Why Mike Castle Would Be An Improvement In the Senate
May 16th, 2009 by David Anderson
I hope my conservative friends don’t think that I lost it. May I brooch the unspeakable topic? Should Mike Castle be primaried if he runs for Senate? Is he conservative enough? There is a real and understandable concern among conservatives that Congressman Castle may not be the senator we want, but is 4 years of Castle worse than 30 years of a liberal?
Quite frankly, he wouldn’t be my pick to run. He is wrong on the life issue. He gets only a 53% rating on the conservative voting indexes and 46% liberal rating according to the National Journal, lifetime. He voted on both sides of the war in 2007. He fought his own party’s President on taking tax money to destroy helpless embryos so they could be destroyed as non-consenting medical experiments. I don’t trust him on gun control (lifetime F rating). He was wrong on energy policy. He was wrong on bankruptcy reform. He was wrong on copyright expansion.
So it would seem like I would be first in line to dump him not support him. Except I have to look at the landscape. Congressman Castle for all of his failings, has more successes. I will note those, but that is not why I am leaning towards supporting him if he respects Christine O’Donnell.
I believe in moving towards a conservative government as fast as I can get there. If I can get there in a marathon in one day, then I will. If I have to take a few steps a day and take 6 years, then I will. I won’t pass up moving in the right direction merely to feel good about taking a stand. I know that Senator Castle would only be a U. S. Senator 4 to 10 years. A Democrat in that seat would risk the seat for decades. Some would say that there would be no difference. They are wrong.
Mr. Castle has been a solid supporter of Republicans up and down the ticket across the spectrum. Having him on the ticket would bring millions of dollars and high profile Republicans to the state. It would get the Republican message out and give us a chance at party building. Mr. Castle would also raise the profile of other Republicans in the state by conspicuously campaigning with them. It has been almost a decade since we have had serious national money and attention. We have suffered for it.
Mr. Castle would give us a far better voting record than Mr. Kaufman ( who votes almost down the line with Independent Socialist Senator Sanders) and a better voting record than Mr. Carper. Even better, he would influence Mr. Carper to his more moderate tendencies which will make his votes better for us. Right now Delawareans have only one Senator who cares about what we think or our economy and one free lancer who does whatever he wants.
Mr. Castle’s voting record on cutting the growth of spending, the rabid increase in debt, keeping taxes low, opposing funding of abortions, and support of sensible judges is far superior to anyone the Democrats will run. Mr. Castle has opposed the run away budget and stood for some fiscal responsibility. No Democrat who we hear named would.
Mr. Castle has been right on national security 80% of the time. He supports a strong, vibrant national defense as does Mr. Carper. Having two voices instead of one canceling out the other is vital during these dangerous times. While I am disappointed that his record over the last two years has not been as strong (54%), it will likely recover.
Even on issues like abortion where is record is poor (votes with Planned Parenthood 75% and Christian Coalition only 38%), Mr. Castle will not favor abolishing state’s rights to modest restrictions. He voted for the partial birth abortion ban. He voted for the Hyde Amendment. How in good conscience could I allow what could become a crucial 60th vote to over turn those gains?
More importantly, unlike Spector or Snowe, he is a party man. When it is important, he votes with the caucus. We know that if we get a Republican President in 2012 that person will have a vote for her/his nominees and important initiatives. They will have an opponent otherwise.
Strategically, if we can succeed in preparing candidates and rebuilding the party, then having an open seat in 2014 could be just what the doctor ordered. Giving it over to the Democrats to fortify it serves no benefit either way. If we have a Castle for Senate and O’Donnell for House scenario, we could win both in 2010 provide the landscape is right. Either way, we would set ourselves up for a conservative candidate in 4 years while gaining ground nationally in an incremental way. Running a serious primary against him would give us less than two months to recover, reunite the party, raise money, and reach out to swing voters regardless of who won. It would be close to handing the seat off to the other side.
Nationally, we need some pickups in two years and the landscape is tough based upon the fact we have more seats to defend and more retirements. We need to make a run at these new seats in NY, CO, DE, and IL in order to level the playing field. DE and CO are the most likely pick ups. We need to grab them. Mike Castle would make us the favorite in Delaware. His highest disapproval is among Republican voters who tell pollsters they would vote for him anyway, while he scores quiet well among D’s and I’s who have shown a willingness to support him. If Democrats have to put millions into DE, then that may provide just enough breathing room to win in NC, NM, or CO (in fact it may mean writing off a massive challenge to Burr in NC which would free up more of our resources). In other words, conservatives in DE may have to suck one up for the nation. A moderate gain in Delaware may make possible a couple of conservative victories in CO or NC by diverting resources. Currently, the GOP is out raising the Democrats. In the financial war of attrition, we may be able to win.
Mike Castle is far from the conservative ideal but he is also far from socialism. The situation nationally is so dire. That may be a deal we have to take.
I know, Dave B. I really don’t want a primary opponent.
Yeah, riiiiiiggggghhhhht.
The so-called ‘leaders’ should trust the public and not try to be kingmakers. Look at the folly in the last gubernatorial election when a guy who inherited (and dumped) a business was to be the savior of the party. What were his views on issues? Was he more than a ‘checkbook activist’? He did seem generous to some Democrats. This may have been ‘good business’ (in the short run) but was his selection ‘smart politics’?
The GOP needs to forget the elitists and the legacies. The party history was long one of irrelevance. There was Theodore Roosevelt and Hoover was president at the wrong time but remains an interesting and accomplished person. Ike was popular but did he build the party?
Goldwater was the true savior but the ‘Establishment’ types went out of their way to stab him in the back. Nixon fumbled and Reagan (a byproduct of the Goldwater Campaign) restored a measure of vigor to the part. Bush I could never escape his establishment roots and managed to alienate much of his constituency. His essential decency could not save the day.
Mike Castle seems to be akin to those same backstabbers who joined forces with the enemy in 1964. Yet we must subjugate ideology for a rather one-sided ‘party unity’ and never criticize (nor challenge) those whose partisanship is merely nominal. Has this ever gone both ways?
From a practical political standpoint, I am not convinced that Castle could defeat Beau Biden, should he run.
For one, I don’t understand where Castle’s reputation as a moderate comes from. Maybe he sounds like one, but his voting record is down the line partisan Repub, correct?
Biden proved himself a formidable campaigner against Wharton in the AG race, and, he followed up on his campaign promises, especially re the hot button issue of child abuse and sexual predators. He will also run as one who willingly serve his time in Iraq. He is young, intelligent, and creative, opposed to Castle who is up in years and not in the best of health, and a partisan as just mentioned.
I think Beau can beat Castle!
… but his voting record is down the line partisan Repub, correct?…
By what standards? On Second Amendment issues, he is always with the left and one of a very few not to sign the pro-freedom brief on Heller. He just ducked the entire issue. Has he been seeing Sara Brady on a regular basis?
He was one of the Republicans who decided to support Bush’s folly on the first banker bailout. McCain made a big deal about also going along with this silliness that has only grown worse.
Did not Castle vote in favor of the recent ‘thought crime’ bill?
He can dispense pork, but it that really a virtue?
Is Beau Biden more than a name and a gift for superb campaigning?
His last opponent was brilliant in the courtroom but a bit of a dud as a campaigner. Tough for the state but great for criminals.
“Baby Biden” was rather gutless when those DPC records were being shredded. He knows his friends and knows that some of the ‘little people’ really don’t count.
He can showboat but can he produce?
Art, Castle has been down the line with Repub “no” voting since Obama took over, even when Specter, Collins and Snow used better judgment. I don’t want him to continue this record in the Senate.
I can’t see how anyone can classify Castle as a moderate these days, since he was an unapologetic supporter of the Iraq War, as well just about everything that Cheney/Bush/Rice/Rummy did to weaken our country and bring the economy down to where we have descended.
Re Beau Biden and the DPC, of course he immediately investigated the DPC, under adverse political conditions I might add. Here are some details: “Ten month ago, Delaware media sources published a series of articles that detailed horrific conditions within the Delaware Psychiatric Center (DPC), a state institution that has long been an object of controversy. Delaware AG Joseph “Beau” Biden immediately, and without any public acknowledgement, commenced a full investigation.
Last week, Biden announced that his investigation had found “systemic violations” of the Delaware Mental Health Patient’s Bill of Rights. He stated that the DPC had failed to prevent both physical and emotional abuse, failed to correctly use restraints and used “unjustifiable force.” He announced a comprehensive agreement that includes an outside monitor and has not ruled out charges should the agreement not be fully implemented.
The DPC is a state agency and as such a “client” of the Delaware AG’s office. Lawyers assigned to the DPC report to Biden and they continue to represent the DPC on a wide variety of cases including a pending investigation of the U.S. Dept of Civil Rights. Despite the protestations of the Governor and her staff (she is of the same political party as Biden), the AG proceeded with his investigation by not using those on his staff representing the DPC and instead used the staff of his Medicaid Fraud Division. Until last week’s announcement of an agreement, this entire matter took place outside the aura of media scrutiny. ….”
AG James Tierney http://tierney.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2008/5/17/3696347.html
So for you, Art, to state otherwise, either in ignorance or for partisan purposes, is at best disingenuous.
I actually think Kaufman, who now holds Joe’s old seat, would be a better choice, since so far his performance in the Senate has been reasonable, except for his vote against the credit card reformation bill. He also has the experience as a Senate staffer for Joe. But he has removed himself from running for election.
I support Beau Biden for US Senate!
You are somewhat correct, Dave: It depends on the issue. If I agree with you on an issue, I’m glad to acknowledge it.
On Castle, I would like to hear the case for his being a moderate. His voting record does not demonstrate moderation in my view.
Perry, you have a nasty habit of giving D’s every benefit of the doubt, failing to do the same at any time for R’s and then pretending to be unbiased.
Careful, Dave. That’s awfully close to being an “ad hominem!” Which means, of course, that you’re most likely 100% accurate.
I wonder if Perry can explain how Beau Biden was the better pick for AG over Ferris Wharton.
Quite frankly, I think Christine is the superior candidate by understanding of the issues, depth of principle, the fact that she has been thinking and developing policy from a youth . I don’t think that she has a superior legacy or experience. I think both are intelligent. Both relate to people very well. Christine is already in the race. We already have a candidate for senate. If Congressman Castle desires to enter the race, he should. He has earned the right to seek whatever office he wants. I will respect the fact that he is a senior statesman.
I only ask that he respect the candidate in the race and the thousands of supporters that he needs in a tough race. I will swallow hard and work for Mr. Castle because I respect him and the national picture of the party if I feel that respect is reciprocated. Clear the deck for the senate by filling the house slot that he left vulnerable. I am not saying that the party should pick anyone before May (though I think the convention should be in March but that is another subject). I am saying that he should take a certain course which would unify and energize the party. It would clear the field and brighten our future.
Christine is our future. Mike is our heritage. We need both.
This party needs to start thinking like a team building a winning coalition. The moderates can’t think that they can push the conservatives around just because they feel like it. The conservatives can’t act like they are the only ones who matter. I see this as a major test of whether or not we have one party or two competing factions trying to grab the label.
The ball is in Mr. Castle’s court. I am confident that he will return the serve.
Of course it is a stretch. It is taken for granted that she represents a new generation of Republican leaders not that she is the sole messianic hope for the party.
You must be smiling when you typed that just to see if I reacted. LOL I know I wrote a post entitled I heart Christine O’Donnell, but let’s not go that far.
We happen to discussing I consider you and I to be part of the near future as well as John F., John C., Michael F. Ron P., Jordan W. Jonathan C., Seth W. and many others.
I don’t particularly agree. That we need a candidate search. We have one. If others wish to get involved, great. Some people approached me in the after the Clinton impeachment vote about finding someone to oppose Mr. Castle in a primary or at least a convention vote. I would have nothing to do with it. Now Mr. Castle is looking at creating a primary. I don’t mind using what little influence I have to see that he has a clear path because he is the best shot that we have and has spent a lifetime serving this state. The only thing that I would ask in return is to allow the displaced candidate to have some consideration at the open house seat. Headlining a fundraiser would be a normal consideration for such a grand jester.
If it does not happen, I admit that I would be miffed and so would thousands of other people. Many people have invested themselves into the new senate run. Respecting Christine is respecting the David Andersons out there who love this party and loyally support its candidates whether or not they are perfect. IMHO we already have a candidate from the conservative perspective. We don’t need a search committee trying to find us one.
Let’s be practical. We have a young, energetic candidate who inspires enthusiasm. She has set two records. She is the most popular write-in candidate since we got the machines. She is obtained the best votes per dollar of anyone statewide on our side. She set an historic benchmark. I can’t find any candidate in the last 100 years who got as many votes (percentage) as she did against a senate candidate running for VP. She did it on a dime and a prayer. After Mr. Biden was nominated, all of the money dried up because it was assumed the race was over. The media gave him daily attention and she got scant attention. Yet she battled so hard that Mr. Biden had to actually come home and campaign then spend a million or two.
