David Karki With all due respect to my colleague, Dan Calabrese, apparently for whom no RINO is too liberal to support, his columns bashing new Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell carry a clear inconsistency if not an outright cognitive dissonance. He seems to think the only way to get conservatives into power is to vote for liberals like Mike Castle. RINO = Liberal, Dan. From where I stand, there are a couple obvious flaws in his premise. One, Castle is a Democrat and votes like one. That he’s delusional enough to still think himself a Republican doesn’t make him one. And he has only himself to blame for his loss tonight. What else did he think would happen when he strayed so far from his base and did everything in his power to put them off or infuriate them? Whether O’Donnell is a good candidate or not thus became irrelevant. Just so long as she wasn’t Mike Castle, that was good enough for them. That fault lies squarely with him, and not with those conservatives who are accused of making the perfect the enemy of the good to the detriment of the greater cause. We should not be projecting blame for the inevitable reaction to Castle’s action on anyone but him, and certainly not on O’Donnell or her supporters. Should this seat go to the Democrats in November, he and he alone will have handed it to them. (Though, based on his voting record, the Democrats in one sense already had it.) Two, what makes anybody think that if the GOP otherwise runs the table, and the Senate is 51-49, Castle wouldn’t pull a Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords and flip sides so that VP Joe Biden’s 50-50 tiebreaker vote would give the Senate back to the Democrats? Hell, I’d fully expect it. Why? Because that’s where Castle’s ideological loyalties lie. The idea that a liberal would go with a conservative flow – out of expediency, I guess – simply makes no sense. And I don’t understand why Calabrese and others cling to this fantasy. For the last time – RINOs are liberals. They hide behind that lie of a (R) label after their name, and when push comes to shove they never vote with conservatives. Be mad at such people for being unable or unwilling to be honest with themselves and voters about what they are, not at those of us who would simply get them to be honest for the first time. And this year, of all years, RINO-ism is unacceptable. We face the clearest and most present danger in our history in the form of what Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have done and are doing to our country. Getting along with them, or more efficiently managing the monstrous Leviathan government they’ve shoved down our throats is not enough anymore. This must be stopped and defunded in the two years to come, and once Obama is gone in 2012, repealed, reversed, and rolled back as quickly and completely as possible. The Mike Castles of the world have no intention of assisting in this effort, and would at best undermine it and at worst outright help to thwart it. He and his fellow RINOs who seem to inhabit the inside-the-Beltway establishment GOP need to get it through their heads that their time is over. We tried it their way earlier this decade, to disastrous results. The whole reason there was an opening for Obama to get into the White House and wreak the havoc he has is because the GOP so badly screwed the pooch. And why did that happen? Because we were dependent upon RINOs for a phony mirage of a majority. Calabrese has often ridiculed the GOP Congress of a few years ago. Yet he apparently wants to re-elect more of the same. How did a RINO-driven “majority” work for implementing conservatism last time around? That’s right – it didn’t. Repeating behavior while expecting a different result; isn’t that the definition of insanity? For the record, I know little about Christine O’Donnell and she may well be a poor candidate who faces very long odds in November. (And frankly, that’s the simplest explanation which is being missed – in Delaware, as in Arizona before it with John McCain and J.D. Hayworth, the choice was ostensibly between a non-conservative RINO and a non-electable conservative candidate. In that situation, you can’t solve William F. Buckley’s strategy of the most electable conservative, because each fails half the test. The question thus isn’t which do you pick, but why weren’t there better candidates in the first place?) But the position that Calabrese holds is borderline incoherent. I can understand it coming from the likes of Karl Rove – who viciously and unconscionably smeared O’Donnell on Fox News tonight – because the careers of Beltway RINOs are the first to be put at risk by the Tea Party candidates. I understand it far less from Democrats, who if O’Donnell is half as awful as they claim should be popping champagne corks over an easy hold on which they’ll have to spend no money. As the oft-misquoted Shakespeare line goes, “Methinks thou dost protest too much.” And I don’t understand it at all from “conservatives” like Dan. How many times must the Castles, McCains, Snowes, Collinses, and Grahams of the Senate vote with the Democrats before you’ll give up on them? Are you really that into the Kevin Bacon fraternity hazing scene in Animal House? “Thank you, sir, may I have another?” You advance conservatism by electing conservatives. O’Donnell may not be the best candidate, she may be a long shot to win, but she’s all we have. If the choice were Castle or a Democrat in November, as Calabrese wanted, then the seat would already be lost. This way, there is still a ray of hope.

Follow this link:
How does electing liberals help conservatism?



