• 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!

Mike Castle Won't Endorse Christine O'Donnell

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Republican Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware will not endorse Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party-backed candidate who beat him in the GOP primary, CBS News has confirmed.

Mike Castle Won't Endorse Christine O'Donnell - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

A few points:

1. Scores another goal on his own team.
2. So much for ahhhh... being a Big-Tent Republican.
3. Sore loser. Politics is a rough sport; he's proven himself to be a whiny *****.

Good riddance.

As an aside: I notice CBS and others like to say she is "Tea Party-backed"... which is fine. I only wish they would write their stories about Obama (and Dems) with Alinsky-Styled, ACLU-backed, ACORN-backed, Rev. Wright mentored etc.

.
 
Last edited:

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
90,644
Reaction score
29,133
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
He doesn't play well with others.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A few points:

1. Scores another goal on his own team.
2. So much for ahhhh... being a Big-Tent Republican.
3. Sore loser. Politics is a rough sport; he's proven himself to be a whiny *****.

Good riddance.

As an aside: I notice CBS and others like to say she is "Tea Party-backed"... which is fine. I only wish they would write their stories about Obama (and Dems) with Alinsky-Styled, ACLU-backed, ACORN-backed, Rev. Wright mentored etc.

.

I don't know why this is a big deal. After all, they don't share political views. That's why the primary was so heated, after all - Castle is more socially liberal than O'Donnell is. So why should a politician who doesn't share political views with a candidate be forced to endorse a candidate?
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't know why this is a big deal. After all, they don't share political views. That's why the primary was so heated, after all - Castle is more socially liberal than O'Donnell is. So why should a politician who doesn't share political views with a candidate be forced to endorse a candidate?

Because the party is supposed to trump individual beliefs :/
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
90,644
Reaction score
29,133
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't have any huge problem with it. I am kind of interested to see what the view is of those that sat there in the primary threads chastising Republican voters and republican supporters of this for choosing to take an action that would essentially help the other side win. Because what he's doing is actively taking action that will help the other side. I'm just curious to see if they'll have equal condemnation for him.

To me its much like the race in NY. One, it shows the voters they may've made a good choice when the guy turns around and refuses to support the candidate that the people nominated. If he doesn't agree with that person politically and thus won't support them, then why should the people who nominated that person have supported the other guy in the first place? The New York one was even more telling because when faced between the democrat and republican the former GOP candidate sided with supporting the democrat, and yet people were SHOCKED that people would dare consider that person a RINO.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't have any huge problem with it. I am kind of interested to see what the view is of those that sat there in the primary threads chastising Republican voters and republican supporters of this for choosing to take an action that would essentially help the other side win. Because what he's doing is actively taking action that will help the other side. I'm just curious to see if they'll have equal condemnation for him.

Interesting question, makes me think because I was one of those people. I suppose you could argue that the purpose of being a member of a political party is mutual support amongst members, even if they were once competing. But at the same time we could use your arguement about personal beliefs being held higher than a desire to win. We've all seen democrats and republicans both support or refuse to support people they clearly disagreed with. So since there's no standard or rule, although there's certainly a expectation, in both parties to support the individual who defeats you, I guess its up to Castle himself. Luckily for Castle he seems to be generally on the side of the Republican party in not really supporting O'Donnell, if the Republican party were fully supporting O'Donnell than he probably would be encouraged/threatned with the possibility of lack of party support, similar to O'Donnell's situation now, in any of his future campaigns.

I suppose if I was in his place I would refuse to support her as well, since the pragmatic solution for him personally is to not support her. But if I was the leadership of the Republican party, and I was supporting O'Donnell, I'm be pushing Castle hard to support her for the betterment of the party. However since he doesnt seem to be getting forced by his party bosses, or money handlers, to support her he really has no motivation to do so, and neither would I in his situation. But then again if he had a real interest in seeing any Republican win, then he would have that motivation, although he's probably pretty bitter.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Exactly Wiseone.

I don't think there's any reason he should HAVE to.

But if you're going to condemn the consevative voters of Delaware for "essentially voting for the Democrat" or "not being pragmatic regarding the best way to get their views passed", then one would have to condemn Castle. Not putting his support behind O'Donnell hurts her chances of beating the democrat. Not helping her beat the candidate makes it less likely for Castles views to be passed.

You speak of various reasons why it'd be okay for Castle to not endorse her, and I agree whole heartedly with you on those. I just don't see it as being something where someone can support Castle doing this while condemning the people of Delaware for the election results.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,860
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I don't have any huge problem with it. I am kind of interested to see what the view is of those that sat there in the primary threads chastising Republican voters and republican supporters of this for choosing to take an action that would essentially help the other side win. Because what he's doing is actively taking action that will help the other side. I'm just curious to see if they'll have equal condemnation for him.

