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.
.
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 :/
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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."
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 don't think Castle is a sore loser; I believe he sees O'Donnell for what she is.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0910/ODonnell_backer_makes_sex_charge_in_Delaware_race. html
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....
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?
Where did Castle attack her "private" life?
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.
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
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.
.
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.
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.
.
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?