Councilman
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2009
- Messages
- 4,454
- Reaction score
- 1,657
- Location
- Riverside, County, CA.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.
Link doesn't work
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!
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?