Monday, October 18, 2010

The Meaning of Christine O'Donnell

With just two weeks left until election day, it's beginning to look more and more like Christine O'Donnell, the Delaware Republican Party nominee for the US Senate, will be unable to close the gap between herself and the Democrat nominee Chris Coons after all.  Does this prove the professional Republicans correct?  Was the nomination of O'Donnell vice that of establishment candidate Mike Castle a mistake?  Did the Tea Partiers foolishly forfeit an otherwise sure GOP victory?

I think not.

The issue that drove the nomination of O'Donnell, not to mention Angle, Paladino, Iott, Rubio, (we conveniently forget that just a few months ago Mario Rubio was the upstart, Tea Party-backed crazy) , and others, was never their electability as individual candidates. Rather, the issue was the ideological integrity of the Republican Party.  Would it remain the party of limited government, lower taxes, strong defense, and unapologetic patriotism, or would it continue its aimless, but sure, drift toward the principles that define the Democrat Party?

If it had, and if it had signaled that it had by nominating candidates like Castle who were virtually indistinguishable from most Democrats, it would have so dispirited its membership, across the entire nation, that more, many more, contests than just that for the Delaware senate seat would now be in jeopardy.

As it is, with the imposition of Tea Party-discipline since the spring of a year ago, and the infusion of Tea Party-enthusiasm all along, the GOP stands to make historic gains in a couple weeks.  That, ladies and gentlemen, is what Christine O'Donnell, and many others like her, is all about, whether she wins or loses.

No comments:

Post a Comment