To me its much like the race in NY. One, it shows the voters they may've made a good choice when the guy turns around and refuses to support the candidate that the people nominated. If he doesn't agree with that person politically and thus won't support them, then why should the people who nominated that person have supported the other guy in the first place? The New York one was even more telling because when faced between the democrat and republican the former GOP candidate sided with supporting the democrat, and yet people were SHOCKED that people would dare consider that person a RINO.

My guess is that such a situation can easily backfire in an environment characterized by strong public disaffection with the current state of affairs. For example, the winning candidates who have been riding an anti-Establishment message could easily argue that the response of their defeated rivals proves that those candidates lacked any high-minded desire to serve the public. Instead, they sought office largely to preserve a status quo that the voters increasingly dislike.

In that narrative, rather than seeking to advance the public welfare, those defeated candidates were cynically seeking the Republican nomination as a vehicle to fulfill their own quest for political power at the expense of the voters' needs, desires and interests. They could argue, the lack of gracious post-election response by their defeated opponents, even implicit support of the political Opposition, finally unmasks their true motivations and that those motivations had very little to do with public service. As a result, the winning candidates could actually paint the losing candidates into an example of precisely what many perceive is wrong with American politics today: political leaders putting their interests ahead of those of the people, political leaders readily sacrificing principle in a selfish pursuit of their own power, and political leaders casting aside the public's desires to try to perpetuate a system that they have leveraged for personal advantage over many years while incumbents, etc.
 
Last edited:

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,057
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I don't have any huge problem with it. I am kind of interested to see what the view is of those that sat there in the primary threads chastising Republican voters and republican supporters of this for choosing to take an action that would essentially help the other side win. Because what he's doing is actively taking action that will help the other side. I'm just curious to see if they'll have equal condemnation for him.

To me its much like the race in NY. One, it shows the voters they may've made a good choice when the guy turns around and refuses to support the candidate that the people nominated. If he doesn't agree with that person politically and thus won't support them, then why should the people who nominated that person have supported the other guy in the first place? The New York one was even more telling because when faced between the democrat and republican the former GOP candidate sided with supporting the democrat, and yet people were SHOCKED that people would dare consider that person a RINO.

Maybe he simply thinks she's crazy.
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
40,296
Reaction score
11,692
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
My guess is that such a situation can easily backfire in an environment characterized by strong public disaffection with the current state of affairs. For example, the winning candidates who have been riding an anti-Establishment message could easily argue that the response of their defeated rivals proves that those candidates lacked any high-minded desire to serve the public. Instead, they sought office largely to preserve a status quo that the voters increasingly dislike.

In that narrative, rather than seeking to advance the public welfare, those defeated candidates were cynically seeking the Republican nomination as a vehicle to fulfill their own quest for political power at the expense of the voters' needs, desires and interests. They could argue, the lack of gracious post-election response by their defeated opponents, even implicit support of the political Opposition, finally unmasks their true motivations and that those motivations had very little to do with public service. As a result, the winning candidates could actually paint the losing candidates into an example of precisely what many perceive is wrong with American politics today: political leaders putting their interests ahead of those of the people, political leaders readily sacrificing principle in a selfish pursuit of their own power, and political leaders casting aside the public's desires to try to perpetuate a system that they have leveraged for personal advantage over many years while incumbents, etc.


Exactly! These RINO's are not fooling anyone anymore, and the destruction we see going on in our country to our constitution is happening on BOTH sides of the isle. IT MUST STOP!!!!! Castle was really no different than Arlen Spector (D-PA) jumping sides for political expediency. That game of his cost him, just as Castle's siding with the likes of Conyers and Feingold's impeachment aspirations backfired on him.


On June 11, 2008, which is to say the very next day, there was a vote on the House floor to refer the bill to the House Judiciary Committee for action.
The vote?
Aye -- 227 Democrats
Nay -- 166 Republicans
Mike Castle's sudden problem?
According to the Congressional Record, there were 24 Republican Ayes.
That's right. 24 Republican Congressmen voted to refer a resolution of impeachment of George W, Bush to the House Judiciary Committee for action. While 166 said no.
One of the 24 who gave a thumbs up to impeaching President Bush?
That's right.
That would be Congressman Mike Castle, Republican, of Delaware.

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Castle Vote to Impeach Bush?

But yet we continue to hear how we are gong to lose DE now that Castle isn't on the ticket? How is having him on the ticket a win?

