SUBSCRIBE:
Calvin Freiburger

Sore Loser Mike Castle Blames Hannity & Friends’ “Lies” for His Defeat

by
Posted on September 17 2010 9:00 am
Hailing from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, Calvin Freiburger is a political science major at Hillsdale College. He also writes for the Hillsdale Forum and his personal website, Calvin Freiburger Online.
Be Sociable, Share!
Print This Post Print This Post

They say patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. In contemporary America, however, claiming to be a victim of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy is the first. Licking his wounds from his primary defeat at the hands of Christine O’Donnell, left-wing Delaware Republican Mike Castle is looking to blame his loss on anything but the deficiencies in his own political principles—identifying in particular every leftist’s favorite boogeyman, talk radio:

I think the misrepresentations and the lies of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh on the air were another very significant part of all of this.

At the link, the Huffington Post quotes National Review’s Jim Geraghty as identifying a couple bad raps against Castle that were circulated by “the usual suspects.” And who are the “usual suspects”? Geraghty doesn’t say. And in defending Castle from the “ma[de] up” charge that he voted to impeach George W. Bush (which he says was actually a motion to send the bill back to the Judiciary Committee to kill it), he also doesn’t address Limbaugh’s point:

We can understand why Peter King of Long Island, some conservatives might attempt a strategery in that impeachment resolution to kill it in committee.  We can understand that.  But why is it assumed that that was Castle’s strategy?  Castle had joined a bunch of moderate Republicans to go up to the White House and threatened Bush over this.  Why is it assumed that Castle, given his statement that he and fellow RINOs went up to warn Bush that he jeopardized the Republican Party over this, why is it automatically assumed that Castle had the same objective to kill the resolution? I mean how do we assume this?  You know, all the Democrats voted to kill the resolution, too? [Emphasis added.]

Regardless, let’s stipulate that Castle isn’t a complete leftist. As Mark Meed pointed out yesterday, Castle has taken left-wing positions on everything from abortion to energy to immigration to gun rights, earning poor to abysmal scores from the National Right to Life Committee, American Family Association, Family Research Council, National Rifle Association, Citizens Against Government Waste, FreedomWorks, and the National Taxpayers’ Union. He also opposed the troop surge in Iraq, and had ethics blemishes of his own.

Are these “lies” too? Doesn’t Castle bear any responsibility for being drastically out of step with his target audience’s ideas and values, or did Delaware Republicans have a moral obligation to sit down, shut up and simply accept his obvious superiority on faith? Regardless of where you stand on the comparative electability of Castle and O’Donnell, it’s obvious that conservative and Republican voters had many legitimate grievances against Castle.

Most primary runners-up have the grace to admit that the people have spoken and bury the hatchet against their former foes, to unite against the opposition party in the general election. Not Mike Castle. If he’s trying to prove that his constituents made the wrong choice, he’s certainly going about it the wrong way.

_____

Hailing from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, Calvin Freiburger is a political science major at Hillsdale College.  He also writes for the Hillsdale Forum and his personal website, Calvin Freiburger Online.

Be Sociable, Share!
One Response leave one →

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

Copyright 2018 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry