• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dems thrilled as tea party win stuns Delaware GOP

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,655
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
An Associated press story just out.

Not only are the Dems thrilled the GOP leadership won't lift a finger to help Kristin Murray, O'Donnell saying she has no chance of winning.

It's worse than that a former campaign Mgr. has made accusations of the prior miss use of Campaign funds.

I say the GOP is making a mistake that will cost them in the short term if not the long run. I for not will not lend any support of any kind to the National Party.

As to local Republicans I know I can count on Congressman Jerry Lewis because I know him personally. All others will depend on their attitude toward Tea Party Candidates.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZaC_s19dWrLVffA3Ucntv9dWp4QD9I8BBOG0

By RANDALL CHASE (AP) – 16 minutes ago

WILMINGTON, Del. — The state Republican Party's fierce attacks on tea party-backed Christine O'Donnell offer Democrats plenty of ammunition in the U.S. Senate race after her shocking upset of a nine-term congressman and former Delaware governor.

Democrats watched for weeks as U.S. Rep. Mike Castle and O'Donnell pummeled each other in an ugly contest that didn't let up even in the final hours when her own party launched automated phone calls attacking her.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Remove the second HTTP://

Ah thanks I feel dumb.

Anyway I think its a good article and I agree with O'Donnell when she talks about "Republican cannibalism" except I think her and other Tea Partiers are to blame. This is exactly what I've been talking about in several recent posts about compromise. Castle was willing to compromise with Dems and follow his voters, but because of that he didn't get everything a typical Republican would want in a candidate. The response apparently from enough Republicans in Delaware was to replace him with someone who would promise to give them, the Republicans, everything they want... if elected. And thats the problem, the majority of Republican voters in that state have "We are unwilling to compromise" and its going to cost them the election in Delaware and result in a candidate whos even more far off from what that majority wanted. So in the end, they'll get even less of what they want to see from a Senator.

Compromise is required!
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
76,519
Reaction score
32,395
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ah thanks I feel dumb.

Anyway I think its a good article and I agree with O'Donnell when she talks about "Republican cannibalism" except I think her and other Tea Partiers are to blame. This is exactly what I've been talking about in several recent posts about compromise. Castle was willing to compromise with Dems and follow his voters, but because of that he didn't get everything a typical Republican would want in a candidate. The response apparently from enough Republicans in Delaware was to replace him with someone who would promise to give them, the Republicans, everything they want... if elected. And thats the problem, the majority of Republican voters in that state have "We are unwilling to compromise" and its going to cost them the election in Delaware and result in a candidate whos even more far off from what that majority wanted. So in the end, they'll get even less of what they want to see from a Senator.

Compromise is required!

Compromise is a valid concept...just not when it comes to principles. Too many politicians compromise in that arena. The voters arent at all unclear about their expectation...the majority of conservatives in Delaware dont want a democrat but they also dont want a RINO. The 14 trillion dollar hole we are ALL in and that our great great grandchildren will have to pay is the bi-product of politicians compromising.

And on the subject of compromise, what is being offered in return, or is compromise a one way street? I think far too often when democrats and The One clamor for republican compromise...well...how does Mandy Patinkin say it in "The Princess Bride"..."You keep saying this word. I do not think it means what you think it means." They arent looking for compromise, they are looking for capitulation.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And yet while you're saying "Compromise is required" you're ignoring the fact that the GOP in the state are refusing to "compromise" by acknowleding that their voters didn't want their candidate and actually giving that candidate support.

Frankly, McDonald IS listening to the voters. The republican voters in that state are saying "We'd rather someone with staunch conservative values and who will run on those and push those, even if he may not win, then someone that has a better chance at winning but is going to do little good at actually furthering our desires and hopes for the country". Frankly, I see nothing wrong with that.

Haven't people been bitching and complaining for years that elections are voting for the "lesser of two evils"? And now that people are actually saying "Fine, we want someone based on principle NOT based on who has the best shot to win" suddenly we're condemning them for that and complaining about not choosing whose the most politically advantageous candidate?
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
And yet while you're saying "Compromise is required" you're ignoring the fact that the GOP in the state are refusing to "compromise" by acknowleding that their voters didn't want their candidate and actually giving that candidate support.

Frankly, McDonald IS listening to the voters. The republican voters in that state are saying "We'd rather someone with staunch conservative values and who will run on those and push those, even if he may not win, then someone that has a better chance at winning but is going to do little good at actually furthering our desires and hopes for the country". Frankly, I see nothing wrong with that.

Haven't people been bitching and complaining for years that elections are voting for the "lesser of two evils"? And now that people are actually saying "Fine, we want someone based on principle NOT based on who has the best shot to win" suddenly we're condemning them for that and complaining about not choosing whose the most politically advantageous candidate?

Bravo sir, BRAVO! I couldn't have better said it myself.
 

tlmorg02

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
3,347
Reaction score
1,078
Location
Louisville, Ky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I keep hearing you guys talk about what the Delaware voters want, but lets not forget this was not a general election, and in that arena O'Donnell is way too extreme for the moderate majority. Last night you saw GOP primary voters split in two, those who thought that the incumbent had it in the bag and did not turn out, and those motivated tea-party members who pulled-off a victory.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I keep hearing you guys talk about what the Delaware voters want, but lets not forget this was not a general election, and in that arena O'Donnell is way too extreme for the moderate majority. Last night you saw GOP primary voters split in two, those who thought that the incumbent had it in the bag and did not turn out, and those motivated tea-party members who pulled-off a victory.

So says conventional wisdom. BUT, here was a case of the people of Delaware, whom are Republican's sending a clear message they want a real difference to vote for. How that runs out in the General we'll just have to wait for Nov. to find out. But the Republican Voters (they live in Delaware too ya know) have spoken. Why do you act as if they don't count?
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
76,519
Reaction score
32,395
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I keep hearing you guys talk about what the Delaware voters want, but lets not forget this was not a general election, and in that arena O'Donnell is way too extreme for the moderate majority. Last night you saw GOP primary voters split in two, those who thought that the incumbent had it in the bag and did not turn out, and those motivated tea-party members who pulled-off a victory.

Which is why some of us said several threads ago that the republicans likely will not win a majority of either the hosue OR the senate.

So maybe the republicans lose and they have to reassess...do we keep promoting the same partisan ideologies that have contributed to the 14 trillion dollar debt or do we start actually being fiscally conservative? This may be a good lesson for them for 2012.

I highly doubt the republicans would have seized control under any circumstances...we have seen far too many shenanigans of late...but even if they had...what do you think they would have done different? Ever watch Blazing Saddles? They all harumph with the best of them...but what have they actually DONE?
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And yet while you're saying "Compromise is required" you're ignoring the fact that the GOP in the state are refusing to "compromise" by acknowleding that their voters didn't want their candidate and actually giving that candidate support.

Frankly, McDonald IS listening to the voters. The republican voters in that state are saying "We'd rather someone with staunch conservative values and who will run on those and push those, even if he may not win, then someone that has a better chance at winning but is going to do little good at actually furthering our desires and hopes for the country". Frankly, I see nothing wrong with that.

Haven't people been bitching and complaining for years that elections are voting for the "lesser of two evils"? And now that people are actually saying "Fine, we want someone based on principle NOT based on who has the best shot to win" suddenly we're condemning them for that and complaining about not choosing whose the most politically advantageous candidate?

I understand your point, but I'm speaking from a purely pragmatic perspective. If you wanted to advance your principles further and into the national arena you have to consider electability, now Castle may not have done everything you wanted but he would so some things you'd find positive as a public official. O'Donnell won't get a elected and therefore won't do anything.

