Karl Rove says that his new group is designed to produce “fewer Christine O’Donnells and more Rand Pauls.” I’m not sold on Rand Paul, but I agree that the Christine O’Donnell nomination was a bad, bad idea. So how did it happen? Was O’Donnell’s moderate-to-liberal Republican opponent underfunded? As it turns out the answer is no. Mike Castle seems to have outspent O’Donnell and the conservative groups supporting O’Donnell by about two-to-one. Was it because her history of financial difficulties and her record as a litigious pest were unknown prior to the primary? Nope. Her record was available to her better-funded opponent who chose not to deploy it against her until late in the race.
The story of the 2010 Delaware Republican senatorial nomination isn’t about Christine O’Donnell. It is about Mike Castle. Castle chose to take his party’s support base for granted and ended up losing to a candidate who should have been a joke. Castle didn’t need Karl Rove’s money. He needed to respect his voters by crafting an agenda that addressed their concerns. Moderate-to liberal Republicans have proven able to build agendas that appeal to conservative voters. Susan Collins in Maine was able to unify conservatives around her in 2008 by building her campaign around opposition to card check legislation. Scott Brown unified Massachusetts Republicans by building his campaign around opposition to tax increases, Obamacare, and civilian trials for terrorists. Mike Castle wasted his time, his money, and the attention of Republican primary voters in his state. That is why he lost.
And what is Karl Rove going to do anyway? Is he going to drop six figure ad buys against every flake and freak who scrapes together the money to make it on a senatorial ballot next year? Establishment and moderate Republicans running in left-of-center constituencies don’t need Karl Rove’s help. They need to follow the Susan Collins and Scott Brown playbook for forming a broad center-to-right coalition within their state’s Republican party. That means addressing some of the policy priorities of conservatives and treating conservatives as allies rather than annoyances. Conservative donors should be able to put their money to more productive uses than helping Karl Rove buy a bigger house save us from future Christine O’Donnells.
February 19th, 2013 | 2:31 pm
Would it be too much to ask Mr. Rove & other GOP bigwigs to demand that any candidate they even consider supporting make a solemn pledge (ooh, there’s that scary “P” word!) to endorse the eventual GOP nominee? Castle, Lugar, Murkowski, etc., have done huge amounts of damage, beyond just showing themselves to be self-important jerks of the highest order, by refusing to do so.
February 19th, 2013 | 2:50 pm
[...] Karl Rove says that his new group is designed to produce “fewer Christine O’Donnells and more Rand Pauls.” I’m not sold on Rand Paul, but I agree that the Christine O’Donnell nomination was a bad, bad idea. So how did it happen? Was O’Donnell’s moderate-to-liberal Republican opponent underfunded? As it Source: Postmodern Conservative [...]
February 19th, 2013 | 6:23 pm
[...] Tyler Cowen Will Wilkinson Wunderkammer Amazon.com Widgets « Previous |Home| Aggressive [...]
February 20th, 2013 | 8:42 am
O.K. I’ll bite. Just what does a “center-right” Republican look like anyway?
February 20th, 2013 | 10:21 am
A tremendous amount of ignorance in Pete’s post, as the Political Science facts far outweigh the his political feel as is clearly spelled out in http://www.teapartytribune.com/2013/02/11/establishments-failures-follies-continue/ .
Christine O’Donnell had the courage/conviction (after being the DE GOP’s nominee in 2008 against Biden) to run against Tax&Spend Castle, Pro-Cap&Trade Castle, co-Author of The Disclose Act who was so Pro-Abortion that he even co-Authored what Sen. Coburn called a cloning-human experimentation bill.
This story ( http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/12/rove-email-leaks-ideological-w ) compliments Sean Hannity’s quote on O’Donnell as he responded [to Karl Rove in 2010] by saying, “This is probably one of the few times we’re going to disagree here, because I’ve met her, I’ve interviewed her a lot over the years, I’ve found her quite impressive, and more importantly, she is a solid conservative.”
Establishment accusations about Christine O’Donnell are unfounded in facts, as in July of 2010, Rasmussen had O’Donnell beating Chris Coons, coupled with earlier polling strength by her including a late 2009 Rasmussen poll proving that O’Donnell had a 2-1 advantage with critical Delaware independents against the iconic Biden brand before the extraordinary libel and slander by the GOP establishment.
Additionally, mid-70s career politician Mike Castle lost to Ms. O’Donnell by over six points in the Republican primary and also would have lost to Chris Coons according to CNN and internal exit polling.
Delaware state enrollment is approximately 300,000 (48%) Democrats, 180,000 (28%) Republicans, and 150,000 (24%) independents according to the Delaware Board of Elections survey despite being par back in 2000, which makes O’Donnell’s results all the more impressive despite the lack of party support.
Additionally, long before the Castle defeat, the NRSC surprisingly never thought they were going to win the Senate in 2010, as then NRSC Chairman John Cornyn told a Congressional Quarterly reporter months before the O’Donnell mid-September primary victory for the seat vacated by Joe Biden (who ran for reelection in 2008 as well as being on the Obama ticket) that he did not think Republicans would win enough seats to give them a majority – pretty ironic ( http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/15/gop-moans-about-losing-chance-to-take-control-of-senate-with-castle-defeat/ ) after their losing ways again this cycle coupled with the fact that O’Donnell didn’t have the Dark Money support that all the NRSC failed candidates did in 2010 or 2012.
As RedState Editor-in-Chief Erick Erickson reported in early August of 2010:
“If Mike Castle becomes the next United States Senator from Delaware he is going to get sworn in, serve a bit, then become a Democrat, resign, and let Beau Biden get an appointment.
It’s a done deal. The deal has been made already. I’m hearing this not just from Christine O’Donnell people, but party regulars in Delaware, some of whom support Castle. It is insane.
Maybe that is why Mike Castle is running from Christine O’Donnell. He is afraid to have to answer questions about this. The man will not debate her to save his life.
In fact, Christine O’Donnell is actually ahead of the Democrat in the polls in Delaware. Read that sentence again people because too many of you think we must support Castle to win the seat.”
February 21st, 2013 | 9:18 pm
Though the Mike Castle-Christine O’Donnell saga was not the main point of your post, you get the facts about Delaware politics incorrect, which Jim Moran goes far in correcting. O’Donnell was a passionate campaigner who traversed the state several times (luckily, Delaware is small), and successfully drummed up much grassroots support. I’ve personally seen her speak to lifelong Democrats, and in the space of about 45 minutes or so, convince them to vote for her instead of Biden (this was in 2008). Given that her poll numbers are entirely the results of her own efforts, I say she made quite an impresive showing.
However, the Delaware State GOP never took a liking to O’Donnell, primarily because she chose to challenge Biden — yes, the Democrat. Among those in control of both state parties at the time, there was little ideological difference; both parties were generally pro-business and socially liberal. It’s long been thought that the state parties had a deal with each other: we won’t put up a serious candidate against Senator Joseph Biden if you don’t put up a serious candidate against Congressman Michael Castle. O’Donnell challenged this gentleman’s agreement, earning herself enemies.
Without the support from the Republican party at either the state or (much of the) national level, O’Donnell easily fell prey to negative national media attention, no thanks to Bill Maher (who personally likes her). She was conned into doing the “I am not a witch” campaign ad to combat the attention, which never sat right with her even as she was taping it. From there, the media circus grew even more intense. Next to Barack Obama, O’Donnell’s name was in the 2010 election cycle news more than any other political candidate. Without having any serious charge leveled against her (she was no Todd Akin), she managed to take heated attention off just about every other Tea Party candidate. For that, we should hope that we see more Christine O’Donnells in election cycles to come.
February 21st, 2013 | 9:39 pm
What “facts” were wrong? The stuff about her personal financial difficulties or her lawsuit against ISI? Any comparison between O’Donnell and Akin is insulting… to Akin who has won sgeneral election upon general election.
