Storming The Castle
You can forgive the pragmatic, establishment Republicans who run the national party machinery for feeling a bit besieged this morning. Because the Tea Party keeps continuing to storm the GOP's castle. The party regulars are manning the battlements, but to no avail. They see their stronghold being overrun by a mob over whom they have no control, and they are shaking in their boots at the prospect. You can picture these GOP faithful rushing about the castle's keep, desperately trying to convince the rabble that eating all the seed stores will result in famine next year, but to no avail as the Tea Partiers pillage at will.
The reason for this long-winded and increasingly-convoluted introductory metaphor is, of course, the defeat of one Castle in particular -- Mike Castle, moderate Republican of Delaware -- in last night's Senate primary in the First State. The Republican Party establishment watched last night in absolute horror as Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell swamped Castle in the primary. The horror stems from the fact that this will likely mean Joe Biden's old Senate seat will remain in Democratic hands this November. Republican voters chose purity over electability, plain and simple. They'll now have a purest-of-the-pure Tea Party candidate, who will go on to lose what would otherwise have been a very easy pickup for the Republicans. This may also doom any Republican hopes of taking control of the whole Senate, as it is pretty hard to chart a path to a majority without picking up the Delaware seat.
Democrats, of course, are pretty gleeful at the prospect, especially since this election season (so far) hasn't had a whole lot of such moments of glee for the party. But now, longshot Democratic candidate Chris Coons has indeed given Democrats a bright spot to focus on. So let's get on with the focusing, shall we?
The biggest winners of last night's Delaware primary are, in order of importance: Chris Coons, Sarah Palin, and Christine O'Donnell. The biggest losers last night were: Mike Castle and Beau Biden.
Starting with the losers, Mike Castle must be particularly stunned this morning. Delaware is a lightly-populated state, so lightly-populated that they only get one member of the House of Representatives. What this means is that their House member has to run a statewide race. Mike Castle has been this representative for a generation, winning his last nine races. He had sky-high approval rates in the state, so he figured it was time for him to step up to the Senate after Senator Joe Biden left to become Vice President Joe Biden. What happened next is what happened to the Democratic presidential nomination in 1992 -- the biggest-name party regulars decided to sit the race out, because they figured it was unwinnable. Castle, they reasoned, would just be too hard to beat. So the big names took a pass on the race. The biggest of these names is Biden's son Beau, the state's Attorney General. Which is why both Beau Biden and Mike Castle are the big losers of last night (that sound you hear off in the distance is Beau Biden repeatedly kicking himself for not running).
The biggest winner from last night is obviously Chris Coons. He had never run for a statewide office in Delaware before, and most people (before last night) put his chances of beating Castle at pretty close to zero. Now he has a new lease on life. Overnight, he just sprang from "probable loser" to "frontrunner and probable winner." It's rare that this happens to a politician in such a dramatic fashion -- especially seeing as how it happened as the result of an unforced error by the other party.
The next-biggest winner last night was none other than Sarah Palin. Palin continues to prove the size of her clout within both the Republican Party and the Tea Party in a dramatic fashion. In other races where Palin has endorsed candidates, alternate explanations have abounded about why her chosen candidate won. But O'Donnell's victory can be traced directly to Palin and the Tea Party Express, who poured money into the race at the very end (Delaware is a very cheap media market, so it didn't take all that much to do so). After the 2010 elections take place, the entire political punditry world will shift its attention to the 2012 presidential race (some pundits have already shifted their focus even now). Over on the Republican side, there are a whole bunch of likely candidates who will be vying for this attention. But none of them have shown the clout and power that Palin has so far shown, in raw numbers of people turning up at the ballot box. Think about it -- have you heard any stories this year about who Mitt Romney has endorsed? Or Mike Huckabee? Neither have I. And Palin won't even be tarnished if her endorsed candidates ultimately lose, because the Republican nomination will take place in the same primary elections she's been picking winners in. The primaries, to state the obvious, determine the party's nominee. Which is why Palin is, more and more, becoming almost the de facto frontrunner for the Republican 2012 nomination.
Christine O'Donnell was also a winner last night, but she'd better enjoy this sensation while it lasts. Like most Tea Party candidates, she's said a few rather extreme things in her time, and this is the point where they're all about to catch up with her. If I were her, I'd immediately begin campaigning on some sort of distracting issue in the hopes that all her previous words get conveniently ignored in the fray. Perhaps she should come out for Delaware claiming the entire DelMarVa peninsula (which, today, includes all of Delaware, Maryland's Eastern Shore, and a tiny slice of Virginia) as their own -- maybe that could fire up her state's voters enough that they'll ignore the other kooky things she's said. At this point, it's about the only chance she'll have.
But while it certainly is fun to expose the kookiness of yet another Tea Party candidate, Democrats shouldn't get too giddy. Granted, the Tea Party candidates have given Democrats a lot of leverage with the voters heading into November. Democrats everywhere can run under the unifying theme of "Too Extreme!" and point to the Tea Party candidates as proof. This helps them out a lot with independent voters, who may not relish the thought of voting Democratic this year, but also are prone to shy away from candidates that are perceived as too extreme (in either direction).
But the news is not all good for Democrats on this front. Sure, putting Delaware back in the Democratic column feels great, but not all Tea Party candidates are fairing so poorly. Rand Paul, whom all Democrats love to mock, is (if polls are to be believed) going to win in Kentucky. Florida's polling has shifted to Tea Party candidate Marco Rubio recently, and away from former Republican Charlie Crist. Joe Miller is running consistently in the lead in Alaska. And the Tea Party will almost surely pick up Utah's Senate seat as well. That's a lot of Tea Partiers we'll likely be addressing as "Senator" in the very near future. Perceived Tea Party craziness will likely keep Delaware's seat in Democratic hands, but there's only one other major Senate race where Democrats have a chance to beat this perceived craziness -- Nevada. Harry Reid may win a race (because of the opponent he's drawn) that he should, by all rights, be getting trounced in -- but this is going to be a close race, and Sharron Angle may actually squeak out a win.
So, when you put things in perspective, the Tea Party candidates don't look all that weak outside of Delaware. I certainly don't want to rain on the Democratic parade this morning after the stunning Republican primary in Delaware, because (as I said) we've had few enough of these bright moments in the campaign so far. Because, while the Tea Party may have stormed the wrong Castle last night, come November quite a few of them may indeed storm their way into the Senate itself. Which is not exactly cause for celebration.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
-- Chris Weigant
As the lesser Canadian fan of this site; I can only hope. After 40 years of following U.S. politics, any reasonable person with an IQ above room temperature knows that the Republican Party only caters to the "what's in it for me" crowd and steadfastly refuses to plan for the future. As a denizen of a country that is deeply impacted when your land is under the influence of your crazies; I hope this split of the know-nothing populace allows the Democrats to keep marginally repairing the damage you've suffered under the previous reigns of idiots...and I definitely include St. Ronnie in that categeory. Sadly, I'm skeptical that the average American voter hasn't yet stopped swallowing the snake oil the Republicans keep pushing. Cue Michale and CB parroting a barrage of the usual BS. I really do worry about you people; every American I've ever met is much nicer than the charlatans you seem to elect with alarming frequency. And I apologize to everyone who's been voting sanely all their lives. I also concede that it would help immensely if Democratic politicians grew spines...How hard is it to beat a party that essentially has no platform? Sheesh.
Kevin,
With 40 years of following US politics under your belt, you, my friend, are the undeniable premiere Canadian fan of this site ... by a Canadian country mile!
I'm feeling much better about things after last night's primaries. It's looking pretty good that the Democrats, despite their legions of fair-weather supporters, will retain control of both houses of Congress.
It is also becoming clear that the GOP is on its way to political oblivion for some election cycles to come. They can spend their down time pondering why that had to happen.
Elizabeth,
I think I've posted this link before, but if not, check it out. The writer is an 82 year old Texas grandmother; and she gives me hope that the majority of Americans have retained their intelligence.
http://margaretandhelen.wordpress.com/
Enjoy, I hope.
That put a smile on my face, Kevin. I hadn't seen that blog before so thanks for the link.