But certainly yes there is something to be said for sticking to one's beliefs if they are held that dear, perhaps I've lost my perspective to how that can be an admirable quality in many ways. And there's something positive to be said for voting for a candidate you respect most even if they won't be elected. And there's something to be said for the fact that voting for 3rd parties or candidates who dont follow their party lines will change the system if they are elected. I've probably been clumping together tea partiers too much and losing some of my focus in my own stereotypes and smugness.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I understand your point, but I'm speaking from a purely pragmatic perspective. If you wanted to advance your principles further and into the national arena you have to consider electability, now Castle may not have done everything you wanted but he would so some things you'd find positive as a public official. O'Donnell won't get a elected and therefore won't do anything.

I definitely get the pragmatic approach. I think my issue is, the Republicans have tried that over and over again since the late 90's. They tried that with the last Presidential candidate even. What's happened? They either lose, or they get people in there that get few things conservatives really like done while doing a lot of things that we don't like and essentially telling us "Deal with it". They've also not exactly been WINNING elections on this notion either, in part because its depressed the turnout and the enthusiasm as our elected officials get up to Washington and are seemingly only marginally better than the other side.

While not pragmatic in the short term, I think it could be very pragmatic in the longer term. There's a chance that by presenting an actual viable alternative and actually attempting to preach and stick to conservative ideology that over time some of these places that are unlikely to be wins could shift to places where there's at least an outside shot...which, frankly, is all they have under the "pragmatic" route now really. And if that happens then suddenly, while taking some losses over time, you have the shot at some point to get someone that ACTUALLy will represent you.

I guess the difference is...

If your daily expenses are $20 a week and you're in debt $1000, it'd be pragmatic in the short term to take a job that's offered to you that'll pay $100 over the next 5 weeks. Its not exactly a GOOD situation, but it at least gives you your daily expenses and pays off a bit of your debt. However, its so small and negligible that you're still going to generally be feeling the affects of that debt for a good long time.

Now, same situation, but you get told that if you keep yourself unemployed and open for the next 4 weeks there's a decent chance you may get a job paying $1000 a week. This is a gamble, as you're going to have to really skimp and deal with a bad situation as for 4 weeks you can't pay your daily expenses and in the end you may not even get what you are hoping for. However, if it works, that hardship will lead to an oppertunity where not only will you pay off your debt quickly but you'll have money on top of it.

To me, both can be intelligent based on ones situation and how much they want to gamble.

To me, the pragmatic approach you speak of for voting in a place lik delaware is example one. You MAY possibly get elected at times, and when you're elected they may vote in your favor for a handful of "key issue" votes, but for the most part they're not really doing much to really help get you where you're wanting to go...mainly its just keeping you afloat. I see this as more like the second example, the calculated gamble in hopes of better long term affects. Sure, it may result in some losses and routes, but the chance at the end is that you may actually have a shot to do what you need in total plus some.

To me, the pragmatic approach has been failing over and over and over again for conservatives. Its time to gamble.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I definitely get the pragmatic approach. I think my issue is, the Republicans have tried that over and over again since the late 90's. They tried that with the last Presidential candidate even. What's happened? They either lose, or they get people in there that get few things conservatives really like done while doing a lot of things that we don't like and essentially telling us "Deal with it". They've also not exactly been WINNING elections on this notion either, in part because its depressed the turnout and the enthusiasm as our elected officials get up to Washington and are seemingly only marginally better than the other side.

While not pragmatic in the short term, I think it could be very pragmatic in the longer term. There's a chance that by presenting an actual viable alternative and actually attempting to preach and stick to conservative ideology that over time some of these places that are unlikely to be wins could shift to places where there's at least an outside shot...which, frankly, is all they have under the "pragmatic" route now really. And if that happens then suddenly, while taking some losses over time, you have the shot at some point to get someone that ACTUALLy will represent you.

I guess the difference is...

If your daily expenses are $20 a week and you're in debt $1000, it'd be pragmatic in the short term to take a job that's offered to you that'll pay $100 over the next 5 weeks. Its not exactly a GOOD situation, but it at least gives you your daily expenses and pays off a bit of your debt. However, its so small and negligible that you're still going to generally be feeling the affects of that debt for a good long time.

Now, same situation, but you get told that if you keep yourself unemployed and open for the next 4 weeks there's a decent chance you may get a job paying $1000 a week. This is a gamble, as you're going to have to really skimp and deal with a bad situation as for 4 weeks you can't pay your daily expenses and in the end you may not even get what you are hoping for. However, if it works, that hardship will lead to an oppertunity where not only will you pay off your debt quickly but you'll have money on top of it.

To me, both can be intelligent based on ones situation and how much they want to gamble.

To me, the pragmatic approach you speak of for voting in a place lik delaware is example one. You MAY possibly get elected at times, and when you're elected they may vote in your favor for a handful of "key issue" votes, but for the most part they're not really doing much to really help get you where you're wanting to go...mainly its just keeping you afloat. I see this as more like the second example, the calculated gamble in hopes of better long term affects. Sure, it may result in some losses and routes, but the chance at the end is that you may actually have a shot to do what you need in total plus some.

To me, the pragmatic approach has been failing over and over and over again for conservatives. Its time to gamble.

Here is the problem - Without a little pragmatism, the Republicans are going to fizzle. With it, the sky is the limit.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here is the problem - Without a little pragmatism, the Republicans are going to fizzle. With it, the sky is the limit.

Dan, the Base, is tired of your version of "pragmatism" and have spoken. We, as a whole, are tired of being forced to vote for candidates that are "pragmatic" and when they win they turn on the base, they "walk across the aisle" or vote with the Dem's on big issues.

What good is pragmatism when it doesn't make a difference, doesn't work for your goals?
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
But so what if the sky is the limit if those candidates don't support what you support? It doesn't make a difference at that point.

Besides, what polls would make you think that because these conservatives are winning primaries that they won't win the election? I would think that fiscal conservatism would appeal to almost all Americans (though cutting spending might not be, but it doesn't seem as though other candidates care about the budget).
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,930
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
The two party system needs to die off. Though to be honest, I wonder if the country is smart enough to let it die off. Alot of people use it as a crutch when voting, voting for a candidate just they are a republican, or a democrat.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here is the problem - Without a little pragmatism, the Republicans are going to fizzle. With it, the sky is the limit.

Two things...

1. There is a large difference between a little pramgatism and letting pragmatism be your focus which has been the case with the majority of the NE states over the past few years. A little pragmatic is realizing not to push certain conservative issues hard or as a focus in a state like that. Pragmatism being your focus is when you push for someone whose like the democrat, only not AS big on gun control/spending/tax increases/social services/etc than them. IE "I'm a republican, cause I don't want to go as far as the democrat does".

I have no issue with pragmatism. I think you can have a little pragmatism and still be stuanchly conservative however.

2. To me, fizzling in this years election isn't a huge deal if its leading to a more wide spread shift in how the Republican party operates and the candidates it looks at in the long run
 

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,655
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am very encouraged by the number of people who are looking forward to the Tea Party Candidates victories. What it means to me is we do have hope for RESTORING AMERICA before Obama finish his reign of terror against the Constitution, and the complete destruction of our economy.

We just have to stay on course and not allow the 5th column Lame Stream Media interfere with their lies and Obama worship and propaganda.

The Democrat Party has been riding rough shod of the Congress and Senate long enough and the Republicans have been too timid to really fight back with a few rare exceptions.

Now is the right time in History for this Tea Party movement to forge ahead and make some History of it's own, and they can or should I say "WE THE PEOPLE" CAN!
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Dan, the Base, is tired of your version of "pragmatism" and have spoken. We, as a whole, are tired of being forced to vote for candidates that are "pragmatic" and when they win they turn on the base, they "walk across the aisle" or vote with the Dem's on big issues.

What good is pragmatism when it doesn't make a difference, doesn't work for your goals?

Yeah....lets see how many elections Republicans are going to win with only their base. Good luck...I hope the GOP follows your strategy.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
And yet while you're saying "Compromise is required" you're ignoring the fact that the GOP in the state are refusing to "compromise" by acknowleding that their voters didn't want their candidate and actually giving that candidate support.

Frankly, McDonald IS listening to the voters. The republican voters in that state are saying "We'd rather someone with staunch conservative values and who will run on those and push those, even if he may not win, then someone that has a better chance at winning but is going to do little good at actually furthering our desires and hopes for the country". Frankly, I see nothing wrong with that.

Haven't people been bitching and complaining for years that elections are voting for the "lesser of two evils"? And now that people are actually saying "Fine, we want someone based on principle NOT based on who has the best shot to win" suddenly we're condemning them for that and complaining about not choosing whose the most politically advantageous candidate?

i think you have to ask WHY some of these candidates don't have a chance to win. because a person espouses "tea party values" doesn't mean they are qualified for office. the system is working how it's supposed to work. in the case of O'Donnell, if republican voters think she's best for the job, they will vote her. personally, i think she's shady and opportunistic, THAT'S why she doesn't stand a chance. if the Tea Party came up with better candidates, they would get republican party support, or they would be a viable third party.

the issue here is the quality of the candidates, imo.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
76,519
Reaction score
32,395
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
i think you have to ask WHY some of these candidates don't have a chance to win. because a person espouses "tea party values" doesn't mean they are qualified for office. the system is working how it's supposed to work. in the case of O'Donnell, if republican voters think she's best for the job, they will vote her. personally, i think she's shady and opportunistic, THAT'S why she doesn't stand a chance. if the Tea Party came up with better candidates, they would get republican party support, or they would be a viable third party.

the issue here is the quality of the candidates, imo.

What were the qualities of Joe Biden that made him a good senator?
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,100
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
It strikes me, from the outside, that the Tea Party has created a very serious problem, not for the Democrats, but for the Republican Party, as a whole. The TP seems to represent just a faction of Republican thought, and one that is more polarising than the more mainstream party's platform as a whole. Die hard Rep activists seem to be very enthusiastic about it, hence these primary results, but there is a danger of the activists misreading right-of-centre America's dissatisfaction with Obama and the Dem-controlled congress as an endorsement of the most radically right-wing agenda of the TP. This happened to the British Labour Party in the early-Eighties. Activists wanted a return to fundamental socialist values and the failure of the 1974-1979 centrist Labout government seemed to suggest to them that more ideological purity and 'conviction' politics was what was needed. It turned out badly and Labour remained out of power for 18 years. The GOP might be in danger of repeating this mistake.

Having said all that, it might be a good thing for American politics in general to have a very clear space of daylight separating the two parties. The voters might welcome a more obvious election between a secular, technocratic liberal manifesto and a more fundamental conservative, strongly religious one.

These primary results have made November's elections suddenly much more interesting to the outside observer.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
What were the qualities of Joe Biden that made him a good senator?

wouldn't you have to ask delaware voters that question? i like biden for many reasons, his family life, his stance on issues, his willingness to go his own way.

but he's not running, and the bigger issue is why ISN'T O'Donnell electable?
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
wouldn't you have to ask delaware voters that question? i like biden for many reasons, his family life, his stance on issues, his willingness to go his own way.

but he's not running, and the bigger issue is why ISN'T O'Donnell electable?

We don't know if O'Donnel isn't electable this year. All we know is that to republicans in that state, O'Donnell is MORE electable than Castle. The only reason we "know" O'Donnel "Isn't" electable is because the establishment GOP and the media are saying it. Then again, they were saying it prior to the primary and how correct were they then?
 
Top Bottom