“It’s long been thought that the state parties had a deal with each other: we won’t put up a serious candidate against Senator Joseph Biden if you don’t put up a serious candidate against Congressman Michael Castle. O’Donnell challenged this gentleman’s agreement, earning herself enemies.”
How does the candidacy of a personally troubled publicist who has never won an election and who lost to Biden by almost 2-to-1 constitute a “serious” challenge? This is especially rich since (as far as I can tell) O’Donnell got a slightly lower percentage of the popular vote in 2008 than Biden’s Republican opponent got in 2002 (raw vote totals were higher for all candidates in 2008 since it was a presidential election year – and a high turnout one at that.)
“she managed to take heated attention off just about every other Tea Party candidate”
This is the most nonsensical defense of O’Donnell that I have read (though I have read it elsewhere too.) By that logic, Akin’s legitimate rape comment should have been a boon for Republicans everywhere because of all the “heat” he took. She was a lousy candidate who won a nomination because her intraparty opposition took the party’s voter base for granted.
“For that, we should hope that we see more Christine O’Donnells in election cycles to come.”
From your keyboard to Joe Biden’s ears.
February 22nd, 2013 | 9:44 pm
The media successfully turned Akin’s comments into part of the Republican “War on Women,” which is why he was unable to take heat off other conservative candidates but rather inflamed opposition to them. (I saw the video in which he made them, and he lost all credibility in my mind as a “serious” candidate; I should mention that I’m as conservative as they come.) In comparison, the media attacked O’Donnell for inconsequential things and for issues that couldn’t be twisted to paint all conservatives with a single brushstroke.
As for O’Donnell’s legal problems with ISI, you have no idea. It grieves me that people accept as fact that which has been printed about O’Donnell’s saga with the organization in the (Delaware) News Journal. People closer to the matter know that ISI has a track record of ugly firings, EEOC claims filed against them, and law suits. After their litigation with O’Donnell, ISI sued Rear Admiral (Ret.) Mike Ratliff, their former senior vice president of programming, arguing that he stole their donors by attempting to start a new think tank. Admiral Ratliff is a man of the highest character who did not deserve to be attacked by ISI. He joined the ranks of many like O’Donnell who found themselves on the receiving end of the organization’s wrath. It’s indeed interesting that ISI endorsed Mike Castle (with whom they supposedly share little ideological ground); I can’t help but think it was almost solely to spite O’Donnell. I only hope that because so much of ISI’s leadership has changed since last decade, it is a different and better organization today.
It’s easy to dismiss O’Donnell because she’s not a conventional candidate, right? Perhaps she should have started off her political career running for county council or something with less gravitas than a high political position. Because that’s what Arnold Schwarzenegger did — oh wait, bad example. Granted, O’Donnell’s odds were a long shot, but she did something that no one before her had done so markedly: she energized conservatives in Delaware, who had all but given up on the state Republican party. I concede that was precisely your point: Castle ignored these people. But it was because he had no idea they were such a sizable portion of Delaware voters. O’Donnell found them and added more to their numbers.
February 23rd, 2013 | 5:02 pm
“In comparison, the media attacked O’Donnell for inconsequential things and for issues that couldn’t be twisted to paint all conservatives with a single brushstroke.” I don’t know how, using that same logic, O’Donnell wouldn’t have strengthened the Tea Partiers are freaks message of the Democrats. So if Akin had sued the Heritage Foundation for sex discrimination, unveiled a record of trouble paying his bills and proclaimed himself a level 3 warlock, he would have somehow made it easier for George Allen or Tommy Thompson to win Senate races? Nonsense. In exactly the same way that the O’Donnell to Rubio rebound effect is nonsense.
“It grieves me that people accept as fact that which has been printed about O’Donnell’s saga with the organization in the (Delaware) News Journal.” I see no reason to prefer the account of partisans “closer to the matter” and no reason at all to believe that she was fired on account of her gender.