I'll check back there, from time to time, when the need arises ... if you know what I mean and I'm sure that you do!
Do you know, Chris, that I actually mistook the title to refer to that scene in The Princess Bride when Miracle Max and his wife wave and call out: "G'bye, boys! Have fun storming the castle!"
Osborne -
You know, when I was writing it, in the back of my mind I knew that there was a movie quote that said the same thing. I heard two friends of mine laughing about the line years ago after they had seen the movie. But I also knew I had never seen whatever movie it was. I considered googling it (or asking Michale, as we all know he can quote from pretty much any movie at the drop of a hat), but then I thought "I don't really know the context" so I left any reference to it out. Thanks for clearing it up for me, though, as I couldn't in a million years have come up with the title unassisted! From my friends' reaction, it sounded like a funny scene...
:-)
-CW
Kevin,
After 40 years of following U.S. politics, any reasonable person with an IQ above room temperature knows that the Republican Party only caters to the "what's in it for me" crowd and steadfastly refuses to plan for the future.
You are not describing just Republicans there. You are describing ALL politicians. :D
. As a denizen of a country that is deeply impacted when your land is under the influence of your crazies; I hope this split of the know-nothing populace allows the Democrats to keep marginally repairing the damage you've suffered under the previous reigns of idiots...and I definitely include St. Ronnie in that categeory. Sadly, I'm skeptical that the average American voter hasn't yet stopped swallowing the snake oil the Republicans keep pushing.
So, let me see if I have this straight. Anyone who doesn't believe as you do are "know nothings" and "idiots". Isn't it possible, even LIKELY, that the vast majority of Americans are right (no pun in intended :D) and YOU are wrong???
Isn't that even slightly possible???
And I apologize to everyone who's been voting sanely all their lives.
Voting solely based on Party, by definition, is not sane....
Liz,
It is also becoming clear that the GOP is on its way to political oblivion for some election cycles to come. They can spend their down time pondering why that had to happen.
Ya know... Ink has been saying that since 2006...
And yet.... Here we are... :D Democrats are going to lose the House and likely the Senate of the Party "on it's way to political oblivion"...
Funny how that is, eh? :D
Ink,
Do you know, Chris, that I actually mistook the title to refer to that scene in The Princess Bride when Miracle Max and his wife wave and call out: "G'bye, boys! Have fun storming the castle!"
And here you are, bringing movies into reality again, Ink...
You are coming along quite nicely.. :D
CW,
But I also knew I had never seen whatever movie it was. I considered googling it (or asking Michale, as we all know he can quote from pretty much any movie at the drop of a hat),
:D I do have a knack.. :D
Although, to be honest, I haven't even seen Princess Bride...
I know, I know.. I am culturally depraved.....er... I mean deprived.... :D
Getting serious for a moment, I don't think the Tea Party is going to have the effect ya'all are hoping for... Down here in Florida, GOP and Independents are going for Rubio and Crist and Meeks are splitting the Dem vote...
If that scenario plays elsewhere, Nov 2nd is going to be an even bigger massacre for Democrats than previously thought...
TP candidates are gonna gank some mooks..
(Ask the Mrs if the reference escapes ya.. :D)
When does the quatloo wagering open up?? :D
Michale.....
My two cents worth is likely not even worth a penny these days but I was listening to a lot of car radio post-primaries "commentators" commentating during a long drive yesterday when the quotes began to flow & merge into a simple "truth" ~ the "Tea Party" is identifiable by one key field mark (I am a birder, hence the lingo) and that is that they're "agin" the "gummint."
And, as such, they are the inevitable inheritors of the GOP's campaign strategy for a couple of generations now: "RUNNING AGAINST WASHINGTON."
Nixon began it, Reagan polished it to a fine sheen,
in the 90's Gingrich used it to mangle & deride the Clinton era Administration (I remember seeing him muse about how we really should get rid of the Department of State, the Department of Health & Human Services, the Department of Education, the Securities Exchange Commission, etc. etc.. . . until all that was left were various collections of men in uniforms with guns).
It has been a shrewd, successful, and powerful strategy -- blame the government for everything wrong. But it runs out of highway after awhile, leaving us sitting in our car in a trackless desert somewhere (gotta find a better metaphor) . . . and eventually voters have begun to see the traditional GOP as part of the Washington Establishment, just another bunch of saboteurs interfering with the will of "The People."
And so the Party which has lived by blaming "Washington" for all our ills, has become the victims of their own strategy, having pushed it so far, they ran beyond their natural conservative base and are reaping what they sowed . . . "Run the Rascals Out" politicians who've been in Washington so long (remember how in the 90's they all promised to quit after one or two terms? Sure.) that they are now the targets of the same campaign in a "B movie" remake of their "traditional" strategies.
Dare I suggest, slyly, that it "serves them RIGHT"?
So, let me see if I have this straight. Anyone who doesn't believe as you do are "know nothings" and "idiots". Isn't it possible, even LIKELY, that the vast majority of Americans are right (no pun in intended :D) and YOU are wrong???
No, that thought never occurs to the big 20% of liberals in this country. Not sure how many liberals Canada has, but it evidently never occurs to them, either.
Hawk Owl: It has been a shrewd, successful, and powerful strategy -- blame the government for everything wrong. But it runs out of highway after awhile
Nobody on the Right has any problem with the government doing what it's actually supposed to do (like build roads), as outlined in the enumerated powers that We, the People ordained in the Constitution. The problem is when the federal government exceeds its constitutional authority, such as what's happened, big time, in the case of the infamous "mandate" (and other instances too numerous to mention). Our forefathers didn't go to war with England so that future generations could be dictated to by another King George, only in the form of a federal overlord. Quite the opposite. The Constitution was written in the voice of the People, mandating what the federal government shall, and shall not, do.
Hawk Owl,
I really enjoyed your comment.
But I think you leave out one very strong possibility..
Perhaps the majority of Americans are blaming the government because the government is actually doing things wrong??
Is that not possible?? Isn't it possible that the reason Congress only has a 20% approval rating is because Congress is doing a crappy job??
If the majority of Americans feel the government is wrong, what would any logical or rational person deduce??
Michale.....
Chris1962 -
I understand the point you're trying to make, but you really need to use a better example in the future. The first big public works program the federal government ever undertook was in the early 1800s -- the "National Road" -- what is now US-40 and I-68 reaching west from Cumberland, Maryland.
It was contentious, for EXACTLY the reasons you are citing now in your example. Thomas Jefferson signed the first bill (1806) for the first section of road, which made it to the Ohio River (connecting the Potomac River traffic to what was "The West" at the time). A later (1817) bill to continue it were passed by Congress. James Madison vetoed it. Here's what he said about it at the time:
"I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses... to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution... I have no option but to withhold my signature from it."
The National Road was eventually built, most of it, but it was planned to go to St. Louis, and Congress ran out of funding so it ended in Vandalia, Illinois -- 60 miles shy of the Mississippi River.
Now, you can find all sorts of points to make in the story, but the fact remains that (1) this is not a new battle, and (2) it is a battle which the founding fathers themeselves violently disagreed upon. Some favored such "government overreach" some did not. We're still having the same battle today.
But using "building roads" as an example of what the Constitution allows isn't really the best idea. Because it was a VERY contentious issue whether this was true or not, even way back then.
I hasten to point out that the greatest presidential friend paved roads ever had in this country was a Republican -- Eisenhower -- who created the Interstate highways.
I'm not arguing your main point here, just saying you should look into the "National Road" (or "Cumberland Road") history a bit, or use another example, that's all.
-CW
I hasten to point out that the greatest presidential friend paved roads ever had in this country was a Republican -- Eisenhower -- who created the Interstate highways.
If I remember correctly (from one of your own commentaries) the road system was initially designed to be used exclusively by the US military, to move weapons and supplies quickly and efficiently...
Another example of what the Federal Government SHOULD take care of... But does badly..
Michale.....
Dare I suggest, slyly, that it "serves them RIGHT"?
Hawk, I always wondered why anyone would vote into the government folks whose sole established platform is anti-government.
Isn't it kind of like voting for a CEO whose stated platform is that he wants to destroy the company?
This just always struck me as odd.
Cheers
-David
David,
Hawk, I always wondered why anyone would vote into the government folks whose sole established platform is anti-government.
It's not as contradictory as it may sound..
Have you read EXECUTIVE ORDERS yet??? :D
Michale.....
Have to admit, Michale, I'm not a big Tom Clancy fan.
I think his books read like a manual for a 320 Thermal Imaging Weapons Site with Lenses and IL-ST D 1913 Rail Mount.
He's good at creating the illusion of military knowledge though. I just find it hard to get into military minutiae.
Ever read any John le Carre? The "Spy Who Came in from the Cold"? Great stuff.
Also have to admit that I've read more Mack Bolan books than I (or anyone else for that matter) probably should have.
Forging a trail of blood and bodies, the Executioner unleashes his own brand of hellfire to stop global traffickers from doing what they do best--selling death. Fully aware of the mounting odds on all fronts, Bolan is betting this mission on surviving. Again.
You know what you're going to get w/ Mack Bolan.
-David
I understand the point you're trying to make, but you really need to use a better example in the future. The first big public works program the federal government ever undertook was in the early 1800s -- the "National Road" -- what is now US-40 and I-68 reaching west from Cumberland, Maryland.
I was referring to post roads (post office roads), but I always learn something new and interesting from your post. Were you a big geek in school? LOL I smell bookworm.
Here's one thing I know for sure: The framers never intended for the government to have the authority to mandate the purchase of a private-sector product under threat of punishment. That flies directly in the face of the very reason they went to war.
Speaking of the infamous mandate, Obama's got his first defector: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/democrat-joins-house-gop-effort-repeal-health-care-law/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
David,
Mack Bolan!?? Seriously!??? I love the books!! :D
You know what you're going to get w/ Mack Bolan.
Yea, nothing ambiguous or subtle about Mack Bolan.. :D
Michale.....
Mack Bolan!?? Seriously!??? I love the books!! :D
Seriously. I think I have all the original Don Pendleton ones (up through the 40s anyways) and most of the early Phoenix Forces.
Keep hoping for a movie but apparently there's some issues over who owns the rights.
Now here's a question. Who do you think could play Mack Bolan in a movie?
My first thought was Stallone. I think he could have pulled it off if this was the 80s. Not sure who would be good now.
-David
Now here's a question. Who do you think could play Mack Bolan in a movie?
Well, if we're talking the past, there is no question.
Chuck Norris... :D With Bruce Willis a close second...
These days?? Hmmmmmmm
As far as visually goes, Pete (Eddie McClintock) from WAREHOUSE 13 is how I visualize Mack Bolan would look...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saul_Rubinek_and_Eddie_McClintock_cropped.jpg
The guy on the right.
As far as mannerisms and attitude goes, Michael Weston (Jeffrey Donovan) from Burn Notice
http://media.monstersandcritics.com/articles2/1436250/article_images/burnnoticelogousa772052.jpg
Chris1962 -
Mostly, I just have a great memory for trivia. Also, I grew up near the National Road so knew the story from schooldays. Had to look up a few facts, though, and found that Madison quote.
Actually, there was a law (this came up during HCR debate) in the founding fathers' day which said male citizens had to have a musket and shot and powder, so they'd be useful in the militias. If you didn't have it, you were fined. And in New England, the "blue laws" were out of control -- you could be fined for not going to church, or for opening a pub on Sunday, as well as for whole host of other things.
-CW
-- you could be fined for not going to church,
Ohhh, crap!! I would be Public Enemy #1 then!!! :D
Michale.....
Actually, there was a law (this came up during HCR debate) in the founding fathers' day which said male citizens had to have a musket and shot and powder, so they'd be useful in the militias. If you didn't have it, you were fined.
Before or after the Revolution? 'D
I picture Mack as being played by Thomas Jane ...
http://www.thecinemasource.com/moviesdb/images/ThomasJaneMain-300.jpg
Unfortunately, he's already the Punisher. Which itself I think is a thinly veiled ripoff of Mack Bolan.
Cheers
-David
p.s. Opening a pub on Sunday?! If no pubs, then where do you go after church?