Right Wing Nut House

I didn’t think it possible to cheer up those gloomy Gus Democrats about their election chances in November but by God, leave it to the the true conservatives out there to accomplish the damn near impossible; they may guarantee Democrats remain in control of the senate next year.

If Sharon Angle, Rand Paul, Christine O’Donnell (who may upset Mike Castle in Delaware and win the GOP senate primary), and Ovide Lamontagne (who is the tea party senate candidate surging in New Hampshire) all lose their general election races in November - a distinct possibility - the GOP can kiss the senate goodbye. (Joe Miller in Alaska will probably manage a narrow victory in the most Republican state in the union.)

Yes, but think how good it will make us all feel. Think of the delicious feelings of revenge we’ll have after sticking it to the “establishment” and the “elites.” Who cares a sh*t about the country and stopping Obama when we can whack off every night thinking about how glorious it is to have put those RINO’s in their place. True, each of those worthies have proven that they have as much business being a senator as my pet cat Aramas, but hey! At least we struck a blow for the most put upon minority in the country; the below average American.

Christine O’Donnell may be a lying, paranoid, deadbeat, spendthrift who refused to pay the salaries of her staff in her 2008 senate run but her heart is in the right place - most of the time. O’Donnell enjoys the distinction of being the only politician in world history who has come out publicly against sex - at least for the rest of us. We have not been vouchsafed the opportunity to hear whether she herself does the nasty-nasty to which we say; c’mon Christine - dish! On second thought…

Rand Paul’s musings on the efficacy of the Civil Rights Act are well known, but I had no idea until recently that he is a “North American Union” conspiracy nut. He has made stump speeches for his father charging liberals with wanting to drop the dollar and replace it with something called the “Amero.” No, seriously. And the thousand times over debunked “North American Superhighway” figured prominently in his past appearances.

No doubt Rand will play down such nonsense but those kinds of things have a nasty habit of showing up in the campaign commercials of your opponent. But Kentucky is a pretty red state anyway and besides, maybe there are a lot of Kentuckians who believe it. At least Rand has wrapped up the Loony-Tunes vote.

Ovide Lamontagne in New Hampshire who has pulled within 7 points of Kelly Ayotte after trailing the former state attorney general by 39, is the perfect non-entity; no political experience, no successful business experience, an education bureaucrat who the Manchester Union-Leader called the “model of compassionate conservatism.” There are apparently some who think he is too nice for politics. I can’t believe that. Anyone named Boy Scout “Man of the Year” has to have something going for them. The competition must be fierce for that prize and winning it says a lot about the candidate’s fighting spirit.

Sharon Angle? We hear that her campaign, after a rough start, has gelled and she is no longer making a titanic idiot of herself every 5 minutes. The way they are achieving this miracle says a lot about how she would perform as a senator; she has run away from the press. I think that bodes well for her senate career because if there is anything a senator must be able to do well it is run away from the issues.

This is not, as Mark Levin believes, a question of supporting candidates with ordinary warts and blemishes. These are fatally flawed candidates that in the practical political world are more than likely to go down to defeat when another candidate was available who could have won. That’s the bottom line. If any of the above candidates win, it will almost certainly be because the voters are angrier with Democrats than they are scared of these Republicans (Lamontagne excluded).

Other candidates have many flaws - some of them serious as Dan Riehl has pointed out. But really, are we to believe that people serious about politics would rather have a political neophyte who believes in paranoid conspiracy theories than a candidate - even if he is supported by the “establishment” - with a solid record of political success?

Here’s the disconnect supplied by Mark Levin who lambastes Paul Miregoff for pointing out the flaws of O’Donnell and other tea party candidates:

Must be nice to sit on your ass in some law office in Washington lecturing tea party activists and others with such dripping arrogance and ignorance. We’re confronting the most radical administration certainly in my lifetime, and Mirengoff blows off the grassroots movement that is doing more to bring constitutional government back to this nation than any other. No, all candidates are not perfect. That’s not the nature of politics. And spewing the opposition research found on other sites, leaked in part by a party to a lawsuit involving the conservative candidate, is lazy and unfair. In fact, I notice nowhere in his superficial post does Mirengoff point out any establishment Republicans with defects, with temper issues, with Keating Five issues, etc., etc. Apparently there’s one test for conservative candidates and another for establishment Republican candidates. Despite all his defects, McCain was backed by National Review. How about Mirengoff? Who did he support?

If the tea party supports sure losers how is it that they are “doing more to bring constitutional government back to this nation than any other…?” Aren’t they a hindrance rather than a help?

Levin and his brethren won’t see it that way. If all of the above candidates end up on the short end on election day, they can always blame people like me - something Levin appears eager to do as Mirengoff points out:

Levin also has difficulty keeping his story straight on my culpability if O’Donnell is nominated and defeated. At one point, he writes: “Just because I decided to engage him doesn’t mean there’s a single voter in Delaware who gives a damn who he supports or would support.” But a few paragraph later he says: “Mirengoff, et al, may well contribute to [O'Donnell's] defeat in a general election, should it come to that.”

Indeed, assigning blame when most, if not all of the above candidates are rejected by the voters will become vitally necessary. It can’t possibly be their own fatally flawed judgment or silly pretensions about the power and reach of the tea party movement. Every recent election has been decided by center to center right independents, not tea party types who may be independent, but are overwhelmingly conservative. There just aren’t enough of them to make a difference in a state like Delaware and probably not Nevada.

I disagree with many pragmatists that these candidates are “too conservative” to get elected, although in O’Donnell’s case, that might not be true. She is a radical social con whose views on fiscal responsibility and the economy are more mainstream but has “loser” written all over her. A good conservative candidate can get elected anywhere if they are smart enough and run a good campaign. It’s a question of emphasis; what issues and values will a candidate promote and identify with and do they resonate with the voters?

Such nuance is lost on Angle, Paul, and especially O’Donnell. Not surprising when you run ideologues instead of practical politicians who see winning as more valuable than sticking it to the establishment.