 3, 2010 @ 3:16 am - September 3, 2010
(i.e. Mike the silly commentor – not Castle
)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 3, 2010 @ 3:24 am - September 3, 2010
A senate with 30 Mike Castles would be okay, as long as there were 60 Jim DeMints to keep them in line. (And ten Al Frankens… just for the entertainment value.)
Comment by V the K — September 3, 2010 @ 7:07 am - September 3, 2010
I do not know Delaware politics at all. But–having said that -if this
O’donnell criter wins in the primary could that mean there is real energy out there to defeat the democrat–or is this state too DINO or RINO
Comment by martin J smith — September 3, 2010 @ 7:30 am - September 3, 2010
While I do think Mike Castle has the best chance of winning in November, he vote for TARP and has said a vote to repeal Obamacare unlikely as it would be a waste of resources. If he wins, lets hope he changes his stance.
Comment by LeeHinAlexandria — September 3, 2010 @ 7:58 am - September 3, 2010
In general I agree with the principle that it’s better to have, say Scott Brown than Martha Coakley. But Castle will cast a critical vote in favor of cap-and-trade, which will be the final nail in our economy’s coffin. Perhaps a better analogy is that we as a society have had a noose around our neck with the legislation passed, and Castle’s going to kick the chair out from under us. Plus, I hold a big grudge against a republican (ino) who sponsors a semiauto weapons ban. Add to that his position on federal funding of embryo destruction…. It’s not even that he votes against you, but the way he throws it in your face and takes so much pride pissing off conservatives. Re-election is one thing, but giving him a promotion? Nope.
Comment by BadIdeaGuy — September 3, 2010 @ 8:43 am - September 3, 2010
Right…the Bush tax cuts. Can’t wait to see how we can keep those, not cut defense spending, not cut Medicare or Social Security, and reduce the deficit, right Republicans?
Actually, it’s already happened, Mike.
The Bush tax cuts were implemented in 2001 and 2003.
Defense, Medicare, and Social Security spending stayed the same and, if anything, increased.
What happened to deficits and tax revenue?
Tax revenue hit record highs and deficits fell dramatically.
Which is completely consistent with economic research from (ironically) an “approved” Obama Party economist.
In a recent paper Christina and David Romer (forthcoming) find a much larger multiplier. According to their estimates, a tax cut equivalent to 1% of US GDP raises output just over 1% within a year, but the magnitude amplifies in the following periods to reach an effect of nearly 3% after three years. The effect is highly statistically significant and stable over time.
But why would we expect you to be informed on these matters? You’ve already made it clear that real gays and lesbians like yourself only care about one thing, and that is a politician’s support of gay-sex marriage.
And that doesn’t really matter either, as we see from your wholehearted endorsement of politicians who don’t.
So basically put, Mike, you’re out there spouting Obama Party talking points that are completely and totally non-factual, apparently willing to humiliate yourself in this matter for a party that you claim supports gay-sex marriage, which is the only thing that you say matters to you, which others can clearly see does not.
Why should people respect you? You portray gay and lesbian people as being irrational idiots, unswayed by facts or reality, who blindly attack other people as being “homophobic” for doing what you endorse as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when your Obama Party does it.
Seriously, you are Al Sharpton.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 3, 2010 @ 12:08 pm - September 3, 2010
All we have to do is reset government employee salaries and other domestic spending to their already-too-high baselines of 2006 (pre-Democrat), and several hundreds of billions would come off the Federal deficit.
Reset to their already-too-high baselines of 2000 (pre-Bush), and even more comes off.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 3, 2010 @ 1:46 pm - September 3, 2010
My mentor in politics said it slightly different, I prefer a Republican who votes with us 30% of the time to a Democrat who votes with us 0% of the time. If we are to be a big tent we need to keep noderates but not liberals e.g. the late Jacob Javitz. But the R after a senator´s name is important. We should never forget how the balanced shifted after Senator Jeffords declared independent and went caucasing with the Dems. That R helps a Republican president to name conservative judges to the SCOTUS. If McCain had been elected, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagen wouldn´t be on the bench. Just think a 40 year legacy by Barak Obama. God forbid that he should have a chance at another appointment.
Comment by Roberto — September 3, 2010 @ 2:00 pm - September 3, 2010
It kind of gets back to something I’ve long thought about Dan’s cheering for Carly Fiorina. If you want to make the case that she won’t be as bad as Boxer, I can buy that. (A brain damaged box turtle would be a better senator than Barbara Boxer.) But trying to sell her as the second coming of Ronald Reagan… um, no.
Comment by V the K — September 3, 2010 @ 3:07 pm - September 3, 2010
To balance the budget , just institute a 10% across the board cut in all programs. 60% of Americans still get little from govt.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 3, 2010 @ 7:49 pm - September 3, 2010