How to Throw Away a Senate Seat

September 14th, 2010 at 11:51 pm | 132 Comments |

| Print

Jim DeMint, Mark Levin, and the Tea Party Express have declared war on America.

The Republican Party is being hijacked by those who care more about inflating their egos than stopping the destructive Obama agenda. If we agree as Republicans — and I think we can — that failed stimulus packages, phony healthcare “reform,” and subdued attitudes abroad are bad for the United States, then we must conclude, as a matter of basic logic, that an axis of egotists worked against American interests last night.

If there were any evidence that Mark Levin and Jim DeMint cared about promoting conservative principles, I might retain a modicum of respect for them. But what we witnessed in Delaware last night was not the elevation of Christine O’Donnell: it was the purging of Mike Castle. Christine O’Donnell is a quixotic, fraudulent, gold-digging liar with no job and no accomplishments. DeMint and Levin would endorse Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if he promised to purge the party of RINOs.

It is true that Mike Castle supports cap-and-trade. So does Chris Coons, who, thanks to the Tea Party, is about to coast to what will probably be a cushy, lifetime job in the Senate. Castle, however, unlike Coons-style liberal Democrats, voted against Obamacare, against the stimulus package, and in favor of Republicans to fill the all-important House leadership positions. Chris Coons will be one more vote in favor of Harry Reid for majority leader (I would have written Chuck Schumer, but thanks to the DeMints and Levins of the world, that too is in doubt). Spare me any nonsense about Christine O’Donnell’s ability to win: she can’t win, and she doesn’t deserve to. The only Republican in Delaware who could win that seat is Mike Castle, and his career came to a shocking and humiliating conclusion last night.

Republicans from deeply-red states like South Carolina and Alaska are utterly ignorant of what it actually means to sacrifice moderates on the altar of purity. Hailing from states where people like Christine O’Donnell and Joe Miller regularly win statewide elections, DeMint and Palin are completely unable to comprehend the real-world consequences of their actions. Republicans in left-leaning states like Delaware and neighboring Maryland — my own home state — quickly learn to compromise with moderate and center-right candidates like Mike Castle and the victorious Bob Ehrlich. When we blue-state Republicans nominate unelectable candidates, we actually have to live out the consequences: here in Maryland, we have put up with years of the tax-raising, government-expanding leadership of Martin O’Malley, and few Republicans here are interested in going through another four of them in the name of “purity.” We in the blue states are the ones who suffer the greatest consequences of out-of-state propaganda from the likes of DeMint.

Stopping the Obama agenda is not on the minds of Jim DeMint, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party Express. The only agendas this band of narcissistic posers care about are personal ones: how they can inflate their egos and fatten their wallets — even if it means flushing a Senate seat down the toilet.

Recent Posts by Alex Knepper

132 Comments so far ↓

  • Fairy Hardcastle

    Gramps, it’s easy enough to declare for yourself that you should never have been born, but to say that your granddaughter should have never been born when is she is standing in front of you. . . . I doubt that.

  • WillyP

    You’ll drive yourself nuts. I don’t know why you bother believing this “Gramps” is who he says he is.

  • CO Independent


    My incisive thought is that you are a moron completely incapable of reading comprehension. My statement stands for itself. It neither mentions Israel nor makes any assertions about independents, Democrats, or their faith or commitment to secular government. Those are your words.

    If you want to traverse the assertion that the Republican Party can’t succeed without the Christian wing of the Party, then you need to provide a path to electoral success for Republicans without the votes of the Christian wing of the party. I’ll be waiting.

    The explicit anti-Christian animus and antisemitism in your posts are both duly noted. I suspect you are well received in the Democratic Party. Knepper should join you.

  • WillyP

    For good measure, fuel to the fire, and to put those who supported TARP on the defensive:

    “The number of banks missing payments on bailout money they got from the U.S. government has jumped and the Treasury Department is starting to get tough.”

  • Fairy Hardcastle


    I guess because I have a pseudonym I tend to believe what everyone says about themselves. Anyway, I thought it was interesting discussion thread regardless of Gramps’s actual life circumstances. It seems to me when it comes to these issues of abortion or overpopulation it is always easier to state a position in the voting booth then when you are actually in front of the person you are saying should have been contracepted or aborted. It’s something like those abortion clinic workers who quit when they have to take the remains of babies out to the trash.
    But I thank you for your comment and for your constant devotion to true conservatism.

  • Gramps

    Fairy Hardcastle // Sep 15, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    As I stated earlier…you have proposed a difficult conundrum…

    I can only speak for myself…my granddaughter’s choice would and should be her own…
    I would respect her commitment or lack there of… to her unborn child.

