The Hill’s Big Question Editor Sydelle Moore takes on some of the nation’s top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals’ insight into the biggest questions burning up the blogosphere today. I also got the honor of making a small contribution to the story.
If Rep. Michael Castle (R) loses in Delaware, what does that mean for the Republican Party?
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), said:
“If Rep. Mike Castle loses in Delaware, it would be too bad, I’m a great admirer of him but you have to respect the voice of the people
Peter Navarro, professor of economics and public policy at U.C. Irvine, said:
This is Political Science 101. Tea Party candidates tend to be further Right of Center so while they have a better chance of winning primaries, it will be easier for Dems to defeat them in general elections. So Reps pick up fewer seats. What’s disturbing about all this is how severe economic discontent in the U.S. is providing electoral gateways for Tea Party candidates with extreme social issue agendas — Christine O’Donnell is a poster child for this. Memo to the Tea Party: The first Tea Party was about taxes, not abortion or gay rights.
Alan Abramowitz, professor of political science at Emory University, said:
1. The Delaware seat stays in the D column
2. GOP chances of getting to 51 Senate seats in this cycle decrease substantially
3. Tea Party candidates and their supporters will continue to threaten the viability of the GOP for the foreseeable future
John Feehery, Pundits Blog contributor, said:
It means Republicans don’t take the Senate.
Cheri Jacobus, Pundits Blog contributor, said:
The Tea Party movement is marginalizing itself with its actions in Delaware. The movement has been enormously influential and effective because it has been clearly defined by fiscal and small government issues that cut a wide swath through the electorate. In Delaware, the Tea Party is making a significant departure from the very set of core issues that have drawn in a broad spectrum of voters and new voters, and instead seem to be defining themselves by issues such as abortion and gun rights. This is why many Tea Party supporters will likely start to move away from association with the movement. (That, and those pesky personal issues and strange positions of O’Donnell’s that should disqualify her as an endorsed candidate of any party or movement, regardless of her stated positions on primary issues.)
The Tea Party is still, undoubtedly, a net gain for the Republican Party, but there has been a price to pay. Christine O’Donnell’s support by the Tea Party movement does not even remotely reflect the Tea Party support for candidates such as Scott Brown in Massachusetts. But like many effective movements, the Tea Party may be enjoying a brief but bright shelf life, meant to burn hot for a short time before flickering out — or at least settling into a lesser long-term role.
If the Tea Party tanks Mike Castle in Delaware and costs the Republicans the Senate, it will lose supporters in droves.
Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:
It means the GOP establishment’s goose is cooked. It means all bets are off — and it means that the Democrats, too, are in big big trouble. Because all these voters who are sick unto death of professional politicians who go along to get along are coming to the polls, this November, to get revenge. And they mean to have it….
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said:
Should Congressman Castle lose his primary to a relative unknown without previous office or political leadership experience it will not be a case of tea party regicide, but rather political suicide.
Only Congressman Castle is on the ballot. The alternative for most voters is “none of the above.”
Castle would be a great improvement over any Democrat in Delaware. He has however irritated voters by supporting Cap and Trade legislation that would punish Delaware citizens by deliberately raising their energy costs. Castle has continued to worship at the shrine of global warming long after the models have been exposed as jimmied, the data faked and the consensus created the way Mussolini created consensus—through intimidation and rewards for proper ideological stances.
One could argue for “sending a message” by voting against Castle for his votes against the First Amendment and for “protect the incumbents” campaign finance laws.
But how stupid does one believe Senators to be? Were not Bennett, Murkowski and Specter messages enough? At some point there just may be overkill. Or perhaps some politicians are quite hard of hearing.
Cross-posted from the Hill’s Congress Blog.