Further thoughts on Castle vs. O’Donnell
I’ve got a very busy day today and have only had time to briefly skim the comments section. So this will be short. But to those who think I’m missing something about the long view, and believe I don’t understand why O’Donnell’s primary victory might be a good thing, I want to try to clarify what’s motivating me.
As I said in my previous post, I would vote for O’Donnell in the general if I lived in Delaware, although I would have preferred a better candidate than either Castle or O’Donnell. And I understand the strategy of the long view, and the objection to semi-RINO Castle.
But there’s a reason I’m especially interested in the short view—Republican Party domination of both houses of Congress in 2010—and why I think that short view is of the utmost importance this year. I have believed for some time that the 2010 Congressional elections are a watershed moment, and that they represent what might be the last chance to stop some of the most pernicious actions of the previous Congress. I refer in particular to HCR (which, by the way, Castle voted against).
It’s a complex situation that I’ve written about in several previous posts (see the category “health care reform” on the right sidebar; I deal with some of the issues there). Although repeal is not possible because Obama could veto any such attempt, it might be possible to block the implementation of Obamacare through defunding, and it would be extremely helpful to have a majority for that purpose.
But you say, what about the filibuster? As long as there are fewer than 60 Democratic senators, Republicans can use the filibuster to block things, right? Well, don’t be too sure. If the Democrats retain a Senate majority, they might try to implement what’s known as the nuclear option. They are just that determined and just that desperate.
Let’s review:
[The nuclear option is] a technique by which the need to have a 2/3 majority to change Senate rules (such as the filibuster) could supposedly be overcome at the beginning of a new session of Congress by a simple majority vote. The argument goes this way:
“”¦[O]n the first day of a new Congress, Senate rules, including Rule XXII, the cloture rule, do not yet apply, and thus can be changed by majority vote. Under this argument, debate could be stopped by majority vote as well.”
That’s why I believe every Republican seat is of the utmost importance in 2010.
[ADDENDUM: For those curious about some of the finer points of how the defunding might work, see the last half of this previous post.
Back then I was under the impression the president could veto a budget bill. Apparently he cannot, according to this site:
The budget resolution is a “concurrent” congressional resolution, not an ordinary bill, and therefore does not go to the President for his signature or veto. It also requires only a majority vote to pass, and its consideration is one of the few actions that cannot be filibustered in the Senate.
That makes the defunding process even more possible, as long as the Republicans have a simple majority in both House and Senate.]
[ADDENDUM II: Commenter “Steve” has recommended this website for information about how defunding might be accomplished.]
Nothing short of a veto proof Republican majority in both the House and Senate will roll back HCR as long as Obama is President. He can simply veto anything the congress passes.
All spending authorizations begin in the House. A simple majority there could simply refuse to fund any monies needed to implement HCR. And I think they will almost certainly do just that.
And even if Castle didn’t support HCR doesn’t suggest he would necesarily be the deciding vote to stop or reverse it.
All bills for raising revenue originate in the House.
We have spent too many years voting for the “electable” candidate. It’s time for the GOP to kiss our collective conservative TEA Party asses for saving them from 40 years in the wilderness. I believe we need to go pon principle and not on “electability” It works.
Another point about Tea Party influence in the election this year. Many “establishment” Republican “powers” are afraid Tea Party influence is causing nominations of Republican candidates who can’t win.
Don’t they realize that many, many of the Republican candidates who may win House elections will do so because of Tea Party voters?
Where do they think a large part of the Republican surge is coming from?
“”I believe we need to go on principle and not on “electability” It works.””
Deeka
Yep. And electability is best defined as someone who can go on Good Morning America and not shock and embarrass the mind numbed zombies with anything politically incorrect their little ears can’t tolerate.
Steve: on how the budget is passed, see Step Two: The Congressional Budget Resolution, here.
kaba: see the same link I recommended in my above comment to Steve. Obama cannot veto a budget resolution. Here is the relevant quote:
I don’t pretend to be an expert in the fine points of Congressional procedure. But from what I’ve read about it, this is my understanding.
See also the ADDENDUM I’ve added to the post.]
I would like to note that both Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe voted against Obamacare. But I don’t want them in the Senate either. I don’t think they are “semi-RINO”, and I don’t believe that Castle is “semi-RINO” either. That description fits the Maverick. It MIGHT fit Lindsey Graham.
I will also note that, while he might not have voted FOR Obamacare, he’s not exactly on board for repealing it… See Here. “I’d consider it” indeed.
