Skip to content

How About… Shock Therapy On The Delaware Primary

2010/09/06

Eric Dondero’s Libertarian Republican is reporting O’Donnell’s run in the Delaware Senate Republican primary.  Libertarian-leaning Michelle Malkin joins the fray.

Now the estimable William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection jumps-in:

Prof. Stephen Bainbridge and Dan Riehl have been debating the Delaware Senate Republican primary, and whether it is worth electing “RINO” Mike Castle.  Bainbridge says yes, Riehl says no.

I don’t know enough about Castle or Christine O’Donnell to weigh in on whether Castle is a RINO or O’Donnell is a true conservative — but both Bainbridge and Riehl implicitly assume the point.  I also don’t know about whether Castle is a sure thing in the general election, and O’Donnell a likely loser — again, Bainbridge and Riehl implicitly assume the point (although Bainbridge more so than Riehl).

So, assuming Castle is a RINO yet significantly more likely to win in a general election, what to do?

I say, vote for the candidate you prefer, and let the electoral chips fall where they may.  That is so now more than ever.

William Jacobson notes that from a partisan view, it’s rather a no-brainer.  With the Senate remaining largely in Democratic control, electing a RINO such as Castle isn’t a strategic advantage.

I’ll add this thought:  The value of Christine O’Donnell for the Senate is twofold. Firstly, it is a libertarian-conservative challenge to the squishies in the GOP and a morale boost to voters tired of the GOP’s Quigley contingent.

“So, assuming Castle is a RINO yet significantly more likely to win in a general election, what to do?”

Secondly, that is not a sound assumption.  When push comes to shove, “centrists”, “moderates” and “independents” – whether independent or aligned – will vote for their liberties and their pocket books.  The ascendancy of Ronald Reagan demonstrated that it is an error to assume that in order to capture “the middle” one must prop a “centrist” candidate.  Given a decent Manichaean choice, those voters in the middle will split – the majority with the libertarian conservative.

Mike Castle doesn’t represent much of a choice on either plank in the long run.  If O’Donnell sells her message well, a lot of those seeking liberty and prosperity will vote with her.  To paraphrase Jacobson… “Shocking.”

6 Comments leave one →
  1. 2010/09/07 02:55

    Castle is a RINO. Had to be, he voted for DISCLOSE. O’Donnell is inexperienced, but these days, that works to our favor. I mean, how smart do you have to be to listen to the people and read the Constitution?

  2. 2010/09/07 12:00

    I’m with you, Liberty Belle. Reminded me – I’m now starting-in on Federalist #1. Where the Constitution says “what”, the Federalist Papers say “why.”
    Cheers

  3. Nikita permalink
    2010/09/08 06:52

    Nice place! Thanks to Bob Belvedere for pointing it out.

    Have to side with Riehl. While it’s been said we should vote for the most conservative candidate that can win, I respectfully disagree. Sounds good, but is just too similar the LOTE approach to voting. Following that path leads to more like Snowe, Collins, McCain or Graham. Or Castle. RINO’s will never learn, never change, so long as conservatives can be counted on to fold, then hold our noses and vote for whichever R is deemed more “electable”.

    I’ll send my support to Christine. Let the electoral chips fall where they may.

  4. 2010/09/08 11:43

    Nikita,
    Thanks for your thoughts.
    I’m confident that we’re seeing something akin to Reagan’s situation: He offered a real choice. It was a winning strategy. There is just no real advantage to looking at the RINO when O’Donnell is out there.

Trackbacks

  1. Si Vis Pacem Is Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em « The Camp Of The Saints
  2. Right Reading Round-up 9-7-10 at Maggie’s Notebook « Daily News

Leave a comment