Having 51, in terms of any legislation pass is not that big a deal. There really isn't any substantial difference in what will happen legislatively in the Senate between having it be Democrat-controlled or Republican-controlled with a razor-thin majority. Especially, especially when the Democrats will be able to count on the votes of Collins and Snowe and Castle. What good are 51 votes if a minimum of three of them are gonna vote with the Democrats all the time? Now you're down to 48 legislative. But, but you do have your committee chairmanships. A-ha! A-ha! You do have your committee chairmanships, and when you have committee chairmanships you have power! And the majority leader gets to decide what comes to the floor.

So you get your chairmanships, you get control of the floor action out there. But 51 seats doesn't guarantee your agenda is gonna pass. You got Snowe, you got Collins, you had Murkowski voting with the Democrats. McCain, for crying out loud, now that he won he's probably gonna revert back to that. (impression) That's right Limbaugh! That's right! Crossing the aisle, that's what I can do. That's -- that's what I do best." So you have McCain, Murkowski, Snowe, Collins, Voinovich sometimes, and then Castle. So what good is your 51 majority? It doesn't matter a hill of beans legislatively (gasp!) but you get your chairmanships. You get more control over the money and how it's allocated and spent. Oh-ho, yes. So you see, whereas you might think these people are as interested in saving the country, changing the direction we're going at may not be the primary reason they want to be there. The primary reason they want 51 votes is to get the chairmanships.

You're not hearing them talk about an agenda. You know, it's a tradeoff. Is it worth having Republican chairmanships if Obama's going to be able to claim bipartisanship passing his agenda? If that happens the GOP brand gets further destroyed. This is why RINOs are horrible.

Why Senate GOP Wants 51 Seats

it's time party partisan hacks, and DC wanna be insiders wake up....The natives are restless.


j-mac
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Exactly Wiseone.

I don't think there's any reason he should HAVE to.

But if you're going to condemn the consevative voters of Delaware for "essentially voting for the Democrat" or "not being pragmatic regarding the best way to get their views passed", then one would have to condemn Castle. Not putting his support behind O'Donnell hurts her chances of beating the democrat. Not helping her beat the candidate makes it less likely for Castles views to be passed.

I think that would be a question for Castle then. Perhaps in his view O'Donnell doesn't actually best represent, between her or the Dem, his views on whats best, or perhaps her views are best against the Dem's from his perspective but he's too bitter. Thats something only Castle could answer.

But if his personal views as to what he thinks is best line up better with O'Donnell's than Coons, than one would have to give him the same criticism I gave to the Republican primary voters to avoid being hypocritical. However if he's motivations weren't as noble as wanting to see the best, or closet to the best, things done and he was more of a politician, more concerned with winning, than he's actions wouldn't endure the same criticism because his goals would be different than the Republican primary voters. And not supporting O'Donnell would be more pragmatic if his motivation was securing a Senate seat rather than doing what he personally believes will do the most good, regardless if his opinions on whats best line up more closely with O'Donnell's than Coon's. That's assuming all of the Republican primary voters voted in such a way that they felt supported the best candidate, which I think is a fair assumption.

So it firstly depends on his personal views, and then it depends on what he's motivations are. But yes depending on how one arranges the variables it would be hypocritical for him not to endorse O'Donnell.
 

sokpupet

Active member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
252
Reaction score
81
Location
In your heart.
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
I don't think Castle is a sore loser; I believe he sees O'Donnell for what she is.


A conservative firm until recently employed by the Delaware primary campaign of conservative Christine O'Donnell against Rep. Mike Castle casually leveled an extraordinary — and unsupported — charge of a gay affair against Castle in a video posted to its website today, the ugliest salvo yet in an extremely bitter primary.

The newscast-style video on Liberty.com features a woman seated before a backdrop of Liberty.com's Las Vegas headquarters, criticizing Castle and praising O'Donnell.

"Isn't Mike Castle cheating on his wife with a man?" asks a voice off-screen at the 1:55 mark.

"That's the rumor," answers the newscaster. (A short clip of the exchange is above.)

My colleague Dave Catanese reported earlier this month that O'Donnell's spokesman, Yates Walker, works for Liberty.com, and the American Spectator described Eric Odom, the group's founder, as having "joined Team O'Donnell" to organize online support.

Walker told me he and the firm left the campaign two weeks ago and produced the video on their own.

"We asked the question, we didn't specifically say it," he said of the gay affair charge, which he said was "common knowledge" in Delaware. "We thought we'd throw it out there."

Walker said he had no compunction about repeating the rumor about Castle because "he's a threat to American sovereignty."

He didn't offer any evidence for the claim.

O'Donnell campaign manager Matt Moran didn't immediately respond to a call for comment.

Castle campaign manager Mike Quaranta didn't comment on the substance of the attack, but said in an e-mail:

"Sadly these are the types of gutter tactics that voters in Delaware have come to expect from Christine O'Donnell and her out-of-state supporters."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0910/ODonnell_backer_makes_sex_charge_in_Delaware_race. html
 

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I don't know why this is a big deal. After all, they don't share political views. That's why the primary was so heated, after all - Castle is more socially liberal than O'Donnell is. So why should a politician who doesn't share political views with a candidate be forced to endorse a candidate?

Because you are supposed to unite behind a candidate after the primary as the looser. Its painfully common practice.
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
40,296
Reaction score
11,692
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I see, so it is "gutter politics" to question is Castle is providing a little reach around, (which we all know wouldn't be unheard of lately, and sadly) in a campaign where Castle has engaged in attacking O'Donnell's private life? I see, I can do it but you better not....

It was a vicious heavily faught campaign, both sides hit under the belt a few times and no one can claim a "moral high ground" in regards to that.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
76,546
Reaction score
32,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't know why this is a big deal. After all, they don't share political views. That's why the primary was so heated, after all - Castle is more socially liberal than O'Donnell is. So why should a politician who doesn't share political views with a candidate be forced to endorse a candidate?

I sort of agree...the only difference being that MOST candidates support the victor in the party. Hell...Bill Clinton went from touting Obamas inexeperience and being called a racist to then speaking for him and promoting him as suddenly 'qualified'.
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
40,296
Reaction score
11,692
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Where did Castle attack her "private" life?

Going after her on the grounds that she had problems with personal finances at a point in her life may indeed seem relevant to the job in Senate, but it sure seemed smarmy.


j-mac
 

sokpupet

Active member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
252
Reaction score
81
Location
In your heart.
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Seems to me if you can't afford something then you shouldn't "buy in". To apologize for her mismanagement of her finances to the point of losing her home is juxtapose to the right's meme of fiscal responsibility.

Delaware politics: Tea party unconcerned about O'Donnell's money problems | delawareonline.com | The News Journal
~snip
During her 2008 Senate campaign against Joe Biden, O'Donnell amassed thousands of dollars in campaign debt, was confronted by the IRS about unpaid income taxes and sold her Wilmington home to a campaign staffer to avoid a sheriff's sale ordered to settle mortgage claims.

As of her last campaign finance report, O'Donnell still had $11,751 in unpaid campaign debt from her 2008 bid. Regardless, the conservative group remains committed to O'Donnell.

I don't consider it "going after her" to enlighten the voters of a candidates inability to manage their own personal finances. RE: Tim Geithner
 
Last edited:

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
Seems to me if you can't afford something then you shouldn't "buy in". To apologize for her mismanagement of her finances to the point of losing her home is juxtapose to the right's meme of fiscal responsibility.

Delaware politics: Tea party unconcerned about O'Donnell's money problems | delawareonline.com | The News Journal
~snip


I don't consider it "going after her" to enlighten the voters of a candidates inability to manage their own personal finances. RE: Tim Geithner

she's also a liar. but most of them are.
 

pragmatic

"Pawn in game of life"
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
2,221
Reaction score
1,031
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A few points:

1. Scores another goal on his own team.
2. So much for ahhhh... being a Big-Tent Republican.
3. Sore loser. Politics is a rough sport; he's proven himself to be a whiny *****.

Good riddance.

As an aside: I notice CBS and others like to say she is "Tea Party-backed"... which is fine. I only wish they would write their stories about Obama (and Dems) with Alinsky-Styled, ACLU-backed, ACORN-backed, Rev. Wright mentored etc.

.


Will be curious/telling if Castle comes out (either directly or indirectly) in favor of her opponent (Coons).....



.
 

pragmatic

"Pawn in game of life"
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
2,221
Reaction score
1,031
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It was a vicious heavily faught campaign, both sides hit under the belt a few times and no one can claim a "moral high ground" in regards to that.

Any idea how contested the nomination was on the Dem side of the picture? Was Coons involved in a heavily fought primary....?


.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't know why this is a big deal. After all, they don't share political views. That's why the primary was so heated, after all - Castle is more socially liberal than O'Donnell is. So why should a politician who doesn't share political views with a candidate be forced to endorse a candidate?

Because it shows some class.
Because you're supposed to be big enough to put a defeat behind you.
Because you rally around the representative of your party... no matter how badly it hurts.

His behavior merely proved the electorate was right.

.
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Because it shows some class.
Because you're supposed to be big enough to put a defeat behind you.
Because you rally around the representative of your party... no matter how badly it hurts.

His behavior merely proved the electorate was right.

.

Are you seriously suggesting that he should "rally behind her" just because she has an (R) after her name?
 
Top Bottom