the same people calling palin an idiot are the same people who think when obama says idiotic things he makes a good point btw riehl and cloutier are correct about the guy but he will win sadly

Nowhere in Dan’s overheated rhetoric is there a repudiation, or even a refudiation,of that fact that O’Donnell trails the Dem candidate by 10% while Castle leads by 10% and would be so likely to win the Dems would not likely even seriously fund his opponent.

Like Ace I have no problem discenrning the Rinocity of Castle, but understand that in liberal states like Del, one frequently has to compromise. Not every state or district is receptive to conservatives. Plus go on Red State or other conservative blogs and you will see plenty of Del. conservatives blasting O’Donnell.

Politics is coalition building– If Dan doesn’t understand that the only practical coalition we can build to win a majority at this time will likely include a few RINOs then he is not practicing politics, but political philosophy.

Look, I don’t have any problem if some conservatives want to back O’Donnell. And if she wins, I’ll happily support her. There are legitimate arguments to be made for supporting her. But I am irritated the attempts of a few to turn support for a badly-flawed candidate who is a poor ideological fit for her state into a litmus test of whether one is a “true conservative” .

Self-defeating conservatism drives me nuts! My 70% friend is not my 30% enemy….Besides, don’t conservatives WANT the majority. O’Donnell is absolutely without a doubt not going to win. Castle almost certainly will. Who do conservatives want staffing the Senate, chairing committees, setting the legislative agenda and presiding over the chamber. If your answer is Reid, Shumer and Durbin – well, keep right on supporting your ‘principles’ at the cost of a potential Senate majority.

fact that O’Donnell trails the Dem candidate by 10% while Castle leads by 10%

Really? I mean, really? Are you going to allow a poll to determine your choice? Has it come to this?

WJ, polls are a snapshot of opinion at a given time. Polls cannot anticipate the impact future events will have on opinions and, in this case, the general-election campaign hasn’t even begun. The Democrat hasn’t run any ads yet. There hasn’t been a single debate.

Therefore, to take a late-August poll and say that Castle can win on Nov. 2 is to completely misunderstand what polls are about. Polls are not prophecies, and the pundits who keep harping on the poll numbers as “proof” that Castle is a sure win in November are either fools or liars.

Did we learn nothing from the John McCain campaign in 2008? Remember how these same pundits who are now backing Castle told us during the GOP primaries that Maverick was the best candidate to take on . . . Hillary Clinton?

Yeah, that’s right: The same “conservatives” who backed Maverick were simultaneously assuring us that Hillary would be the Democrat nominee. And once it became clear that Obama would win the Democrat nomination, those oh-so-smart “conservative” pundits told us that Obama wasn’t really so bad. And now the same people are telling us that we must — must! — support Mike Castle in Delaware, because the polls “prove” that Castle can win.

STOP LETTING OTHER PEOPLE DO YOUR THINKING FOR YOU!

Tammy Bruce jewish? She’s always referred to herself an Irish and Italian.

I agree Stacy, that polls are not prophecies. You’ve posted effectively about this very subject before. And we shouldn’t allow idiotic poll-driven information to determine our votes, especially when little known candidates are concerned.

It’s why I gave Marco Rubio $ when he was sitting 30 points down to Charlie Crist. And why I gave Joe Miller $ when he was 30 points down to Murkowski. And Rand Paul $ when he was way down against Trey Grayson. In each case, THINKING FOR MYSELF, I made a judgment that given the state’s political leanings and the candidate’s appeal, that I was making an intelligent risk.

I do think the Poll is accurate about Castle, because he is a known quantity in Delaware. I do not believe the national Dems will even spend serious $ against him. You show me any evidence that the DSCC, which is going to have 15+ races currently polling closer than this one, are planning to drop big $ here, and I will reconsider that statement. Castle is a completely known quantity for better or worse in Del. and it’s hard for me to imagine him dropping a double digit lead in what will, in fact, be a strong Republican year.

With O’Donnell, the polling numbers are clearly more fluid– and this is both a positive and negative. She certainly has room to grow, but she also has room to be blown out. And she is going to have to grow– and significantly– in order to win.

O’Donnell has some significant mistakes in her past and many grassroots Delaware conservatives who know her personally have come out against her citing a concerning level of flakiness and inconsistency. These problems have not been addressed seriously by her supporters.

Also, Delaware, again, is a very Democratic state. It went 62% for Obama/Biden, by a somewhat smaller amount for Kerry, but also Gore+Nader won 57.5% there. To win with a conservative candidate, that candidate needs to really be a super-appealing Marco Rubio-type. My judgment is that O’Donnell does not pass this test. And I would rather spend my additional $ helping an of Jim DeMint’s SCF candidates, all locked in tight races, than I would in helping her.

But again, I’m not at war with O’Donnell. I think good conservatives can disagree on this issue. What I am against, quite passionately, is the attempt by overheated purists such as Riehl and Mark Levin to RINOize Castle supporters who like myself, Ace, and many others have supported numerous insurgent conservative candidates this election cycle.

A disagreement on tactical approaches to building a majority conservative-led coalition is not a call for questioning the bonafides, sincerity, or intelligence of those who take a different approaches to that goal. I’ve seen too much of this intemperate rhetoric in general from Riehl and Levin, and do not think we should be encouraging it.

I agree Stacy, that polls are not prophecies. You’ve posted effectively about this very subject before. And we shouldn’t allow idiotic poll-driven information to determine our votes, especially when little known candidates are concerned.

It’s why I gave Marco Rubio $ when he was sitting 30 points down to Charlie Crist. And why I gave Joe Miller $ when he was 30 points down to Murkowski. And Rand Paul $ when he was way down against Trey Grayson. In each case, THINKING FOR MYSELF, I made a judgment that given the state’s political leanings and the candidate’s appeal, that I was making an intelligent risk.

I do think the Poll is accurate about Castle, because he is a known quantity in Delaware. I do not believe the national Dems will even spend serious $ against him. You show me any evidence that the DSCC, which is going to have 15+ races currently polling closer than this one, are planning to drop big $ here, and I will reconsider that statement. Castle is a completely known quantity for better or worse in Del. and it’s hard for me to imagine him dropping a double digit lead in what will, in fact, be a strong Republican year.

With O’Donnell, the polling numbers are clearly more fluid– and this is both a positive and negative. She certainly has room to grow, but she also has room to be blown out. And she is going to have to grow– and significantly– in order to win.

O’Donnell has some significant mistakes in her past and many grassroots Delaware conservatives who know her personally have come out against her citing a concerning level of flakiness and inconsistency. These problems have not been addressed seriously by her supporters.

Also, Delaware, again, is a very Democratic state. It went 62% for Obama/Biden, by a somewhat smaller amount for Kerry, but also Gore+Nader won 57.5% there. To win with a conservative candidate, that candidate needs to really be a super-appealing Marco Rubio-type. My judgment is that O’Donnell does not pass this test. And I would rather spend my additional $ helping an of Jim DeMint’s SCF candidates, all locked in tight races, than I would in helping her.

But again, I’m not at war with O’Donnell. I think good conservatives can disagree on this issue. What I am against, quite passionately, is the attempt by overheated purists such as Riehl and Mark Levin to RINOize Castle supporters who like myself, Ace, and many others have supported numerous insurgent conservative candidates this election cycle.

A disagreement on tactical approaches to building a majority conservative-led coalition is not a call for questioning the bonafides, sincerity, or intelligence of those who take a different approaches to that goal. I’ve seen too much of this intemperate rhetoric in general from Riehl and Levin, and do not think we should be encouraging it.

I’d also add that contrary to your assertion that I suggested that we “must!” support Mike Castle, in my post I said

“I don’t have any problem if some conservatives want to back O’Donnell”

And I stand by that. I just believe that Castle is the better pick here.

I’ll live with Castle if it happens, but these arguments are killing me.

Old, wavering, establishment vs. young, strong incumbent.

It’s really just establishing whether you play politics like an alpha or beta male.

Take sides, agitate for your preferred candidate, but let the voters in Delaware decide, then back the nominee whether or not they fit all your positions. But pay attention to electability. We didn’t push Scott Brown because he was conservative, he’s not and couldn’t be in MA. We pushed him because he was a Republican that we needed.

Take sides, agitate for your preferred candidate, but let the voters in Delaware decide, then back the nominee whether or not they fit all your positions. But pay attention to electability. We didn’t push Scott Brown because he was conservative, he’s not and couldn’t be in MA. We pushed him because he was a Republican that we needed.

It is imperative not to pick just the most conservative candidate on the basis of a checklist or even just the most electable. Character counts, and when obvious character problems keep cropping up with the candidate we might otherwise feel like supporting, this should give us pause.

Does anyone think these issues with O’Donnell will just go away if she pulls off a miracle win in the primary? Of course they will not – the Democrats will hammer her mercilessly on the lying, the financial shenanigans, the paranoid-sounding accusations.

We have a great chance to win in places we’d never have dreamed we could compete only two years ago, but only if the issue is the economy and the Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime which has led us down the primrose path to perdition. If we allow the campaign to be about the ethics and mental stability of our candidate, our chances diminish drastically.

This isn’t about a gaffe or two, it’s about how she conducts herself on a broader scale. If we ignore this and lose a seat which could be an easy pick-up, we will not be able to just take the loss and say we fought the good fight, because we will not have. We owe ourselves and the country due diligence on these candidates – no matter how good they might look on a position paper.

I don’t see Riehl “spanking” Mirendoff OR Goldberg. He is just throwing out ad hominem attacks on those he disagrees with.

I suppose it’s a reasonable strategy to generate hits by “punching up,” but that doesn’t mean it’s a good one. And manners probably shouldn’t be expected from someone from New Jersey . . .