Krauthammer's Condemnation

Charles Krauthammer has condemned the decision of Delaware Republicans to run conservative candidate Christine O’Donnell, rather than moderate Mike Castle for US Senate. According to Krauthammer, it’s OK for Republicans to vote on ideology during ordinary elections. But, he says, this is no ordinary election. Indeed, Krauthammer says the following:

This is no ordinary time. And this is no ordinary Democratic administration. It is highly ideological and ambitious. It is determined to use whatever historical window it is granted to change the country structurally, irreversibly. It has already done so with Obamacare and has equally lofty ambitions for energy, education, immigration, taxation, industrial policy and the composition of the Supreme Court.

It is absolutely imperative, then, says Krauthammer, for Republicans to take control of the senate. Therefore, he says, Sarah Palin and Jim Demint’s last-minute endorsements of O’Donnell are “reckless and irresponsible.”

But if it is more important to win than to stand up for what one feels is right, then what on earth is Krauthammer doing criticizing the Republican nominee at this dire time? If a Republican win is more important than conscience, then surely it is more important than Krauthammer’s need to criticize Palin and Demint. If, indeed, Krauthammer believes that a Democratic win would be so perilous to the country, then he ought to be doing everything he can to prevent it. Criticizing the current nominee will not do that. Indeed, with his open criticism, he might be jeopardizing what chances O’Donnell does have.

Krauthammer claims that conservatives out to follow "The Buckley Rule." But he fails to realize is that conservatives have played by that rule for far too long. It has not served them well. Instead, the country has marched continuously leftward. Many social conservatives ignored their ideology and cast uneasy votes for John McCain, because they believed that keeping the country out of the hands of the Democrats was more important than standing up for values that were only spoken of by third-party candidates. Yet, “winnable” candidate McCain turned out not to be so winnable after all.

Furthermore, there is no point in wrestling power away from the Democrats if we mean to elect Republicans who act in the same way and support the same sorts of policies. This is true on social issues and fiscal issues alike.

Democrats are quick to point out that George W. Bush was responsible for the deficit. While they ignore the fact that some of the blame falls on the shoulders of senate and congressional Democrats, there is truth to what they say. Bush could have vetoed any number of costly bills that reached his desk. He did not. And Republicans in the House and Senate were often all too happy to spend taxpayer money on their pet projects or to work with Democrats on theirs. The truth of the matter is that Republicans and Democrats have sometimes become so similar that voters on both sides of the aisle have accused them of being two sides of one coin. Meanwhile, conservatives have grown tired of ignoring their values and their ideologies. The Era of Buckley is dead. The Tea Party has come to life.

Comments

[Ray]

Here is some information on Chris Coons, Christine O'Donnell's opponent:

Rightklik.net
9/16/2010
Chris Coons: Deeply Flawed Candidate

http://www.rightklik.net/chris-coons-deeply-flawed-candidate

This link is a clearinghouse for many links concerning Chris Coons.

From the link:

"This one was written by a Delaware liberal. There's quite a bit of information about Chris Coons checkered past as it relates to the details of his shady campaign finance history. I don't know how much of this information could be used effectively against Chris Coons, but the phrases "class G felony" and "class A misdemeanor" grab my attention! Take a look:

No Wonder Chris Coons' County Finances Are In Such A Mess [Link to this is at the link above]

Another one from our liberal friends in Delaware, this one focused on chris Coons' problems with truth in advertising. Key words; "disingenuous," "false," "incompetent" and "ineffective..."

Coons Intentional Distortion Of His Record [Link to this is at the link above]

More links there show that when he ran for the job in 2004, he promised to not raise taxes. "He raised them not once, bot twice, but three times. Now on his web site he says that he is deeply concerned about the federal government's 'runaway debt.' A number of his proposals to cut the deficit involve collecting more taxes."

Chris Coons raised taxes when the economy was down, he inherited the largest budget surplus in New Castle County history and them the taxpayers with the bill. Coons was responsible for the largest property tax hike that New Castle County residents had ever seen.

CNBC did an analysis of America's top states for doing business in 2010. Delaware was ranked 42nd in the nation. Delaware democrats Blame Chris Coons [Link is at the link given above]

How Chris Coons Slowly Screwed New castle County Residents [Link is at the link given above].

[Ray]

Chris Coons: Deeply Flawed Candidate

http://www.rightklik.net/2010/09/chris-coons-deeply-flawed-candidate.html

This link works.

[William]

I seldom disagree with Dr Krauthammer, but in this case I don't think he could be more wrong in his assessment. I also feel the the Buckley Rule should still apply and I'm not sure it's been violated in Delaware. Buckley simply urges conservatives to support the MOST conservative ELECTABLE candidate. I feel the rule has been breached, more often than not, by the GOP supporting candidates that were far less conservative than they could have. By failing to live up to their own conservative rhetoric and supporting candidates that truly were Republicans In Name Only, the establishment GOP now finds itself being forced to live up to the very principles it espouses. The GOP could easily have found stronger conservative candidates than the ones it supported in the races where the "outsider" (Tea Party) candidate has won. It may be a hard way for the establishment GOP to learn this lesson, but it's one they have to learn.

[Miranda]

William: Thank you for your comments. I often like Krauthammer, as well. I also like your assessment of The Buckley Rule.

However, I think the problem here lies in one's interpretation of "electable." Often, we have said that an electable candidate is one who appeals to liberals and conservatives alike. The problem with this is that it is not balanced out by the other side. Take, for instance, the last presidential election. Voters could choose either an extreme leftist or a RINO. There was no real conservative choice. Therefore, I still believe that following the Buckley Rule has hurt us more than it has helped.

[William]

Indeed Miranda, and that's where the GOP failed itself and IMHO the "center-right" that's been used to describe the American public. By confusing status quo politicians as "conservative enough" for their support, the establishment GOP has allowed the middle of the political yardstick (as described by Peggy Noonan - http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html ) to be placed further to the right than the American public. The Tea Party is in large part nothing more than the political center reasserting itself by demanding that the political establishment move back toward the center as defined outside of the beltway.

[Jon S.]

Miranda,

And the consequence of demanding purity is that Delaware Republicans have nominated a woman who can rightly be described as a kook:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/09/027251.php

It is truly odd when conservatives, conservatives! are saying "the era of Buckley is dead." As if William Buckley were some kind of weak-kneed compromiser. The Buckley rule is simply a manifestation of one of the important political virtues: prudence. It is not a hard fast rule, but a guide. O'Donnell was the right choice *if* she had a chance to win. Her failure to win will not be caused by the media or Charles Krauthammer or the "establishment." Just as Democrats in South Dakota would be fools to run a doctrinaire leftist in our state, Republicans are fools to run a doctrinaire conservative in a state that is not conservative, to say nothing of the fact that she has more baggage than Samsonite.

I believe the Tea Party has been more helpful than not for Republicans/conservatives. But in a couple cases (Delaware and Nevada) they may have cost Republicans seats that they were likely to win. No conservative loves Mike Castle, but any reasonable person would agree that he is likely best that will come out of Delaware (just as Scott Brown, who is a moderate after all, is the best that you can get out of Massachusetts). A half-loaf is better than no loaf. And while this doesn't allow us to get the tingly feelings of moral superiority that comes from being ideologically pure, it does help you pass more legislation (or prevent others). Just as Democrats must have people like Jim Webb and Joe Lieberman, Republicans, if they are to gain a solid majority, will have moderates like Olympia Snowe and...Mike Castle.

[Miranda]

William: I agree.

John: Because my own mother, who is both intelligent and reasonable, was a witch who turned Christian, I am not as quick to dismiss O’Donnell based on these clips as some might be. However, if Krauthammer had based his objections to O’Donnell on something more along the lines of the blog post you link to, I would not have a problem with what he said.

What bothered me was Krauthammer’s line about putting ideology aside in order to win. If Krauthammer had argued against O’Donnell’s stances on any issue or if he had pointed out some sort of major character flaw, I would not have objected. But, to my mind, ideology is one of the most important (if not the most important) considerations deciding who to endorse or vote for. I don’t have a problem with diplomacy in politics, nor do I expect any sort of “purity.” But I do have a problem with the idea that social conservatives must always be the ones who compromise.

Regarding Buckley: Some call him “every liberal’s favorite conservative.” I think that’s fair. Indeed, even the editor of The Nation (http://www.newsweek.com/2008/03/01/a-liberal-s-praise-for-william-f-buckley.html) has praise for Buckley.

It’s true that Buckley was conservative on many issues, but he was too quick to backstab other conservatives and was too quick to compromise when I would not have. Take, for instance, his denunciation of the Iraq war. His criticism of the war came after John Kenneth Galbraith told him his influence would soar if he did so. Because of this, it seems to me that Buckley gave strategy precedence over values. The Buckley Rule is a guideline that is again, more concerned with strategy than values. I think values are more important. I do not think it is always prudent to compromise them in order to win. Indeed, I think that that has been a grave mistake.

Scott Brown might have been a good choice, but I'm not so sure. He seems to be voting happily along with the Democrats. Certainly he did on Obamacare, the policy that seems to dismay Krauthammer the most. And the case of Brown bolsters my point. It does not matter if we win if we elect politicians who act in exactly the same way as the Democrats. Leaving power in the hands of the Democrats would have given us the same result and we could have saved all of the money Brown spent campaigning.

[KB]

There are three questions to consider when deciding who to vote for in a primary election: how will the candidate vote once in office, how will the candidate vote once in office, and how will the candidate vote once in office.

A candidate who cannot win the general election won't vote at all. A vote for such a candidate is, in effect, a vote for the other candidate. A vote for a candidate who can win, but won't vote in office as you would choose, that's a judgment call. Castle had a 52% rating from the American Conservative Union. That's a lot worse than Lisa Murkowski's 70. I am also guessing that it's a lot better than what Coons will earn.

Strategically speaking, Castle was the right choice. On the other hand, the tide that swept O'Donnell into the nomination in Delaware is the same time that is lifting Republican boats across the nation. I'll trade a Senate seat for eight Senate seats elsewhere, even if the GOP falls short of the majority. If that comes with control of the House, I say that's a good trade.

[Miranda]

Dr. Blanchard: Thank you for chiming in. I agree with your comments, but would submit that both are judgment calls. Though I am willing to admit that O'Donnell's chances of winning the election are somewhat slim, I do not think it is fair to declare that she has lost before she has run.

[Stan Gibilisco]

I believe that on November 2, a majority of Delaware voters will cast their lots with the intent of doing exactly what Charles K. says they must. If that's true, O'Donnell should win.

[Miranda]

Thanks, Stan. Always nice to hear your take.

[Jon S.]

Miranda,

FYI, Scott Brown voted AGAINST the health care bill. He has joined Democrats on financial regulation bills and on the "small business" bill.

[Miranda]

John S: You're right, I stand corrected. My apologies.

[KB]

Miranda: I do have to defend William F. Buckley here. It is not too much to say that Buckley founded the modern conservative movement. He did so precisely because the refused to accept the party line at Yale. His decision to criticize the Iraq War may or may not have been the right one. I am very certain that he called it like he saw it. He never said anything because John Kenneth Galbraith told him to.

I confess some bias here. I met Buckley when he appeared in Claremont to honor my teacher, Harry Jaffa. I still say that Buckley said what Buckley thought. I also happen to think that the Buckley rule is political prudence.

I am not scolding you here. Even if the Buckley rule is a good rule of thumb, it can also be a hiding place for cowards. As we agree, it's a judgment call.

[KB]

Miranda: I do have to defend William F. Buckley here. It is not too much to say that Buckley founded the modern conservative movement. He did so precisely because the refused to accept the party line at Yale. His decision to criticize the Iraq War may or may not have been the right one. I am very certain that he called it like he saw it. He never said anything because John Kenneth Galbraith told him to.

I confess some bias here. I met Buckley when he appeared in Claremont to honor my teacher, Harry Jaffa. I still say that Buckley said what Buckley thought. I also happen to think that the Buckley rule is political prudence.

I am not scolding you here. Even if the Buckley rule is a good rule of thumb, it can also be a hiding place for cowards. As we agree, it's a judgment call.

[KB]

Miranda: I do have to defend William F. Buckley here. It is not too much to say that Buckley founded the modern conservative movement. He did so precisely because the refused to accept the party line at Yale. His decision to criticize the Iraq War may or may not have been the right one. I am very certain that he called it like he saw it. He never said anything because John Kenneth Galbraith told him to.

I confess some bias here. I met Buckley when he appeared in Claremont to honor my teacher, Harry Jaffa. I still say that Buckley said what Buckley thought. I also happen to think that the Buckley rule is political prudence.

I am not scolding you here. Even if the Buckley rule is a good rule of thumb, it can also be a hiding place for cowards. As we agree, it's a judgment call.

[KB]

Miranda: I do have to defend William F. Buckley here. It is not too much to say that Buckley founded the modern conservative movement. He did so precisely because the refused to accept the party line at Yale. His decision to criticize the Iraq War may or may not have been the right one. I am very certain that he called it like he saw it. He never said anything because John Kenneth Galbraith told him to.

I confess some bias here. I met Buckley when he appeared in Claremont to honor my teacher, Harry Jaffa. I still say that Buckley said what Buckley thought. I also happen to think that the Buckley rule is political prudence.

I am not scolding you here. Even if the Buckley rule is a good rule of thumb, it can also be a hiding place for cowards. As we agree, it's a judgment call.

[KB]

Miranda: I do have to defend William F. Buckley here. It is not too much to say that Buckley founded the modern conservative movement. He did so precisely because the refused to accept the party line at Yale. His decision to criticize the Iraq War may or may not have been the right one. I am very certain that he called it like he saw it. He never said anything because John Kenneth Galbraith told him to.

I confess some bias here. I met Buckley when he appeared in Claremont to honor my teacher, Harry Jaffa. I still say that Buckley said what Buckley thought. I also happen to think that the Buckley rule is political prudence.

I am not scolding you here. Even if the Buckley rule is a good rule of thumb, it can also be a hiding place for cowards. As we agree, it's a judgment call.

[Miranda Flint]

Dr. Blanchard: I think a scolding would be warranted after my comments on this post, as I seem to have quite a knack for sticking my foot in my mouth.

I am not surprised to hear that you are fond of Buckley. One of the things that made you such an effective professor was your ability to compromise and to unite opposing ideas (Christianity and evolution, atheism and conservative values, etc.) That has been something I have admired.

But there can be too much of a good thing and in my view, conservatives have compromised too much, too often. You might be right that following The Buckley Rule is the prudent thing to do. But if in most elections conservatives choose candidates based on their ability to win, rather than their values, we should not be surprised if we find that no one in Washington defends the values we ourselves have set aside. We have tried the Buckley method and even I used to argue for it. But I have come to believe that taking risks to support conservative values seems more prudent to me than electing a candidate with liberal leanings and expecting him to behave like a conservative.

[KB]

My mouse seems to be stuttering. As a result, I keep double or triple posting.

Anyway, I really appreciate your comments. I will return the favor. In class, some student would frequently say something that was full of ill-digested conventional wisdom. As the Professor, I had to be gentle. I couldn't point out how stupid the remark was. But sometimes you would. Sitting quietly for the most part, you would suddenly say something, usually a few words, that would utterly strip bare the nonsense for what it was. That is a great talent, and I envy you for it.

As to the issue, I agree that conservatives have often been too quick to compromise. That doesn't mean that compromise is unnecessary. I would like to bag that Delaware Senate seat, and I fear we have let it slip away. I still think that that is a small price to pay for the Republican wave this year.

[KB]

My mouse seems to be stuttering. As a result, I keep double or triple posting.

Anyway, I really appreciate your comments. I will return the favor. In class, some student would frequently say something that was full of ill-digested conventional wisdom. As the Professor, I had to be gentle. I couldn't point out how stupid the remark was. But sometimes you would. Sitting quietly for the most part, you would suddenly say something, usually a few words, that would utterly strip bare the nonsense for what it was. That is a great talent, and I envy you for it.

As to the issue, I agree that conservatives have often been too quick to compromise. That doesn't mean that compromise is unnecessary. I would like to bag that Delaware Senate seat, and I fear we have let it slip away. I still think that that is a small price to pay for the Republican wave this year.

[Miranda]

Thanks, Dr. Blanchard.

I agree on all accounts.