In response to Dan’s hard backhand to the ad court, I offer this forehand smash up the line:

What others – usually self-congratulatory “moderate” independents – in condescending tones call “purity,” I call core principles. And you’re darn right I’m going to cast a very withering glance when someone uses the labels and images and ideas of those most dearly held core principles as disingenuous cover for the implementation of policies that actually would annihilate them.

I’m sorry if this passion bothers all you superior moderates out there on your higher plane of existence, far above a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal like me. Frankly, it bothers me just as much that you don’t appear to believe in anything enough to risk ruffling feathers over it and elevate “getting along” above all else. Especially when getting along with the radical left that’s been in charge since 2006 essentially amounts to consorting with the enemy.

And I guess that’s where the moderates and Dan part company with me and the tea partiers. It appears that where we most fundamentally differ is in our view of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid:   We view them as the greatest domestic threat to all America stands for and has been in its 234 year history.

Moderates, apparently, do not. We view them as single-minded radicals for whom the ends justify the means, who will stop at nothing to implement their destructive ideas. (Hence my frequent usage of Kyle Reese “The Terminator” quotes, which Dan finds so amusing.)  Moderates, apparently, naively think the left is still well-meaning but misguided and can be reasoned with.

Given this dichotomy, it makes sense why many feel a counter-balance to Obama’s radicalism is needed, if for no other reason than to stop his exponential expansion of government and achieve a stalemate. Why many desperately wish the GOP would stop being a going-along-to-get-along enabler and start being an opposition party, so we might have a choice instead of an echo, as well as a means to stop this runaway freight train of unaffordable trillions in spending.  And why those, like Mike Castle, who have voted for those expansions and spending more often than not (i.e. crap and tax) find it hard to win primaries even against supposedly inferior candidates. Suffice it to say, infuriating one’s own base by often voting against them isn’t a great way to keep one’s career going. (And yes, Castle IS a liberal. When you vote how he does, you’re on the left side of center. Maybe it doesn’t make him a Democrat per se, but it certainly puts him outside the party whose primary he just failed to win…which is why he just failed to win it.)

As for O’Donnell, any conservative would have a hard time winning in a blue state like Delaware. But if you’re not going to try in this year, of all years, when Obama is leading the Democrats off a cliff, when are you ever going to try? And if it’s such a long shot, wouldn’t you want to use an ostensibly dispensable candidate rather than waste a more robust one? Since, in my view, Castle would vote like a Democrat anyway, I don’t see where there’s anything to lose. Had he won, the seat would effectively already be gone. Castle, Coons, what’s the difference?

And I don’t see why Castle’s lone valuable vote for Senate control is a big deal. The only real difference would be if Obama gets any more Supreme Court picks. Other than that, a 51-49 minority opposite a Republican House works just as well for me. The House won’t pass anything the Democrat Senate or Obama wants, the GOP will have an unbreakable filibuster, and most importantly Obama won’t have a GOP Congress to run against in 2012. A 51-49 or 52-48 GOP Senate would leave all the power with the liberal types like Castle, Snowe, Collins, and McCain who would sandbag and backstab their own party to endless praise and plaudits from the liberal media. The way the Senate works, a strong minority beats a razor-thin majority every day of the week.

Finally, as to O’Donnell not being fit for the Senate:  Are you kidding me? The 100 biggest pompous arrogant blowhards in America could only be improved by her presence, no matter who or what she is. Or isn’t (an Obama enabler), which is what really matters. Don’t buy that? Here are three words for you to chew on:  Senator Al Franken.  Now THERE’S a reason to wince every time a Senator is seen or heard, Dan.  See, as a Minnesotan, I know first-hand that electing real clowns like him and former Governor Jesse Ventura isn’t the end of the world. America will go right on as it always has, because it’s her people that make it work, not its government!  So what if she is a “phony baloney poseur”? She’ll be right at home with 99 more who are much worse than that! (And from a tea party perspective, it’s the Rumsfeld tactic: going to war with the candidates we have, not the ones we wish we had.)

It’s that condescending, patronizing elitism that needs to be taken down, that black-balling of undesirables from the exclusive members-only Incumbents Club, which needs to stop most of all. Babylon on the Potomac needs a fumigating, and I don’t especially care if O’Donnell the modern political equivalent of Bluto in Animal House – one way or another, the Dean Wormers and Marmalards and Niedermayers of Washington DC need to have a giant cake float with the words “EAT ME” on it driven through their Election Day homecoming parade and watch it be ruined. And come this November, God willing, it’s going to happen. The big black Deathmobile is going knock Obama and his teleprompters off the risers. (Remember, the line “I hate those guys” should be on them for him to read.)

And if we catch some equally egotistical moderates and independents up in the wash, well, so be it. I for one won’t lose any sleep over it. We need to destroy this myth that government is something more complex than nuclear physics, which only a small elite cadre can possibly manage or run – a myth made up solely to protect incumbents and all others who rely on their never-ending careers to keep their cushy paper-pushing jobs. And a myth which has resulted in the instantaneous, hateful, knee-jerk smearing of O’Donnell simply for the supposedly grievous offense of not being one of them.

Though I suppose it does serve one useful purpose:  turning O’Donnell into a martyr and a cause célèbre, which might just help her win where the odds are otherwise against it. So keep it up, moderates, and you might just inadvertently make your worst nightmare come true.

5 Responses to “Confessions of a ‘conservative’ purity litmus tester (and yes, we do still have the Vikings)”