The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2010 => Topic started by: Splashdown on September 17, 2010, 10:13:59 AM
-
In today's column, titled "The Buckley Rule (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/246849/buckley-rule-charles-krauthammer)," Krauthammer continues the drumbeat that O'Donnell is unelectable in Delaware.
Of course Mike Castle is a liberal Republican. What do you expect from Delaware? A DeMint? Castle voted against Obamacare and the stimulus. Yes, he voted for cap-and-trade. That’s batting .667. You’d rather have a Democrat who bats .000 and who might give the Democrats the 50th vote to control the Senate?
Castle wasn’t only electable. He was unbeatable. Why do you think Beau Biden, long groomed to inherit his father’s seat, flinched from running? Because Castle, who had already won statewide races a dozen times, scared him off. Democrats had already given up on the race.
O’Donnell, a lifelong activist who has twice lost statewide races, is very problematic. It is not that the Republican establishment denigrates her chances — virtually every nonpartisan electoral analyst from Charlie Cook to Larry Sabato to Stuart Rothenberg has her losing in November.
The beltway pundits/squishy "moderates" are making it so that Coons doesn't even have to campaign. Why is the idea of a social conservative, who beat Castle by SIX POINTS, so repugnant to them? Why is the idea that maybe she holds strong religious values so scary?
Geez. Stop doing the Democrats' work for them.
By the way, Bill Roth was a senator from Delaware. Conservatives can win.
-
In today's column, titled "The Buckley Rule (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/246849/buckley-rule-charles-krauthammer)," Krauthammer continues the drumbeat that O'Donnell is unelectable in Delaware.
The beltway pundits/squishy "moderates" are making it so that Coons doesn't even have to campaign. Why is the idea of a social conservative, who beat Castle by SIX POINTS, so repugnant to them? Why is the idea that maybe she holds strong religious values so scary?
Geez. Stop doing the Democrats' work for them.
By the way, Bill Roth was a senator from Delaware. Conservatives can win.
Perhaps an attempt to put a charge up the ass of conservative voters?
There are some naysayers but there are alot of people who think she will win...and her fund raising seems to indicate they may be right, she is up to 1.4m...and counting.
I think they just need to shut the hell up and get behind her!
-
He wrote off the Tea Party early on then did an about face and said he was wrong. Maybe it will take him a few days for it to sink in. I think they are somewhat out of touch with regular Americans even though I tend to agree with 99% of his views. This time he is wrong.
-
I don't remember the specifics but Krauthammer has also advocated some sort of gas tax that struck me as loopy for an alleged conservative.
When he's on, which is quite often, he is on but when he is off his game, he is quite loopy.
-
Bottom line though is that unless those caustic commentators like Rove and Krauthammer are Delaware voters, their opinion really means squat at this point. From what I hear about him, Koons could just as easily be branded 'unelectable' for being a Marxist nut-job.
The Conservative commentators need to lay off the I-told-you-sos until after the election actually happens.
-
But Rove has come around, at least publicaly. I guess Krauthammer didn't put much stock into the rumor that Castle, due to his age, was going to resign post-election and let the governor there appoint Beau Biden.
Krauthammer has never been a social conservative, he fits the real definition of a "neocon" to a tee.
-
But Rove has come around, at least publicaly. I guess Krauthammer didn't put much stock into the rumor that Castle, due to his age, was going to resign post-election and let the governor there appoint Beau Biden.
Krauthammer has never been a social conservative, he fits the real definition of a "neocon" to a tee.
I think of myself as a neocon--which to me is a good thing--and as a social conservative, Tess. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Krauthammer, though, is occasionally an elitist, which is not a neocon requirement at all.
-
I'm also disappointed in him, not least because he is letting his snit affect the quality of his reasoning; as Rush pointed out earlier this week Buckley himself ignored the so-called 'Buckley rule' at will, really to the point that it's just a personal myth, not a rule at all.
ETA, I would like to add that I remember watching Buckley once in awhile, however I found it rather difficult because even when he was dead on, he still managed to come across like an affectedly-elitist dick.
-
Well, Krauthammer is an inside the Beltway elitist, but he should remember the left mocks his handicap by saying he was so stupid he dived in shallow water - more of their viciousness and nastiness. He's anything BUT stupid like most of they are.
I think of myself as a neocon--which to me is a good thing--and as a social conservative, Tess. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Krauthammer, though, is occasionally an elitist, which is not a neocon requirement at all.
Yes. I think the old meaning of "neocon" applies to Krauthammer - bluntly put, I was told as a child that it was an American Jew that tended to be liberal on everything but defense and Israel in particular.
-
Well, Krauthammer is an inside the Beltway elitist, but he should remember the left mocks his handicap by saying he was so stupid he dived in shallow water - more of their viciousness and nastiness. He's anything BUT stupid like most of they are.
Yes. I think the old meaning of "neocon" applies to Krauthammer - bluntly put, I was told as a child that it was an American Jew that tended to be liberal on everything but defense and Israel in particular.
I hadn’t heard that remark about Krauthammer and diving, but that’s just sick. More typical of what we’ve come to expect from the precincts of the hate-drenched left than any of the (mostly) sane folk of the right (ie, the realm of political normality). I DO, though, see him as looks-down-his-nose elitist, even if I do agree with him about 85% of the time.
I guess different people have different definitions. I'm not even remotely liberal socially. I'd be in favor of prayer in schools during free periods and after school, for example--why not? If there can be a chess club, a debating society, and a cheerleader squad, not to mention the We-Love-Obama Creepy Choir, why not people clubbing up for some prayer? I'm very anti-gay marriage--the adjective-noun phrase is itself contradefinitional, like “a dry ocean†or “flat sphereâ€--staunchly pro-gun rights, think affirmative action of any kind is just discrimination renamed, and want the border closed up AND every illegal deported, no matter how many years it takes. And on and on.
To me the real hallmark of an American neocon is that he sees the modern world of crowded nation-states as being in an eternal zero-sum struggle of good vs evil (loosely in modern parlance, a Manichean struggle), with the United States as the pre-eminent bulwark against the forces of national and transnational evil, and our staunchest and most important allies fairly obviously Great Britain and Israel.