  • WillyP

    Thanks, FH, I try…

    Don’t expect to see me much after election day. I’m checking out for a long while and filling my time with something more inspiring than rebutting twits.

  • Gramps

    @WillyP // Sep 15, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    Hey Willy…
    Who am I…?

    Golly gee, that might be something even I, might like to comprehend…
    Am I Godot…
    Am I a fool…
    Will my ship ever come into port…

    OK, OK…
    I know …will my ship ever sail…
    Many years ago in Thailand; I dreamt about sailing a “trimarine” around the world…
    Was I wrong…?

  • WillyP

    Sorry Gramps, I ain’t no Oedipus Rex… perhaps someone else can solve your riddle.

  • Gramps

    @WillyP // Sep 15, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    It ain’t gonna be the same without yah…

  • Fairy Hardcastle


    I hear you. It will be a fascinating election season, one I hope that turns out well for conservatism.

    In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy your posts.

    Gramps, well this is what I would say if my granddaughter asked that question: “No of course not, I would have told my daughter not to abort you.” Of course, the granddaughter’s follow-up would be something like, “Well, why am I any better than the innocent girl inside of me?” To which I would have no good answer.

  • WillyP

    “Our choice is not between good and bad; it’s between terrible and worse,” Greenspan said. The nation has “a level of commitment … which I don’t think we can psychically [sic] meet,” absent huge changes in how the government finances itself.

    I have not one nice thing to say about Mr. Greenspan, trust me… but when he comes out in favor of raising taxes because our choice is between “terrible and worse,” we should all thank the Democrat Congress for ruining our economic future, for a good, long time.

    FWIW, it would be better to CUT SPENDING AND TAXES, hence raising revenue so we can pay off the remaining debt, rather than to raise taxes. We are in such deep doo-doo economically that it’s hard to overstate.

    We all better hope we emerge from this crisis without a currency crisis, though it’s looking more and more likely. Thanks Pelosi, Reid, and Barry! The Three Stooges… if we add Bernanke, we can make it the Four Horsemen.

  • Rabiner


    “CUT SPENDING AND TAXES, hence raising revenue ”

    Tax Cuts don’t pay for themselves. Leave fantasy land pronto!

  • WillyP

    You are mildly endearing in your most dedication to earnestness. Which is why I am somewhat surprised that you do not acknowledge the “CUT SPENDING” half of what I just wrote.

    Cut spending by 20%. Cut taxes by 10%. There you have it. A recipe for recovery.

  • Rabiner


    As someone claiming to be knowledgeable of economics I was surprised by your comment. I didn’t have to take into account the spending cuts since spending cuts have nothing to do with revenues. Only taxes do and tax cuts don’t pay for themselves.

  • WillyP

    If I’m running $50 short on my weekly budget, I can do what? Cut my spending by $50; Earn another $50; or some combination of both, correct?

    Cutting spending will reduce our outlays (this is tautological). Cutting taxes will spur growth (this I believe to be true because you are giving the productive sector, i.e. the private sector, additional resources).

    Think about what this really means…
    1) The government spends less in real terms, leaving the private sector with more resources TODAY (or whenever the spending cuts take effect, whatever).
    2) Less money is siphoned off profits, providing additional incentives.

    Tax cuts are GOOD when they are affordable because they give people their money back!

    Cut spending by 20%. Take half of that SAVED money and pay down the debt. Take the other half of that saved money and use it to create an across the board tax reduction for individuals and companies.

    At a Federal budget of what, $3.5 trillion/year, we’d be talking $700 billion/year. $350 billion could be used to pay down debt, and $350 billion could be returned to the private sector.

    As the economy expanded as a result of the tax cuts, our revenue would increase. We’d again be on solid financial footing.

  • MSheridan

    WillyP, I’m assuming that you are referring to cutting tax revenue by 10%, not tax rates, right? I mean, they’re not very close to being the same thing. That being the case, what is your proposal to reduce revenue 10%?

  • WillyP

    More specifically, I’m talking about a 20% reduction in spending, and returning half of that to the private sector.

    As to how this money should be allotted, that’s the job of a government tax analyst. I would prefer reducing income taxes and corporate income taxes.

    Having said that, while we’re pie-in-the-sky, we might as well phase out income tax and institute a national sales tax. It’s a much cleaner system and doesn’t punish earning. It also doesn’t break up citizens into classes, which is exactly what income tax does.

