If Republicans had taken control of the Senate in the mid-term elections, that long-shot win would have been razor thin, probably only by one seat.
The Senate would be controlled by those who were willing to sell their votes to the highest bidder or those with their own agenda. In the last Democratic controlled Senate, the votes on the cusp (Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman) were able to use that leverage to their advantage.
In Republican terms, we would be witnessing in the upcoming Senate two years of the Lisa Murkowski or Mike Castle Senate, a time of bitter sniping by bruised egos with personal vendettas. (I don’t put Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe in the same category.)
Murkowski, the likely winner when the counting is done in Alaska, is chomping at the bit to divide the party by gratuitously attacking Sarah Palin.
Two years of such a Senate controlled by Republicans would have destroyed all of the gains of the mid-terms, and would have demoralized the Republican Party heading into 2012, much as the gamesmanship needed to win over Nelson, Landrieu and Lieberman were a disaster for Democrats.
A Murkowski-Castle Senate would have been no victory.
We wished really hard for something; in the long run it may be better we didn’t get it.
——————————————–
Related Posts:
Japan Won WWII and The Tea Party Lost The Mid-Terms
The People Who Brought Us The 2006 and 2008 Disasters Want The You-Know-Whats Back
Memo to the Right: “The Lombardi Rule” Is In Effect
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Well said. I'd been thinking the same since the election.
Interesting theory. It may have been true. Still, I never cared about controlling the Senate, just about having as many Republicans as possible in anticipation for 2012's repeal of Obamacare. I thought Miller would pull it off, but I also thought we'd have Senator Buck, Angle, Fiorina, and Rossi. That wouldn't be a bad Senate.
Buck started making noises before the general election about 'deficit reduction'. That's all fine and dandy, and while I do wish he had been elected, politicians who chose this as their signature issue scare me. They're quite likely to go along with raising taxes, means-to-an-end type of deal. The fiscal health of our government is not nearly the same concern to me as private-sector economy is. We need to grow our way out of our this recession.
Fiorina and Rossi are old-line establishment types and were never supported by the Tea Party. Palin's endorsement (during the primary) of Fiorina was a pay back to her sponsor John McCain. I think Palin is done with pay backs after this election and I don't expect any more odd endorsements from her.
Meg Whitman tried to channel Bloomberg, completely misreading the political climate. However, the losses of Angle, O'Donnell and Miller sting me the most.
So Angle and McDonnell had miss-steps. This is actually to be expected by us relative-new-comer Tea Party types. We will learn from our mistakes and move on, but the selections of O'Donnell were not among the mistakes we made. These are true live people in the citizen-legislature style of old. Their greatest political sin, we were told countless times, was being so human. Dumb stuff O'Donnell said years ago count for nothing compared to sordid pasts of Obama, Castle, Reid and the rest of those people.
We should not be rewarding political connections or patronage or even attempt to play that Washington game.
As to having 'as many republicans' elected to repeal Obamacare, does anyone really believe Castle would have voted to overturn it? Murkowski, had she won the primary?
If it's true that there are so many current and potential Republican Senators who would not vote to repeal 'bamacare, all hope is lost. I just want to give us the best chance possible. I could be wrong in that tactic, but I'll admit it. I'd rather have a maybe vote than a definitely no.
I keep thinking about it. Are there really so many Alaskians so desperate for government pork, they sold their republic soul to such a weak politician?
First off, Murkaslalski (whatever) shouldn't have been allowed to run as Miller already beat her in the primary. And she has intimated she is joining the Democrats. Some ObamaCare repealer, huh?
Second, Fiorina was endorsed not because of McCain, but because she had the better chance of winning by the numbers. Of course, it being California, they elect any idiot who has a D in front of their name. A long shot to start with.
Third, what O'Donnell said in the past was NOT dumb. And a deep blue state like that was not going to elect a Republicans anywhere. It was again a long shot from the start.
And for the 'maybe' votes, Castle is not a maybe. Castle is a liberal. There are more dems who will vote against ObamaCare because of the losses than Castle likely would.
I saw something that indicated that ballot boxes in the Inuit areas were already stuff with Murkowski's name prior to the election.
I'd also like to point out that even had Castle won (which he would not have) and voted to repeal ObamaCare (highly unlikely) he is a big Cap and Trade supporter, and that piece of legislation will be as equally disastrous as ObamaCare, maybe more so.
So do you prefer a Bennet-Reid senate to a Norton-Lowden senate? Alaska and Delaware are not the only races that the tea party botched.
The phrase is champing at the bit, not chomping.
@ceiey – I looked at that before posting, and I think "chomping" is acceptable American usage.
Chomp and champ aren't as interchangeable as they appear at first glance. It's true it has become common in this country, but that's only because of the sheer volume of incorrect usage. This site has a good summary of the differences: http://www.langston.com/English/
Oh, I completely agree with the post btw. Haha.
FZ: Murkowski shouldn't have been allowed to take advantage of Alaska election law which allowed her to do what she did? Ridiculous. And I say that as someone who gave money to Miller. The law is the law. We deal with it as it is for the moment, and try to change it for next time if we don't like what happened.
Murkowski will still be in the Senate, when all is said and done. This is one we lost. Now it's time for Miller to do what Specter, Crist, and Castle should have done — accept the results. Don't get me wrong. I have said on this site in the past that I would rather have had Castle than Coons, and I maintain those were our only two choices. But regardless of one's views on the DE race, I think we can all agree that Castle behaved very poorly after O'Donnell won by not immediately folding his tent and walking away. I hope Joe Miller is able to show the country how Republicans SHOULD accept defeat. If he doesn't, he won't get my support next time 'round.