She actually polled better than some better known candidates in a very rough terrain. With that background, why would I look for someone untested who has to go build up the goodwill that she already has? We will be facing John Carney. I take that very seriously and I want to get started now. He is starting now. Let’s not go around and waste a year building an organization. She already has one. Let’s fund it and improve it.
This is not some sentimental thing. She is my friend (hopefully still a good one after this post saying clear the way), but so are a lot of other people–they just don’t have the same advantages. I am talking about raw political data crunching. I want to win this one and I want to have a conservative in the seat. I see about 3 or 4 people who can fill that bill and she is already running.
Why would this time be different? She has added what she lacked to her team. Some candidates need to hire a policy person, some need to hire organizers,some need to hire fundraisers, some need to hire, pr people, and some need to hire strategists. No candidate has it all. You know that as well as anyone. Now that we know she is good candidate, we know what she needs. Let’s get a fundraiser going and she will be able to fill the couple of gaps.
I can’t find any candidate historically in the same circumstances that even made it into the 30% range. To the contrary, Christine exceeded the GOP base vote. Jane Brady had about the same percentage yet had national support and the focus of the race being the local headliner. Ms. Brady had higher negatives after the race than Ms. O’Donnell by far. Some people wrote her off as damaged goods, but I think she did alright for herself. I am not speaking from the abstract. As for KHN she had a base of 40% to work from, Brady had a weak opponent that he outspent.
I don’t think that you can say that she had a lot of trouble raising money in first race. She filed about 3 weeks before the deadline. Then some people ran a write in campaign and sort of drug her along. In for a penny, in for a pound she used it quite smartly. That wasn’t a real race. The second race was due to the fact that the race would have been written off no matter who ran unless it were Mike Castle. If the experts knew she would do as well, they would have used her to tie down Biden and maybe would have pulled off MN without this recount by forcing resources to go to Delaware.
BTW thanks for the endorsement of the post. Someone had to say it.
From a Conservative perspective 4 years of Mike Castle is far and away better than 20 or 30 years of a liberal Democrat. If he wins, it will allow us time to prepare for his successor. It almost seems blindingly logical. Maybe I am missing something, but so far none of the responses have convinced me of that. It seems irresponsible not to take an opportunity to bring millions into the party and rebuild it. Mike Castle on the ticket could provide a rallying point where we take back the state house of reps and maybe hold the house seat in the right environment while gaining back a senate seat.
I can sum up this post for ya Del patriot.
I have no ethics but I will support this guy.
Christine O’Donnell doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected to the Senate in Delaware; this is a liberal state. A moderate like Castle is the best a conservative could hope for in this state, although I believe he would be trounced by Prince Biden; apparantly, Delaware has an infatuation with monarchy.
Rick, I couldn’t disagree more. This is not a liberal state. Mike Castle is not the best we can hope for. Get over the defeatist mentality. Politics goes in cycle. There is nothing fundamentally in this state that makes it a liberal state. I will have to go over the demos one day. The GOP is in trouble because it bought into that idea.
Many conservatives are too quick to believe the liberal press. Once they have a couple of set backs, they hunker down and believe that everything is sliding away. That is why there is such a hunger for another Reagan who will tell us that we are the change. We are not alone. I say that we don’t need one. We just need the courage to look into ourselves and then reach out to our neighbors, co-workers, and family. We can casually reorient people. Most people are naturally conservative. It doesn’t take much to bring their politics closer to the way they live.
Where I agree with Rick is that Mike Castle may be the best we have now. Christine could not win a primary with Mike Castle. She may defeat him, but then she would only have 7 weeks to bring it together for November. And the reverse is true, if he won then he would have the same problem. The Democrat would have a nine month free ride and be next to impossible to beat afterward unless that person sat back and watched. Then it would be the reverse of the Bill Lee situation. The Democrat would be so far behind in attention that he would likely have to play catch up.
That is quite a gamble when so much is on the line.
DV it is called strategy. I can’t get where I want in one leap so I will take several steps. To paraphrase it in a way that you leftists would understand.
Two steps forward and one step backwards moves me ahead one step.