  • WillyP

    I guess I should add, unlike the army of delusional bloggers here, I am not going to scribble off a detailed plan as if I have all the answers right in front of me. A presentable, viable plan would take months of study and analysis.

    I am proposing the framework it should take – 1. cut spending 2. use saved money to pay off debt 3. use saved money to return to tax payers

    Someone who is paid $175K by the taxpayers should figure this out. (but they won’t)

  • Rabiner


    Do tax cuts pay for themselves? That’s all I want to know from you. While I agree with the concept of the Laffer Curve at extremely high tax levels, we are not at extremely high tax levels now (historic lows actually). Because cutting taxes when coupled with larger reductions in spending can balance the budget it does not factually increase revenues.

  • WillyP

    you ask me to answer a counter-talking point. i won’t do this. it’s senseless and offends my erudition.

  • Rabiner


    I know you hate income taxes and business taxes. Personally I hate the current business tax code too and would love to see current business taxes being eliminated and instead implementing a VAT. VATs cannot be avoided by business like current taxes can through offshore tax shelters. In addition to removing the ability to avoid taxes, it is far easier to comply with a VAT over the complicated tax code businesses currently operate under.

  • Rabiner


    Yes it is a counterpoint. I want you to simply say ‘Tax Cuts do not pay for themselves’ and thus your earlier comment saying that revenues would increase with tax cuts and spending cuts (which have nothing to do with revenues) was incorrect.

  • CO Independent

    This just popped up on my Yahoo page. So much for the Tea Party = Lunatic Fringe meme, unless of course you consider 40% of likely voters the lunatic fringe:

    >> At the same time, 40 percent of likely voters call themselves tea party supporters, and most of them lean toward Republicans while nearly two-thirds have a deeply negative impression of Democrats. That means the GOP could be in strong shape on Nov. 2 if tea party backers turn out and vote Republican. That’s what they’ve been doing so far this year: The grass-roots, antiestablishment movement can claim wins in at least seven GOP Senate races, a handful of Republican gubernatorial contests and dozens of House primary campaigns.

    O’Donnell might be a bit of a fruitcake, but I have to admit I am enjoying this immensely. It is creative destruction at work.

  • ktward

    CO Independent: My incisive thought is that you are a moron completely incapable of reading comprehension.

    I’m pretty sure that ad hom doesn’t qualify as incisive thought. But I’m amused nonetheless.

    Actually, I think you and I have a bit of miscommunication between us.
    You’re absolutely correct, in that the GOP would not be what it is today without its decades long pact with the Religious Right. I’ve outlined this very fact on many FF threads.

    I was simply pointing out — since you brought up the GOP’s Christian bloc in the first place — that not all Christians belong to the GOP’s RR voter base. A considerable number of them don’t. (I can provide links, if you like.)

    Oh. And I guess I was also pointing out that you are, at least symbolically, The Keeper of The List of Conservative Principles. Do you object to this duty?

    Seriously, I have a hard time keeping track, and you conservatives are bloodying one another over this very basic issue. If there exists another symbolic appointment you believe more worthy of this duty, by all means point them out. Fairy, maybe? Carney? franco 2? Or how about Knepper? Or Frum, even? After all, choosing Frum seems at least the most polite choice, given that it’s his blog. But I don’t want to presume. This is an important List. Is there any reason you wouldn’t proudly assume this mantle?

    Given the source, I’m not at all offended by your unfounded slur against me of anti-Semitism.
    By your standards (as I glean from your posts), many of Forward’s regular contributors would be considered anti-Semitic.

    FWIW, I support both Israel and the USA*, but I grant neither of them a blank check when it comes to foreign policy, specifically when it comes to unilateral action: the realities of our global village no longer afford us the luxury of a blind eye.

    *And because I suppose it must be said, given recent events, I support the rights of US Muslims: the same rights that are likewise Constitutionally granted to every other law-abiding Religious practitioner. Equally, I’ve particular disdain for veiled but insidious anti-Muslim messaging, the likes of Peter Worthington.

  • CO Independent


    You’re right, my observation isn’t incisive. It is plainly evident from your posts, as are your biases.

    If you have a counterpoint to my argument, which appears unlikely, I am willing to hear it. I have never bantered with you because I’m not religious and not interested in your “Religious Right” obsession drivel. I don’t expect that will change. Put up or shut up.

    But I do appreciate the fact that your anti-Christian and antisemitic messaging is explicit, rather than veiled. Wear it on your sleeve. At least you’re not a hypocrite.

  • Rabiner

    Co Independent:

    “But I do appreciate the fact that your anti-Christian and antisemitic messaging is explicit, rather than veiled. Wear it on your sleeve. At least you’re not a hypocrite.”

