Saturday, September 11, 2010

Jay Cost's argument for Castle is flawed #tcot #DESEN

RRD:The argument:

Morning Jay: The Dukakis Coalition, Leave Mike Castle Alone, Senate Polls, Cook's Dire Warning, and More! The Weekly Standard
...."Republicans can peel back much of Obamacare through de-funding, but a full-blown repeal is probably going to require not only a new president but a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That is a possibility, though it won’t be easy. The GOP is currently 19 seats short of a filibuster-proof majority, but this year polling averages sugges that the party is currently set to pick up 8 seats. Then in 2012, scores of Democrats are up for reelection: in California, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia Washington, and Wisconsin The GOP just cannot win some of these seats, e.g. Hawaii, but if the Republicans are strong enough to take the White House in 2012, they will probably be on the attack in many of these states. I count 12 seats in state that either went for Bush in 2004 or for which Bush was campaigning heavily.  An R+5 year could tip many of t
seats to the GOP.  So, it’s possible. But this also means that every seat counts.Mike Castle voted against ObamaCare, and he has co-sponsored the bill to repeal it. Is he really worth going after? A pickup of 19 seats in two years is a monumentally difficult task.  It seems to me that at a time when the party needs every seat it can get, Castle can get one"...

RRD:In my post on "Why Castle must be defeated whatever it takes"

I argued that Castle's election,given his horrendous record,would embolden the Rinos to defect,since they would know that there would be no consequence for their votes.I predicted that this could lead to a bi-partisan DISCLOSE act directed at protecting the establisment.(I made other arguments but that was the main one).Nothing in Cost's argument has changed my mind.He himself shows that that Republicans are likely to pick up 8 seats,2 short of what would be needed to gain a majority.He further ignores the fact that there would be little if any incentive for the leadership,(which as I argue in the article has waffled on full repeal),to stand up to the immense pressure to NOT repeal it from the beltway & the media if they believe that they can betray us with impunity.
Cost does not take into account the danger of a Castle victory.
Further he assumes that even if Castle votes for a full repeal,(which I doubt he will do when push comes to shove),that the other RINOS will as well.Why should they if they know that the National Review,The Weekly Standard et-al will come to their defense,(or are we to believe that the National Review et-al will suddenly abandon their "it's better to have someone with you 50% of the time than against you 100%).
I also believe that he overestimates the importance of New England in getting enough votes to repeal Obamacare.
Oh,& one minor point.How do we vote for/or support someone who voted for the DISCLOSE act & then turn around & again,(& correctly) condemn the DISCLOSE act as the closest thing to a 21st century alien & sedition act in memory.(Which it is)

Posted via email from theneointellectual

No comments: