Conffederate
Confederate

September 27, 2010

My One-and-Only Christine O'Donnell Post

It seems everyone else in the political blogosphere has turned out their opinion of the Delaware Republican Senate Primary, and is now furiously focusing the race purely upon the perceived merits or demerits of the Republican primary winner, Christine O'Donnell.

The primary race itself was something of a litmus test, pitting O'Donnell, who professes to be a conservative, against well-known and generally popular moderate Republican Mike Castle. Reform-minded Tea Party purists gravitated to O'Donnell. Many others embraced polling data that suggested the moderate Castle would win in a walk over Chris Coons, the nearly sacrificial Democratic candidate.

The in-fighting on the right was intense as bloggers and pundits chose up sides, pulling readers this way and that with both well-reasoned and occasionally absurdly emotional arguments for and against their preferred candidate.

In the end, Delaware's voters made the decision to risk a near lock of a Republican pick-up (Castle) in favor of a much more risky, but theoretically more ideologically pure conservative (O'Donnell).

I'll respect the decision of Delaware's Republican primary voters. They made the choice to give up an easy victory with a perceived RINO in favor of a much tougher battle with an untested, under-vetted, and inexperienced conservative option. That takes both guts and faith, and considering the nation's growing anti-establishment movement, it could be a bet that pays off.

Now, would I have voted for Christine O'Donnell if I was a Republican Primary voter? Honestly, I don't think that I would have.

O'Donnell may end up winning the general election against Chris Coons and go on to be a successful conservative senator, but I don't see that as being a likely outcome. For starters, I rather suspect that the demographics and voting history of Delaware strongly favors Coons. It will be a surprise to me if O'Donnell beats him, but then, few gave her a chance of making it this far.

But even if she wins, I don't think O'Donnell would turn out to be a "Tea Party senator." I suspect this will come as a shock to many of her new supporters.

Everything in the candidate's personal biography paints the portrait of committed social conservative, but I see nothing in Christine O'Donnell's personal or professional biography to suggest that she is any better at all than Mike Castle on fiscal matters. As a matter of recorded history, her personal finances are a study of incompetence, blame-shifting, ethically questionable and fiscally irresponsible decisions.

So if I was a Delaware Tea Partier, Republican, Independent, or moderate Democrat, I would have an interesting choice to make in November. Do I hold my nose and chose the lightweight and apparently vindictive socialist in Chris Coons, ensuring that Senate Democrats have an assured "yes" vote for every big government entitlement scheme and tax increase they can dream up? Or do I chose the eccentric born-again virgin who can't seem to balance a checkbook or hold a job of her own? Frankly, I could understand why some Delaware votes might chose to stay home November 2nd, or at least skip over the Senate race.

From where I sit, however, it is better to vote for the lesser of two evils, if only to avoid the greater evil gaining power. The last thing Delaware needs is another big government liberal like Chris Coons to join his economy-wrecking fellow Democrats in the Senate.

Christine O'Donnell should be your vote for Senator from Delaware, if only as a preventative measure.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at September 27, 2010 11:47 AM
Comments

Despite the possibility that Odonnell is not as conservative as she appears and that she may lose the general election, there really was nothing to lose in supporting here.

Coons = Castle legislatively. No substantive difference. Ont he other hand, any opportunity to pry a career politician's ass out of his seat should not be overlooked, even if the candidate is less than satisfying. Not so much a "lesser of two evils" approach but a direct approach to thwart the evil that you know in favor of at least a chance of something better. If Odonell goes bad, there is always the chance to try someone new in 2012. No election is permanent and politicians need to learn that.

Posted by: Professor Hale at September 27, 2010 12:44 PM

I ALWAYS vote against the "lesser of two evils," As I cannot remember a candidate who I ever agreed with completely!

Posted by: cas at October 1, 2010 07:03 PM