    He isn’t anti-semitic so why don’t you stop calling him that? I have very similar points of view regarding Israel regardless of the fact my family is Jewish (I’m atheist now but still culturally and traditionally am Jewish). No one wants to see a government impose policies that denigrate a minority or to act unilaterally with regards to occupying land that isn’t part of their country as recognized by the international community.

  • Rabiner

    Also I should add that it isn’t anti-Christian as so much as it’s taking the personal beliefs of Christianity and attempting to impose them politically which is un-American when you look historically at the separation of church and state in this nation’s history.

  • CO Independent

    >> He isn’t anti-semitic so why don’t you stop calling him that?

    Really? Here’s a link to the Wikipedia entries of the hundreds of active separatist movements, most of whom claim distinct ethnicity and ancestral lands in which they claim they are living under occupation as a discrete, oppressed minority. Yet in his post he singles out, completely unsolicited, only the “pro-Israel at any and all costs Zionists” for special condemnation. Strange, but not really. You might find some Ptolemaic logic to explain his quite singular interest in a territorial dispute. I’ll apply Occam’s Razor: he hates Jews.

    >> Also I should add that it isn’t anti-Christian as so much as it’s taking the personal beliefs of Christianity and attempting to impose them politically which is un-American when you look historically at the separation of church and state in this nation’s history.

    Don’t get me started on this, Rabiner. I’ve read your posts about your beliefs on this issue, and they are not founded in historical fact. If you are interested I will be happy to post a list of books to read, written from both sides of the current political spectrum, on the history of Church/State relations in the U.S. But be warned, reading them with an open mind will force you to moderate your views.

    Almost all law derives from normative values. All sorts of groups, including secular humanists, seek to influence the political, legislative, and judicial processes to get their values incorporated into the law. I can see no principled reason to exclude Christians from enjoying the same privileges every other group enjoys. Can you?

    On a personal note, I get a bit baffled by people who leave Judaism for atheism. Probably to my fault, I have never embraced Christianity because of the whole divinity of Jesus thing. But Judaism seems relatively easier, or at least requires fewer leaps of faith. In fact, atheism seems to require greater leaps of faith than Judaism. (Why is the gravitational constant precisely what it needs to be to keep the universe from imploding or expanding uncontrollably? I’ll be damned if I can explain that.) Why would you leave?

    I would ask to join, but the old joke about not wanting to be a member of any club that would admit me probably applies.

  • Rabiner

    CO Independent:

    Occam’s Razor doesn’t lead you to “he hates Jews” unless you have a predisposition to believe him a bigot to begin with. Sadly the evidence you provide is lacking considering you’re talking on a site whose founder is David Frum, a zionist who always backs Israeli policy regardless of the circumstance. Perhaps that’s why he singled it out? It would be a far better analysis than “he hates Jews”.

    “Almost all law derives from normative values. All sorts of groups, including secular humanists, seek to influence the political, legislative, and judicial processes to get their values incorporated into the law. I can see no principled reason to exclude Christians from enjoying the same privileges every other group enjoys.”

    There is a difference from Christians using principles which can have secular backing and principles based solely on dogma to make policy. As shown in the Walker ruling, Christian belief has no SCIENTIFIC or SOCIAL reasons behind it for denying same-sex marriage. Just like I don’t want the 10 commandments in my public spaces, schools to allow teacher led prayer, and so forth.

    Yes Judaism requires fewer leaps of faith and I’m glad I was raised Jewish since my Reform Temple was very progressive in preaching education and study to find truths to living as opposed to blind dogma. However I don’t believe in God because there is zero scientific basis for it. Show me proof beyond ‘since I can’t explain it with science it must be God’. Before Darwin we couldn’t explain much of evolution so creationism made sense. But after Darwin’s theory of evolution, creationism should of become extinct and antiquated (sadly many people cling to their faith over facts). You mention gravity and I’ll leave gravity to the Theory of Relativity which showed Newton to be wrong to a degree.

    Also my living in Russia allowed me to observe the way organized religion (Russian Orthodox Church in this case) took advantage of the poor in order to enrich themselves. It disgusted me and I decided the hell with organized religion which really is just a means to gain power for a select few. You don’t need a Church or Temple to have spirituality if you want it and you don’t need it to carry out Social Justice concepts.

  • DanL

    Fine article Alex. Keep up the good fight.

  • demscantwin

    The Democrats can run Castle next time. He will be a shoo-in just like Arlen Spector was.