I’d rather lose the seat for the Senate (One we have not had in my lifetime…) than reward Castle, who did vote FOR TARP, Stimuli, bailouts for Fannie/Freddie, AIG, Cap ‘n’ Trade, sCHIP, etc, with a Senate seat now that it’s “his turn” because he’s been in Congress for 18 years and Biden can’t be one of the 2 Senators from Delaware anymore. That is such a large part of what’s wrong with the party. These people do not need to be “in power” for 30+ years.
Did we think it was possible for Congress to pass monumental and complex 2,000 page bills that nobody read, debated or understood? Did we think it impossible for Congress not to pass any budget at all, but to merely “deem” that the budget was passed?
I would not bet on the standard definitions of any parliamentary procedure standing or being followed if Democrats get desperate enough.
Rush Limbaugh was talking today about why the Republicans are so interested in getting 51 seats in the Senate.
He said it’s all about getting committee chairmanships, determining what bills get to the floor, doling out money, and so forth. A 51-seat majority is useless in actually getting their agenda passed when it includes a half-dozen RINOS who will regularly vote with the Democrats.
So it’s really all about power and perks for the R leadership.
P.S.–I note mention today of a national 3.8% sales tax on all real estate transactions, that was hidden in the Heath Care Reform Bill, that will mean an additional tax on a $400,000 sale of up to $15,200.
Neo,
I certainly see your point and would love to see HCR reversed or overturned. I think any chance of doing that is minimal despite the makeup of the House and Senate so long as Obama takes his temporary visits to the White House.
I am also very concerned with Cap and Tax and Castle has already voted to support that one time. That by itself is a dis-qualifier in my book.
The Dems were able to dismiss Scott Brown’s victory as an anomaly. With wins by Paul in KY; Rubio in FL; Miller in AK; and Angle in NV they are finally beginning to pay attention. I think O’Donnell’s victory in DE last night has provided a Come-To-Jesus moment for them. 66 of these characters will be hoping for re-election in the next four years. They now know that business as usual isn’t going to work.
Boiling it down to its’ simplest terms for me: I’m 61 years old. I have two daughters and four grandsons. I have a terrible sense of guilt over the country that I’ve leaving for them. I don’t have all of the answers and may not have any of the answers. I would bet every thing I now own that we can’t continue on our current track. We just can’t keep electing the same establishment candidates and expect different results.
nyght: I did some research on Castle’s stand on repealing Obamacare, and he’s been a bit hedge-y about it. AndI can’t find any statements he’s made about defunding it, pro or con. That really makes me wonder, because if he isn’t committed to one or both, there would be no reason to support him.
In any case, it seems that O’Donnell is going the Scott Brown route as far as grassroots donations are concerned. This is good. She has a lot of ground to make up; perhaps she’ll accomplish it.
They knew we would not like what they did. but they post dated things.. knowing that they would lose, they played to their strength, which is connecting things that dont go together and muddling the thinking of those involved.
so the big blammos are hitting us next year and beyond which is after losing November. and who will be sitting in place, in a stalemate not being able to stop the preprogrammed drop of blade?
like a chess game, the parts converge on a condition which cant be fathomed easily while things are moving around, but if your good at patterns and what happens next puzzles, what happens next is that the republicans will be believed to be in control (but stalemated), and tax increases hit, entitlement riots and such are on the menu. if the farm games work, there wont be enough food so prices will rise.
right now Obama is pissing china off making demands he is in no position to make, and they are basically screaming at him through various public signal lines, but he aint hearing.
they are looking for making something happen…
[and the news is kind of looking at incidents, and throwing out coverage waiting for the right thing. anyone besides me hear of the lefty who slit someones throat before a politician was to show up?]
Sorry to burst your bubble but the budget resolution is next to meaningless. It has not impact outside Congress and only influences agencies by how much Congress will beat on them for allocating their appropriations.
Congress rarely ever passes authorization bills, which require presidential signature, for the last couple of decades. As best I can remember only the DOD requires annual authorization as a constitutional requirement. Other agencies can go with the laws already mandating their spending in the absence of language prohibiting. The only thing that matter are the appropriations bills. They allocate the money each year and without an authorization bill the agencies spend in a manner so as not to get in too much trouble with the committees or the White House. It is only in violating the appropriations bill do bureaucrats start getting in legal jeopardy.
I haven’t really followed this story, and so my opinion is provisional, but at the margin I think torching a RINO’s career sends a valuable message to Congressional Republicans: we’re taking a long view, and won’t tolerate accommodation any longer. You’ll take flak from the Red-infested media, and you won’t like that, but in the primaries we’ll fire your ass, and you’ll like that even less, so you’d better man up. You can’t save your sorry butt by triangulation.
In fact, quite the contrary: there’s a real case to be made for exploding (imploding?) their little minds by saying something outrageous, such as, “I think we need to investigate the Democrat Party under the RICO statutes,” or, “I propose to submit legislation banning the Democrat Party as a Communist front.”
We’ve let the Reds/Dems – with the complicity/ collusion of the MSM – frame the debate for too long. We need to push back. After dropping one of those bombs, the debate would initially center on, “Is he nuts?”, but then shift to, “Is the Democrat Party a RICO? Is it a Communist front?” These would make for great covers of Time and Newsweek, regardless of the tripe within.
Sure, the guy saying it first would be done politically. But think of the ramifications: every Dem thereafter would self-censor himself to make sure he didn’t say anything that lent credence to that guy’s assertion.
It’s the reverse of the Reds’/Dems’ tactic, which boils down to opposing them in any fashion is racist. And how much tme and energy have we spent in defending ourselves against such specious allegations? The difference is that there is substance to characterizing the Democrat Party as a RICO, or as a Communist front. In many respects, that’s exactly what it is.
Occam, I suspect communist in the former soviet union are feverishly making notes while watching America’s democrat party.
Laughing and chomping at the bit thinking about the possibilities is more likely
SteveH, it’s a dead heat to determine which group is more feckless. Both have self-selected for fecklessness.
JKB, in this comment and others to Neo’s March 2010 post, I made a point similar to yours.
Neo, I agree with your position.
Here in Washington we had two good conservative candidates for Senate – Clint Didier and Paul Akers. However, Dino Rossi, a moderate Republican, had more name recognition because he had been in the legislature and ran for governor twice. So, he ended up with the nomination in our top two take all type primary. (How I hate that!)
In a way I’m glad Rossi is the candidate because, given the voter makeup in the state, he has a better chance of beating Murray than the two more conservative candidates would have.
I can live with that. I’m supporting Rossi enthusiastically because just about anyone would be better than Patty Murray. Murray is a big time spender and earmarker. She’s the number three earmarker in the Senate. She also has no clue about the war on terror. Dino was a fiscal conservative when he was in the legislature. He will take that fiscal restraint to the Senate and that is good enough for me. I refuse to let the perfect become the enemy of the possible.
Neo,
Have you ever considered respectable guest posters? 🙂
Of course I’m nominating myself… 🙂
This is completely off-topic, but I found it at Belmont Club and just had to share.
Radio Tower Worker – You Think Your Job Is Tough?
You may want to be wearing a parachute while you watch.
I’m puzzled by the outrage directed by the Washington establishment towards O’Donnell.
Something about her higher education, lawsuits, etc, etc…
Whispers that there may be more to come.
Pardon me, isn’t this the Senate seat formerly occupied by one, Joseph Biden? Do we really need to revisit the myriad gaffes of this man?
And when someone unearths something on O’Donnell that eclipses leaving a woman to die underneath the Dyke Bridge on Chappaquiddick, or perhaps membership in the Imperial Knights of the Klu Klux Klan please get back to me.
Otherwise, I suggest we throw this woman over our shoulders and carry her across the finish line.
This Republic will not survive until 2012 if we are not successful in ousting the establishment statists on both sides of the aisle this November 2nd.
The Barbarians are at the gates, my friends, so unless you want to start invoking your inalienable rights against your own government, I suggest we stop the bickering and get to work.
It remains very pleasant to have discussions in which people at least understand the POV they are disagreeing with, and even see why it has some merit. Thank you again, all.
We will only know in hindsight what the wisest strategy was. We reach, we guess, hoping that our risk/benefit calculation is a good one. I am not good at this type of calculation, frankly. We need Democrats out, we need Republicans improved. The lines are not going to fall cleanly, so that we can say “this election, we focus on punishing Republicans, in two years we vote out Democrats.” There will be variations on both themes being played out in different districts throughout the country over the next few election cycles.
I will say again: this is round three of a twelve-round fight in which knockouts will be unlikely. Knowing when to dance away and stay out of trouble, when to be aggressive, and when to counterpunch will change throughout the fight.
Sorry Neo, I disagree with you on this one. While I do not live in DE, I am glad that Castle lost. I agree with you that the seat may have been easier to gain, with Castle but at what price? For some reason the Democrats are able to force out the moderates while the Republicans are expected to embrace them. Castle said that he while he was against Obama Care, he would not vote to repeal it. And he was for the Cap and Trade laws. So the (R) next to his name was meaningless. I agree with you that, we may no be succeed in this venture to turn the ship of state. But at what point does one have to stand on values instead of expediency? Sort of like in Sophie’s Choice, she chose what she felt was the best of two bad choices. But I think if she had it to do over again, I think she would have opted to stand on her values and all three would have gone together
Neo, here is a site explaining how the House or Senate can effectively render the president’s budget request DOA: http://defundit.org/
Mike Mc., Mike, et al: I’ve watched a new video of an O’Donnell interview, and I’ve become tentatively and cautiously optimistic. She acquitted herself okay.
I still wish a better candidate had challenged Castle, for whom I hold no particular brief. But it didn’t happen. I also agree that so many accusations have been lodged already that she may have seen the worst of it. But my concern is that, unlike so much of the mud slung at Palin, a significant amount of it may be true about O’Donnell. So far I haven’t been able to ascertain what’s what.
Steve: thanks for that website. I haven’t studied it yet, but I’ve added the link in the post above as an addendum.
I wonder if it would be productive to do some guerrilla tactics with O’Donnell. Find some idiot quote from Slow Joe Biden, which would not be difficult to find, attribute the idiot quote to O’Donnell, get the Dems all in an uproar about the stupid thing that O’Donnell had said, and then point out that it was actually Biden who had said it.
On the DE primary, the win of Christine O’Donnell, and on the vicious (viscous?) vanilla GOP elite, we’ve had a heated debate on HillBuzz.org, ongoing at over 600 comments. Basically, ‘she can’t win’ is a defeatist opinion: ‘she can win’ is a factual possibility a bit short of probability. It’s the viscous elite versus the aroused “country class” scenario in high relief, and that depends upon voter/supporter enthusiasm. So who to support: bearded Marxist Reid “pet”? Or sweet Christian idealist underdog conservative favorite?
And, no, a RINO is not a better choice than a professed democrat, because a RINO is a traitor to his constituency.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe the Washington nomenklatura of both Democrats and Republicans will go anywhere this election cycle. Despite the Tea Party’s successes, the public is only at the beginnings of being truly moved. Much, much more will happen over the next few years as the struggle to bring Constitutional rectitude to this wounded nation continues. It will be a necessary wrenching away from the shallow twisted ethos, as is emblemized by political correctness, that mires our society and stultifies a truly diverse public engagement. The elites are quite skilled at manipulating divisiveness among peoples, essentially exploiting a new tribalism. They are relentlessly creating a reprimitivism, in a feudal fashion, which keeps the masses well controlled and the elites with the luxuries they’re accustomed to and believe they’re entitled to. Usurping this travesty will take more than an election or two.
Gringo knew the answer to this question, “I wonder if it would be productive”
Logic with liberals works now??
O’Donnell seems to be a step in something of the right direction … let’s hear more about her, guiding principles, etc.
God guides her.
Karl,
Defeatist whining about the failings and weaknesses of normal Americans is not a virtue.
Just saying.
On this issue, Michelle Malkin is on fire. Particularly love the way she reams out Rove for his explosion of invective against Christine O’D.
Conservative women can expect about two years of this exploding-chamberpot political repartee from the Democrats and camp-followers, almost all of them Soros-funded, who seem all to be ideologically blind and emotionally stunted.
Kael and other defeatists: What happened to destroy your courage and faith? Time to reclaim them!
I rather think or hope the Constitution guides her .. we’ll see.
Wow, the more I read about her, the less I’m liking, it’s amazingly ironic how some Conservatives say they champion individualism … except for those individualistic things that aren’t in lockstep with some invented anti-liberal religious dogma.
Why would a candidate be concerned whether or not one masturbates or not? This is the height of anti-individualism … stick to the issues not the sheets lady…
Amazing … disgrace.
Some numbers from the 2010 Almanac of American Politics: Lindsey Graham had a 77 percent conservative rating from the National Journal in 2007 and a 85 percent rating in 2008. In the same years, Castle had 54 and 55 percent ratings. Snowe and Collins had almost identical scores in the same years, respectively, 52 and 49, and 53 and 51.
(A hint that some may need: If you are getting your ideas about who is a “RINO” from Rush Limbaugh, then you are making a serious mistake. He’s often careless with such terms, far too careless for a charter member of the Republican establishment. Which he is, if the term has any meaning at all.)
Minor technical point: You should be careful about too exact comparisons between House and Senate scores, since they are constructed from different sets of votes.
nyomythus: as a candidate, O’Donnell was/is not concerned with masturbation. It’s her opponents who are concerned with masturbation—via dredging up a quote she gave in 1996, fourteen years ago, when she was either 26 or 27 years old and affiliated with a group called SALT that lobbied for Christian moral values “and focused on advocating chastity and other Christian values in the college-age generation.” In that capacity a clip of her appeared on a show on MTV entitled “Sex in the 90s.”
As far as I know, no one has asked for her current views, nor has she offered them since 1996. But take a look for yourself at the tape of the young O’Donnell, and see what she said back then:
And here is an article O’Donnell wrote in 1998—again, long before her candidacy. It makes it clear that her focus is not on recommending or not recommending certain sexual practices.
Ah, I’ve been waiting for this.
T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII opines on the Delaware primary.
Oh. I see. Actually, anyone else remember Jimmy CARTER saying he’s “lusted in his heart” after other women when married?
So this lady is a Christian of a particular stripe who feels that “fiddling with yourself” is a selfish act and not approved by scripture? Actually, isn’t there something in the Old Testament about the “sin of Onan?”
(Which reminds me, irresponsibly, of the Dorothy Parker jest: she named her pet canary Onan, “because he spills his seed upon the ground.”)
Anyway, I wish the Leftwankers would ask some hardcore Muslim imams what They think about “fiddling with yourself.” If it bothers them so much that religious people have Strong Views, and all that.
For me, I don’t care what her views on it are, as long as she’s not proposing legislation about it. 😉 I find it FAR more interesting that THIS is the ONE talking point all the Leftwankers, including the late-night talking heads like Leno, are using against her. Kinda like they stoned Palin in public for being a fundie and tried to burn down her church.
Saith T. Coddington:
“I then watched in abject horror as they played a video of her crusading against teenage onanism….”
Thank you, neo! But it makes me skeptical about “how” she does, or did, think. That was years ago and maybe she looks to secular constitutional principles as her guiding authority, or to some degree, or to other authorities, I dunno. We’ll hear and read more about her as the general elections swings around.
…“lusted in his heart” after other women (or men, or both) when married, in one combination or another … this is what all normal adult human beings will do. We privately desire and envy things and these are not vices, these are qualities of being human. It’s scripture that tells people do to what cannot possibly be done and then convicts us for those thoughts, thus we have the genesis or the warrant for or template for thought crime. If a person “fiddles” with themselves — why does the government have to have an opinion, or be involved in any way shape or form? It’s individual, it’s personal, it’s private, it’s none of anyone’s business. Stop being liberals when it comes to proselytizing faith-based beliefs into classical American political ideology.
Well, like I said, I don’t give a rat’s hairy posterior what her personal beliefs on sex are, as long as she’s not legislating them. They’re her business, as mine are mine.
Anyway, it’s amazing how the Left succeeds in threadjacking the public discourse with this tripe. Forget substantive debate about the actual issues and positions of the candidates.
@Mike Mc
I’m hardly a defeatest nor a whiner. My point is simply this: The struggle we face will be longer lasting, more daunting and more dangerous than many people now suppose. Our opponants have, at least in their minds, everything to lose. They will not be defeated solely by one or two elections.
Karl, you’ll love my favorite sermon, then. This is round three of a twelve-round fight.
Beverly
It does reveal a way of thinking, the way she processes information to make decisions, I wish she would have taken a position of “they’re her business, as mine are mine” but that’s exactly it … it was about what other people were doing, privately.
There’s a conflict with secular conservative values on individualism. Individualism on private personal matters is defined by the individual, not someone else, or group, or status quo.
It’s a total perversion of individualism.
I dunno, maybe ‘some’ pun intended.
[ADDENDUM: For those curious about some of the finer points of how the defunding might work, see the last half of this previous post.
Back then I was under the impression the president could veto a budget bill. Apparently he cannot, according to this site:…
Neo, in your previous post, I took some pains to clarify that the President’s role in the budget process is essential. JKB did the same thing in this post, and I reminded you of my past comments. One of those comments linked to an explicit example of a President vetoing a budget bill.
Here and here are discussions of how the federal budget process plays out. Here is an example of a President vetoing a continuing resolution.
Nyom is predictably illogical.
I wrote, “God guides her” as a POKE. It’s so easy to poke fun at Nyom. He fears normal good people.
I don’t go into church Nyom but probably twice a year. I’m not particularly religious.
That said – I find people like you to be the PROBLEM.
You vote for Obama because of a few God statements from Palin.
Obama!
You couldn’t be reasoned with to save us from you. You are illogical at all cost.