Every Race Matters

If 2010 taught us anything, it’s that in Delaware, we can’t win statewide or make headway in Dover until we change New Castle County.  Even if we won every race in Kent and Sussex County we could not control the General Assembly in Dover without New Castle County and that is why every race matters in 2012.  We have a rare opportunity to turn the tide in Delaware with almost every seat up for grabs.  What we must do is look outside of our own districts for places where we can find solid conservatives who can pick up seats that we will need to regain control of the General Assembly.

How can we affect races in districts we don’t live in?  Consider this, across the state there are 174,545 registered Republican voters.  If half of these voters contributed just $10 to each of the 51 seats up for election in 2012, each candidate would have $872,725 and each donor would spend just $510 (the max contribution limit to each race is $600 so this is 51 for the price of 1).  Even the most difficult races in Delaware should be quite winnable with those kinds of dollars.  Given the results, it’s really a small price to pay to achieve these kinds of victories in Delaware and to save our state from our current disastrous course.

So when you’re looking out at the races this year, consider spreading a little cash around to races throughout the state to make 2012 a wave election and regain control of Dover.  We can and we will make a difference in Delaware

Where do I go to get my Reputation Back?

Today I recieved some news that is just, well vindication that the Truth shall set us free. After being publicly smeared as a campaign finance violator by the Delaware Republican Party simply for supporting Christine O'Donnell over Mike Castle. The FEC had previously reached a split decision on the matter but the investigative committee found no reason to believe that the O'Donnell campaign nor I had done anything wrong. Here is a link to the entire report and here is the excerpt that vindicates me.

Finally, the complainant alleges that the O'Donnell Committee's press secretary stated on his Facebook page that he speaks to TPAC "daily. The complainant also states that TPAC was planning a radiothon during which O'Donnell would make an appearance. OGC recommended finding reason to believe that violations of the Act occurred based on those facts. We disagreed.

We note again that "opening an investigation to determine whether we could discover a basis for those suspicions runs counter to the statutory constraints imposed on the Commission. That "reason to believe" requires more than mere speculation has been established in prior enforcement matters. For example, in MUR 4960 (Hillary Clinton), the Commission summarized the requirements as follows:
The Commission may find "reason to believe" only if a complaint sets forth sufficient specific facts, which, if proven true, would constitute a violation of the FECA. Complaints not based upon personal knowledge must identify a source of information that reasonably gives rise to a belief in the truth of the allegations presented...

Unwarranted legal conclusions firom asserted facts, see SOR in MUR 4869 (American Postal Workers Union), or mere speculation, see SOR of Chairman Wold and Commissioners Mason and Thomas in MUR 4850 (Fossella), will not be accepted as true. In addition,... a complaint may jbe dismissed if it consists of factual allegations that are refiited with sufficiently compelling evidence provided in the response to the complaint...

Similarly, in MUR S467 (Michael Moore), the Commission stated that "[purely speculative charges, especially when accompanied by a direct refutation, do not form an adequate basis to find a reason to believe that a violation of the FECA has occurred." Therefore, under the Act, before making a reason-to-believe determination, the Commission must assess both the law and the credibility of the facts alleged. To do so, the Commission must identify the sources of information and examine the facts and reliability of those sources to determine whether they 'reasonably [give] rise to a belief in the truth of the allegations presented." Only if this standard is met may the Commission investigate whether a violation occurred. These requirements are not met here.

Assuming that the radiothon was paid for by TPAC, mentioned the candidate, and was broadcast shortly before the primary election, the available information, including the Facebook posts at issue, provides insufficient basis for a reason-to-believe finding. First, the Facebook posting for the event does not indicate whether or not O'Donnell was set to appear. While a Facebook post by Evan Queitsch, apparently directed to a WDEL radio station employee, reads "@Jensen 1150 WDEL let me know if you want to know about the Tea Party Express as I speak w/them daily," OCiC states that the posts on their face do not satisfy the conduct prong. We agree. And even if TPAC and the O'DonnellConmiittee were in daily contact, such contacts would not be sufficient to meet the conduct threshold. More specific information is necessary.

Our unwillingness to find reason to believe a violation occurred based on the O'Donnell Committee's original response is bolstered by later confirmation that Mr. Queitsch was not a member of the O'Donnell campaign during the primary campaign. Therefore, the complainant's accusations in this matter, including one of which was based on tiie incorrect factual implication that Evan Queitsch was the O'Donnell Committee's press secretary, provide insufficient basis to find reason to believe.

My question is, where do I go to get my reputation back? When do I get to repair the damage that this false complaint has done to my career and potential political aspirations?   Mr. Tom Ross, do you even care that you've destroyed the career of an innocent person?  What about you Michael Toner?  Do you care that your false allegations have impacted my career? 

Also, to the media, you were quick to print my name in your articles alledging that there was wrong doing involved here.  Now that Christine, TEA Party Express and I have been cleared of wrong doing, will you print your retraction and apology on page A-1? 

American Spectator Interviews a Troublemaker

Jeff Lord at the American Spectator recently sat down with a real troublemaker for an interview. 2010 U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell sat down with Jeff and the first copy of her new book “Troublemaker” for a chat. I’ll let you read most of Jeff’s piece over at the American Spectator but I thought that the following excerpt aptly described O’Donnell’s campaign.

THE REAL POINT HERE, as more and more Americans get with every passing day, is that this is precisely the game played with non-Establishment politicians right from the get-go. A viewing of the 1939 classic film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington​starring Jimmy Stewart -- this scene

 from the film gets to the guts of O'Donnell's 2010 race and then some with the exception that in the end Mr. Smith wins and O'Donnell loses -- says only in cinematic fashion what O'Donnell has lived in real life.

 O’Donnell faced down Mr. Potter and all his friends in former Congressman Mike Castle who she defeated in the 2010 Primary. They tried their best to take her down and they wounded her enough that she was unable to win the war but she made sure to take down Goliath along the way. It took dive bombs from Karl “Tokyo” Rove, smears by the Delaware Republican Party leadership, the withholding of support by the national party and constant insults from high powered magazine editors like Bill Kristol from the Weekly Standard to try and stop her but still, the respectable members of Delaware’s Republican Party were undeterred and selected her as their nominee.

Still the party know-it-alls like the ancient and detestable National Committeewoman Priscilla Rakestraw, whose reign will hopefully mercifully come to an end in 2012, refused to support O’Donnell. Likewise, the crotchety Castle refused to hold to his promise to support Christine if she did “somehow” win the nomination. Even when asked by O’Donnell’s father, to whom Castle had promised to support her, Castle refused. He claimed he was insulted by an attack on his sexuality launched by a former campaign vendor to the O’Donnell campaign but the truth is that King Castle had never lost an election and he simply didn’t know how to lose.

 O’Donnell spills the beans on this and many other Republican Party secrets in her tell-all. She explains the push to use certain vendors once she’s secured the nomination discusses the shenanigans behind the infamous “Witch Ad” and points fingers at the puppet masters who balked at a nominee whose strings they couldn’t pull. She’ll talk about a once grand old party, with names at the top like DuPont and Roth who in 2006 nominated Jan Ting to run against Tom Carper. Ting would go on to not only switch parties, but become state coordinator for the Obama campaign in 2008.

 Oh, she lays it down…and this is just the beginning. Get your copy of what is sure to be, a New York Time Bestseller (whether they like it or not) today!

Gov. Dupont is a TEA Partier

Former Delaware Governor Pete Dupont is one of the most respected living politicians in the state and when he speaks, Delaware listens.  Gov. Dupont is a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal and other national publications.  During his tenure as Governor, Delaware experienced a rapid and expansive growth and for that reason, Delaware looks to him as a leader to this day.  He is a fiscal conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge, cut the taxes, reduce the spending and adhere to the Constitution.  Pete Dupont is in fact, a TEA Partier.  Gov. Dupont even honored the Delaware TEA Party groups by being the headline speaker at the 2010 Wilmington Tax Day TEA Party held annually at Dravo Plaza.  He addressed a crowd of hundreds who turned out on April 15th and he called for government to reduce spending, cut taxes and shrink the size of government across the board. 

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this week, Gov. Dupont explains the Nov. 2nd elections and calls Obama to the carpet.  He calls for Obama and the new Republican majority in the House to shrink government and remove burdensome regulations so businesses can expand again, cut taxes to stimulate the economy as the Reagan, Kennedy and Coolidge administrations did before them, reduce government spending by cutting discretionary spending and finally to repeal and replace Obamacare with common sense alternatives.  He cited a 136 page rule inserted by DHSS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that places the federal government into a role traditionally held by the states.  He left out however, a regulatory reform from the radical Dr. Donald Berwick and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services that will create the much maligned "Death Panels" that Democrats (including President Obama) promised would be removed from the health care law.  Berwick's rule will allow doctors to be paid for providing "end of life counseling" which will be used along with "Comparative Effectiveness Research" to determine the most cost effective future treatments.  By creating an incentive for doctors to "counsel" seniors as to how long they may or may not want to live, the government is effectively removing choice from the equation.  Medicare doctors, who already enjoy a unique control over their patients, will have a financial reason to ensure that every patient receives counseling on how long they should live. 

In the end, Dupont calls on the new Republican House to "Get to it" and begin the work to reform government.  Understanding that the road will be hard and paved with bumps, the new Congress and the improved Senate must fight to reduce the size of government, limit spending, reduce the tax burden and replace Obamacare with common sense reforms while returning choice and competition back to the people and the states.  Gov. Dupont is a TEA Partier at heart and he espouses the values and the principles which we hold dear.  In Delaware, we could not have a better man to look to for guidance as a grassroots movement.  I join Governor Dupont in his support of the new look Congress.  "Let's get to it".

Turns out Christine O'Donnell actually HELPED down ticket Republicans

At least, that is how it would appear when one looks at the exit polling from the Delaware U.S. Senate race.  O'Donnell struggled with women(36% for 61% against) and with black voters(93% against) in the state.  It's been long understood that those groups are the most important blocs to win in Delaware.  Details of the exit poll breakdown show that O'Donnell tied Coons among white women (48% each) but lost black women 95% - 4% which accounts for nearly the entire 25 point swing in female voters.  What appears to have done O'Donnell in is the 18% of Republicans who abandoned the more conservative O'Donnell as opposed to the 9% of Democrats who crossed over to vote against Coons. 

So what does all this mean?  Republicans down ticket SHOULD have benefited from the increases in Republicans and Independent voters over the registration totals.  Remember, the registration gap at election time was:

Democrats:  47 %.  

Republicans:  29.4%.  

"Other" & Independents:  23.5%

Yet the exit polling shows that Democrats made up only 44% of actual voters in November:
Democrats:  44 %.

Republicans:  30%.   

"Other" & Independents:  27%

So in theory, this should have HELPED candidates down ticket, not hurt them as has been suggested by the GOP elite.  There is one explanation for why those candidates may have lost their races....the 18% of Republicans who voted against O'Donnell.  It's interesting that 18% of Delaware Republicans cost Christine the election and likewise, 18% of Delaware Republicans consider themselves more liberal than moderate.

Democrats:  44%. 

Castle joins other Progressives in creating “No Labels”

Congressman Mike Castle has once again displayed the reason he was soundly rejected by the Delaware GOP electorate in his primary bid for U.S. Senate this past September. He has joined New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Evan Bayh from Indiana, former Florida Governor (and Republican turned Independent) Senate candidate Charlie Crist and New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in helping to form the new activist group “No Labels”. The group is said to be “a counter to the T.E.A. Party movement” and the motto is “Not left. Not right. Forward”. The idea of the motto is to portray the group as a mixture of many different ideological perspectives all seeking the common goal of “doing what’s right for the people”. The group seeks to fill a perceived void between MoveOn.org on the left and the T.E.A. Party groups on the right. Sadly, the fact is that the group is built on the idea that THEY know what is best for “the people” and that THEY in turn need to make the decisions. It’s entire concept of a perceived void speaks to its roots in Progressivism and not a real need for Centrist movement.


The group is a concept hatched by political strategists Nancy Jacobson (Hillary Clinton campaign veteran) and Mark MicKinnon (John McCain/George Bush) and touted by MSNBC hosts. In fact, the launch event was moderated by Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Dylan Ratigan, and Michael Smerconish. Politicians like Crist and Castle jumped on the chance to get behind this new reincarnation of the Soros “Mainstreet Republicans”. Looking through the leadership of the group, it’s easy to spot the real purpose behind the facade. It’s a group intended to promote Progressive policies by using whatever direction the wind blows. Their idea of bipartisanship is little more than moving the country further to the left incrementally instead of all at one time.

Their cause sounds noble. Seeking to make government more efficient and more fluid sounds great but we have to stop and look at what our founders gave us. Is our government meant to be efficient and solve all of our problems? Well, let’s look at the quotes our founders gave us to find that answer:

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” – George Washington

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” – Patrick Henry

“Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” – Declaration of Independence
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." - Thomas Jefferson

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare." - James Madison

It’s quite clear from these quotes that the founders intended a limited government based on rights possessed by the people and lent to government. It is a government rooted in individual liberty and natural law. What does that mean? Natural law is a law of nature that every person is entitled to from birth such as the right to self defence, the right to pursue happiness and the right to live. Ask yourself this question next time you read about a law the government wants to pass: “Do I have the natural right to do that?” If you don’t have the natural right to do it, government cannot do it either. Yes, that means that a great many of the laws government has created extend beyond the intended reach of government at many levels. Let’s look at an example:

If your friend Tom does not buy health insurance, do you have the power to force him to buy it? Of course not! Neither does the government.

So the Founders intended government to be restrained by the Constitution. There is little doubt of that. But what about the political class we have today? The founders intended the people to be involved in the process and in fact to control government. The founders themselves were not aristocrats; they were farmers, merchants, lawyers (not nearly the lucrative profession it is today), doctors and writers. George Washington is an example of the idea of the founders for government, he was elected President unanimously and could easily have been King for life but he chose to leave office after only 2 terms. The founders even built wording into America’s first laws “Government derives its power from the just consent of the governed.” (Declaration of Independence) and Thomas Jefferson was quite clear when he said, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." The American government is meant to be small, limited to a few powers defined in our founding document and controlled by the people.

Lastly, let’s talk about the founders intentions for efficiency of government. Washington called government “force” and said “Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” This is a common feeling throughout the origins of our nation. The founders distrusted a powerful government that was able to give the citizens everything they wanted. Ben Franklin said as much, when he intimated that a government large enough to give us all that we desire is large enough to take everything we have. A cursory look over the Constitution itself shows you that the document is meant to be a series of checks and balances. No branch of the federal government has complete control or can even accomplish anything without the others. The President may set the agenda but Congress must pass it and the Supreme Court can overturn it. Congress may control the writing of the budget but the President must sign it and the Supreme Court may strike portions that are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court may determine the constitutionality of a law but they are restricted from writing it or setting policy. Finally we have the issue of the people and the states. They are the final arbiters of federal law. The states were intended to retain more powers than the federal government and the people were left with the bulk of the power. The states, in conjunction with Congress, even have the ability to alter the Constitution which is a power that even Congress cannot do alone. The President has no role in this process at all. The two ways the Constitution can be amended are:

1.) Constitutional Convention (this method has never been used) called by 2/3rds of the state legislatures


2.) A proposal by Congress which is done so by obtaining 2/3rds majorities in both the House and Senate and then ratification by 3/4ths of the state legislatures.

As you can see, the process to change the Constitution and even to write and pass a law is intended to be an arduous process that is not undertaken lightly. We haven’t even touched the partisan divide and lest ye think the founders weren’t a partisan group, remember that from the very beginning there were debates and opinions. The party process has actually streamlined the legal process by uniting individual lawmakers around common party causes and even undercut the states by dividing the Senate along party lines. During the time of the founders, the factions included Federalists, Anti-Federalists and Loyalists. Imagine the gridlock that met the first Congress as the individual states, which had just fought a war against the most powerful army and government in the world, vied for their own piece of the federal pie! Gridlock in government is built into the Constitution and built into the federal government design from the founders.

Now back to our friends over at “No Labels” who claim that the TEA Party is an extremist movement that they stand to be a counter to. We’ve already discovered that their opinion that government should be efficient and solve all of our problems is not in keeping with the ideals of the founders. So let’s examine what the “No Labels” crowd has said in their own words, that they stand to counter. The Tea Party stands for:

So it begs the question, does “No Labels” stand against these things? The media and the political establishment have consistently fought to portray the TEA Party movement as a radical right wing group but I ask each of you who read this, do you see anything extreme in the points above? Do you disagree with the idea that taxes should be kept as low as possible? Do you disagree that individuals should be able to pursue the career of their choice in a market that is not controlled by the government(meaning we aren’t told what to do for a living, what to buy, how to make it and what to sell)? Do you disagree that the government should abide by the Constitution? Finally, does anyone disagree that our government should be ultimately accountable to the people? If you can’t disagree with these things, seek out a TEA Party group near you.

1.) Constitutionally Limited Government
2.) Low Taxes
3.) Free Markets
4.) Government Accountable to the people

The “No Labels” folks are little more than the Progressive political establishment who see the TEA Party movement as a threat to their current monopoly on power OVER the people. They see that it is educating more and more people and that the movement reaches across party lines while the common sense it preaches is refocusing the debate on the issues on their merits and taking nothing for granted. They’re frightened because people like Mike Castle, who long ago stopped listening to his constituents were badly beaten in primaries and general elections across the country. Charlie Crist is another example of a Progressive who was rejected by the people and who has joined “No Labels” in an effort to stick it to the citizens who had simply had enough of the failed Progressive policies. In the coming weeks and months we will look into each of the leaders of “No Labels” in an effort to find the true purpose behind the group. All appearances at this time point to a group of Progressives, largely political pundits, strategists and politicians who are turning on the people of America after being rejected by their constituents and the American public at large.

Raising taxes on the car in the ditch and the gas that's in it

Democrats just can't help themselves.  Delaware Senator Tom Carper proposed a 25% tax on gasoline just one week before the House Democrats passed a bill to stop the Obama tax increases for Americans making less than $250,000.  At the same time, the Senate passed a bill that allows the federal government control over the entire agricultural sector (including your own home gardens).  There is another push to extend unemployment benefits as well.  Let's look at each of these proposals on their merits.

1. 25 cents per gallon tax on gasoline - This would certainly put more money into the federal coffers which is desperately needed until the government begins to cut spending but Carper wants to put this money into a fund specifically for road construction (to join the National Highway Trust Fund which is bankrupt because Congress has borrowed from it).  The tax would hit consumers at the pump, making gasoline that averages around $2.95 per gallon today, rise to $3.20 per gallon for regular gas.  It would also hit consumers across the board because businesses who transport goods will need to pay the same .25 cent fuel tax on each gallon their trucks consume.  Do you think that they will eat that cost or increase the cost of their products to cover the fuel cost?  That's right, they will pass it on to us.  Every product on every shelf and in every store will see an increase to help cover the costs associated with this tax and that will amount to BILLIONS of dollars in price increases for American citizens at a time when the dollar is already buying less and less.
2. Obama tax increases on those making more than $250,000 - The Democrats have sold this as class warfare rhetoric by claiming that these increases only affect the top 2% of Americans.  They get away with that because the tax increases would directly hit only the top 2% of wage earners however, it would trickle down to everyone else.  You see, the top 2% of wage earners are also the people who create the jobs in America.  They are small business owners, medium sized business CEO's and hiring managers at Fortune 500 companies.  Ask yourself this, ever gotten a job from a poor man?  The answer is most likely no and this is the reason why it's not smart to raise taxes on ANYONE right now.  When we need jobs as badly as we do now and when many with jobs are looking to salary increases to stave off the effects of inflation, it's even less understandable that the Democrats would fight so hard to stick it to the people who create the jobs.
3. Food Safety Act of 2010 - Progressives always come up with innocent sounding names for their bills in order to conceal the goal of the legislation.  This is one of the times where the name of the bill obscures the true intent.  Allegedly brought on by the recent egg scare, this bill builds on something that started in the 1930's with the Agricultural Adjustment Act.  The AAA allowed the government to control planting habits in many of America's staple crops by subsidizing farmers who let their fields lie dormant in order to artificially adjust pricing for certain crops (think corn, grain and cotton) and influence which types of crops are grown in each region.  Later the progressives would introduce genetically engineered seeds that produced higher yields and larger products than the original "heirloom" seeds but the problem with the genetically engineered seeds is that they are only good for a single season because they are sterile.  Heirloom seeds, the original seeds work in the traditional fashion where pollination can occur and seeds can be planted once and grown for many seasons thereafter.  Sterilizing the seeds serves a single purpose, it keeps farmers coming back every year for more seeds.  Now Congress has introduced a bill that allows them to control livestock, tomatoes, cucumbers, you name it, they can now determine where you can grow it, how you can grow it, when you can grow it and what you can do with it afterwards.  There is even a provision (put on hold by a last minute amendment) that controls home gardens.  It does almost nothing to increase safety unless you trust the government with every aspect of your life.
4. Unemployment benefit extension - Unemployment benefits are both a great safety net and a terrible tool of control.  They allow immediate relief for people who are laid off abruptly through no fault of their own and provide the necessary minimum (sometimes less than the minimum) required to sustain them until they are able to find work again.  The problem is that Congress has raised unemployment benefits so much and extended them for so long that there is a segment of the population that has become accustomed to living on these benefits and who no longer feel the need to seek gainful employment.  As one talk show host said, "If the government will pay you $300 per week to stay in a home paid for by someone else and do nothing, why go out and find work?"  Yet, unemployment benefits are crucial at this time with so many people out of work and so there must be a discussion about extending them at least until the job market improves so the conservatives have suggested that the Democrats use unspent TARP or stimulus funds to pay for their new spending on unemployment benefit extensions.  The Democrats have refused to do that and instead want to add more than $12 Billion to the federal deficit (which is now over $14 Trillion) in the most fiscally irresponsible move imaginable.  In fact, Democrats have said that increasing spending in one are and decreasing it in another doesn't make sense.  Conservatives say that the 2010 elections show that Americans want a more responsible management of funds and that using unspent TARP or Stimulus funds is the most responsible way to pay for these extensions.  They call it balancing the federal budget.

The current culture of spend, spend and spend some more has not changed with the wake up call sent to Washington on November 2nd.  We can only hope that the new Congress in January makes the changes we all want, needs and desire.

Unemployment Hits 9.8%

The Wall Street Journal reported tonight that unexpectedly low jobs numbers drove the unemployment rate up to nearly 10% and betrayed the idea that the economy is recovering at least at the speed with which the Obama administration suggests.  Employers added just 39,000 jobs in November which was a deep drop from October's numbers.  It's unlikely that the economy will make any miraculous recoveries anytime soon.  Most forecasters are suggesting that at best, the unemployment rate will shrink to 8.5% by the end of 2012.  The Obama administration has increased the national debt by more than $3 Trillion and has spent money on stimulus and bailouts like crazy hoping for better results than this.  Had they cut spending instead of increasing it, gotten out of the way of the free market instead of buying into it and reduced the tax burdens on job creators there is plenty of evidence to suggest the numbers would be far better.

These numbers are not what the American people had in mind in 2008 when they voted for "change" and they certainly are not what the people had in mind last month when a wave swept the Democrats out of control of the House and crippled their filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  If the numbers continue to stay this high, it's difficult to see how Obama and the Democrats will be able to overcome the push of conservative fiscal policy when the new Congress takes office in January. 

Mike Castle or "Mike Castle Republicans"?

There has been much posted about how the "extreme right wing" T.E.A. Party people won't support "Mike Castle Republicans" and how that will be the downfall of the GOP in New Castle County.  Much of it stems from the fact that conservative activist Christine O'Donnell defeated long time Republican Congressman Mike Castle in the recent U.S. Senate Primary.  That has left a sour taste in the mouths of some moderate Republicans who have projected a race between two individuals onto an entire group of people.  The fact is that the 2010 U.S. Senate Republican Primary was about Mike Castle and Christine O'Donnell.  Mike had drifted too far away from his base and had lost even the mantra of a fiscal conservative by voting time and again for bailouts, spending without limits and massive government growth.  Long ago Congressman Castle had shed the skin of social conservatism and alienated many in not just the southern part of the state but the north as well. 

For the T.E.A. Party groups, this election was about limiting government to the boundaries of the Constitution, stopping spending and keeping markets free.  Mike Castle had become someone who did not represent these values.  By contrast, Christine O'Donnell offered fresh ideas, a chance to stop the Obama policies that Castle had largely supported and a set of policies that would return America to the roots of prosperity that we have consistently returned to in times of trouble.  Castle also seemed to feel as though he was owed the U.S. Senate seat.  He did not feel like he should be accountable to the people of Delaware and specifically, he felt no need to listen to the T.E.A. Party groups.  It was clear that Congressman Castle had escaped his base in 2009 during a town hall meeting about the Obamacare legislation when he was asked a question about where in the Constitution it states that the government can be involved in health care.  His answer was that the Constitution doesn't PROHIBIT the Federal Government from that activity which ignores the whole premise of the Constitution.  The Constitution lays out specifically what the federal government MAY do and specifically (10th Amendment) leaves the rest to the people and to the states.  Christine O'Donnell by comparison had studied Constitutional government and understood the founding document.  In fact, in the General Election she would display her knowledge at a debate with the eventual winner of the General Election, Chris Coons which was held at Widener Law School.  Coons asserted that the phrase "separation of church and state" appears in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution and O'Donnell smartly challenged him.  As Coons backtracked, the student body of the law school showed their ignorance with laughter at Ms. O'Donnell's position.  The media of course went into red alert mode and tried to paint Christine into a corner.  Sadly, they showed the ignorance of their positions as the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in any of our founding documents but instead, in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptist Ministers in Danbury Connecticut written in 1802 which is not formal policy but rather a reassurance to the delegation that the United States would never adopt a national religion like England did.

The fact that Mike Castle was pro-choice and Christine O'Donnell was pro-life was not an insignificant position by any means but to make the leap that the media did in claiming that it was a deciding factor for TEA Party members is flat out absurd.  In fact, for all the work that the media and left wing did to paint Christine as a far right social activist, the truth bears a different story.  Christine stood for a limited government approach to many social issues by calling for those decisions to be made at the local or state level and not by the federal government.  She was also in favor of maintaining a healthy planet, reducing emissions and being good stewards of the land God has given us.  Another myth was presented when GLBT groups began protesting against O'Donnell and asserting that she was anti-homosexual.  The fact is that her staff was made up of perhaps the most diverse group of people ever assembled.  Nearly every race, gender, religion and sexual orientation was represented and she even had members from every mainstream political party working for her.  Christine is far from a bigot when it comes to any of these labels and looked for the best people for the job and not what they looked like, what they did in their personal lives or what religion they practiced. 

So you see, this was not an election about an ideologically pure ultraconservative candidate being nominated in a state overrun with leftists the way the media and the establishment has claimed.  Nor was it a referendum on all moderate Republicans.  It was about Mike Castle and a set of principles that he had abandoned.  It was about the base of the Republican Party standing up and being heard by the establishment that had made all of the decisions over the years and it was about busting up the backroom deals and "The Delaware Way" which was designed to keep the powerful in power and the regular citizens in the dark.  Christine accomplished something that many others had failed at in the past and while she didn't accomplish the ultimate goal, she has NOTHING to be ashamed of.  She's made it possible for regular people to run for office in Delaware again and she's inspired people to stand up for what they believe in.  She combined the very conservative folks in southern Delaware with the TEA Party folks all across the state and created a coalition across party lines that stood on principle regardless of the outcome. 

For many years, those conservatives and TEA Party folks had voted for Mike Castle and others like him under that old mantra that you vote for the most conservative candidate who can get elected.  The TEA Party itself is a melting pot of individuals from hardcore conservatives to moderate Democrats who are united around 3 main principles:

1. A government limited by the Constitution and all of the rules it contains.
2. A government that is responsible with taxpayer dollars and keeps taxes low.
3. Markets that are free and open to the people.

This is what makes the TEA Party continue to grow and what unites people across political party lines and despite establishment claims, this is what will unite the TEA Party and conservatives with establishment Republicans in supporting people like Tom Kovach in New Castle County.

Christine O'Donnell Signs Book Deal

via Twitter
Christine O'Donnell has signed a book deal with St. Martins Press.  She plans to set the record straight about the 2010 elections and I hope to out the media and leftist attack dogs who smeared and besmirched her good name.  Delaware's political landscape has been changed forever (despite the spin from the establishment) thanks to Christine and those of us who worked for her are looking forward to her setting the record straight.  This is an excellent next step for Ms. O'Donnell and follows in the footsteps of both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin who have faced similar types of wrath from the so-called news media.  We are all looking forward to more good things from Christine in the future.