“It’s indeed interesting that ISI endorsed Mike Castle (with whom they supposedly share little ideological ground); I can’t help but think it was almost solely to spite O’Donnell.” Possibly they believed that she was a dishonest sure loser whose nomination would make sure that the Democrats won one more Senate seat. The last two being obviously correct (though I think Castle would have been problematic at best as a Senator.)
“It’s easy to dismiss O’Donnell because she’s not a conventional candidate, right?” Or because she was a personally troubled publicist who had shown very little appeal in her previous two runs for office.
“Because that’s what Arnold Schwarzenegger did — oh wait, bad example.” Schwarzenegger was a lousy governor, but if O’Donnell had had a fraction of his success in the private sector her story would have been… different.
“Castle ignored these people. But it was because he had no idea they were such a sizable portion of Delaware voters.” That is the most important lesson for Republicans running in left-of-center constituencies.
February 23rd, 2013 | 8:36 pm
Peter, have you bothered to critically investigate the controversies regarding ISI, or is yours a deliberate ignorance? You’d be wise to think twice: given that an ISI Senior VP sits on FT’s advisory board, I’d think you would prefer to avoid any whiff of bias. I noticed that you ignored Holly H’s point about the Admiral Ratliff–there’s a starting point for your research, perhaps?
February 23rd, 2013 | 8:55 pm
Jack,
“have you bothered to critically investigate the controversies regarding ISI, or is yours a deliberate ignorance?” All I know is the journalistic record and the statements of various partisans. Absent new information, I’m willing to go with the dry facts of the journalistic record.
“I noticed that you ignored Holly H’s point about the Admiral Ratliff–there’s a starting point for your research, perhaps?”
I, for the life of me, don’t see how that matter of think tank internal politics has anything to do with Christine O’Donnell’s lawsuit claiming gender bias in her firing. Are you saying they fired the Admiral because of gender? That would be interesting.
“You’d be wise to think twice: given that an ISI Senior VP sits on FT’s advisory board”
That’s news to me and I couldn’t care less. No one here as ever asked me to pull back anything I’ve written. If you have reason to believe O’Donnell was fired because she is a woman, I’m all ears. My interpretation of the reporting leaves me very skeptical. so I’ll stick with litigious pest.
February 23rd, 2013 | 9:53 pm
Those of us who have worked in public relations know just how inaccurate the journalistic record can be. Most reporters don’t have time to thoroughly investigate the facts of any given story, a problem that is heightened by economically induced staff shortages that nearly all media outlets today face. Please don’t blindly trust the mainstream media because you think having a guise of objectivity creates a narrative closer to the truth than the narrative of those who have a horse in the race. (Perhaps the latter are partisan because they’ve seen enough evidence to make a sound judgment.) Sure, news organizations try to be accurate, but theirs is a partial telling of events — just like everybody else’s.
O’Donnell was fired the very next day after she told her employer that she made an inquiry about her rights (not a claim) with the EEOC. That could very well be considered retaliation, which is illegal.
February 23rd, 2013 | 10:11 pm
Absent facts to the contrary, I see no reason to prefer the accounts of O’Donnell partisans (or publicists) to journalistic accounts.
February 24th, 2013 | 10:26 am
Pete, your original post raises some good point about what moderate (I would say “center-left”) Republicans need to do to win elections. (Why we would want them to win elections is another question.) I was merely trying to correct the record about O’Donnell and Delaware politics, which you are admittedly not completely informed about. (That’s okay — you don’t live there, do you?) It’s a mistake to rely purely on the journalistic record, which has barely scraped the surface and has been heavily influenced by those who have money and wordly power. It’s okay to admit that you don’t know everything about Delaware politics and Christine O’Donnell; I was just trying to provide some additional insight that the journalistic record leaves out — take it or leave it.
February 24th, 2013 | 12:45 pm
Holly, the problem is that, in this case, I see no reason to believe the impressions of O’Donnell partisans (or Castle partisans, or ISI partisans) over the story in question.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact