Many Conservatives Do Not Want Mike Castle in the U.S. Senate

Listed below are comments from conservative activists throughout the nation who are expressing strong reservations about Congressman Mike Castle (R-DE) in tonight’s U.S. Senate primary. Castle faces a serious challenge from Christine O’Donnell who is making her third bid for the U.S. Senate.

Rich M FLong, 26, of Wappinger Falls, NY: principles are more important than what jersey they wear. A vote for Mike Castle (R) is a vote for Chris Coons (D). Can someone explain to me what is good about electing a Democrat who votes like a Democrat? . . . When will the GOP establishment realize that moderation is how the left gets away with blaming every bad thing that happens on Republicans and they tell voters that’s what conservatism is.

Nominating Christine O’Donnell Could Destroy the Tea Party by Alan Moore

Editorial Note: Alan Moore, 28, has an MA from George Mason University and previously served as press secretary for the Tancredo for President Committee and the Freedom Alliance. He now works for the Heritage Foundation at Townhall.com

I volunteered for the O’Donnell campaign in 2008. I am not owed any money nor have I ever received payment from either the O’Donnell or Mike Castle campaigns. Working with her for an election cycle taught me one indisputable fact: Christine O’Donnell is not deserving of ever holding elected office and her nomination will be nothing short of catastrophic to the Tea Party movement. The implications of her nomination for conservatives everywhere are enormous.

Utah Senate Race: Who is the “True Conservative”? Senator Bob Bennett Endorses Tim Bridgewater by Gregory Hilton

PHOTO: The Republican primary for the U.S. Senate is on June 22nd. Mike Lee, left, is shown after a May 20th debate with his opponent Tim Bridgewater. Dr. Laura Bridgewater, a professor of Molecular Biology at BYU, is in the center. She defended her Ph.D. dissertation just 4 days before their youngest children – twins – were born.

Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) will endorse Tim Bridgewater as his successor next Monday. Bennett came in third at the May 8th Utah Republican State Convention, and a primary between Bridgewater and attorney Mike Lee will be held on June 22nd.
At the convention, Bridgewater defeated Lee by a 57% to 43% margin, but he needed 60% of the vote to avoid a primary. Bridgewater is Chairman of Interlink Capital Strategies and has participated in over $120 million of private equity investments. He has so far loaned his campaign $391,745.
Senator Bennett would have been renominated for another term if he could have entered a primary. His problem was that the nomination was decided at the state convention. A Mason Dixon Poll conducted for the Salt Lake Tribune prior to the convention indicated Bennett was by far the most popular GOP candidate in the race.
Thirty-nine percent said they would vote for Bennett, compared to 20 percent for Lee, and 14 percent for Bridgewater. Cherilyn Eagar, a social conservative, received 16% of the vote on the first ballot at the convention and finished fourth. She has also endorsed Bridgewater.

Conservatives Leaders React: The John Birch Society at CPAC by Gregory Hilton

The annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) ended last Saturday, but right wing spokesmen are continuing to denounce a controversial decision made by its host, the American Conservative Union. For the first time, the John Birch Society (JBS) was allowed to co-sponsor CPAC, and several leaders on the right said the decision gave ammunition to enemies of the conservative cause.
In discussing the JBS, the late Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) said “We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner.” Now the American Conservative Union has brought them to the head table.
Below are quotes from various conservative leaders on the JBS participation at CPAC.
Mark Levin, author, “A Conservative Manifesto”:

I was invited to be the opening speaker at Saturday’s CPAC session. I had accepted but then, to my amazement, I learned the John Birch Society would be one of many co-sponsors. This takes the big-tent idea many steps too far for me.
So, I withdrew. Apparently, others were not so moved. That’s fine. But it wasn’t for me. Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater, among others, chased the Birchers from the movement decades ago. And they’re not a part of the movement. So, to give them a booth at CPAC was boneheaded.

Rich Lowry, National Review:

The John Birch Society is co-sponsoring the American Conservative Union’s big annual conference. The Society’s paranoia has outlived the Cold War that inspired it: A recent perusal of its website turned up the same old dreary theories about David Rockefeller and the New World Order, denunciations of the ‘American colonial enterprise,’ and hints that maybe our soldiers should not follow orders in the pursuit of that enterprise. We have no idea what the ACU is thinking but assume that the Birchers are eager to ferret out any Communists in its ranks.

Scott Johnson, The Weekly Standard:

ABC’s Jonathan Karl reports that this year’s CPAC event was co-sponsored, unbelievably to me, by the John Birch Society. Karl quotes some of William F. Buckley’s characteristically vibrant denunciations of the JBS. ‘Two years after Buckley’s death,’ Karl observes, ‘the John Birch Society is no longer banished; it is listed as one of about 100 co-sponsors of the 2010 CPAC.
Karl reasonably asks: ‘Why is the Birch Society a co-sponsor?’ ‘They’re a conservative organization,’ according to Lisa Depasquale, the CPAC Director for the American Conservative Union, which runs CPAC. ‘Beyond that,’ she told Karl, ‘I have no comment.’ Additional comment is required, and if Depasquale will not provide it, I will. This is a disgrace.

John Hawkins, Right Wing News:

I visited the JBS booth at CPAC and was told the Council on Foreign Relations is engaged in some sort of secret, bipartisan effort to build a one world government. Then, I asked about the North American Union. Not only do they buy into it, he gave me some sort of movie to watch. Honestly, a group like the John Birch Society shouldn’t be allowed to be a sponsor of CPAC. . . I suspect the kookier fringe brings in so much money and energy for a group the size of the Birchers that they can’t bear to give it up. Conspiracy theorists and fringe groups are death for any mainstream group.

Ryan Mauro, Pajamas Media:

CPAC is being co-sponsored by the John Birch Society. Every liberal commentator needs to send a thank-you note to CPAC’s organizers for that monumentally stupid decision. . . CPAC has made a major PR mistake in forming this alliance with JBS. It won’t be long until the media puts all those taking part on the defensive, forcing the organizers to spend precious time explaining this move. From now on, when I hear the acronym ‘CPAC,’ I won’t think ‘Conservative Political Action Conference.’ I’ll think ‘Consciously Providing Ammo to Critics.’

Erick Erickson, Red State:

I think the JBS’ers are insane and I was dumbfounded that they had a booth.

The JBS was established in 1958 and reached its peak in 1965 with 60,000 members. The founder was candy maker Robert Welch and his brother’s company is best known for the “Sugar Daddy.” Welch often spoke of the dangers of fluoridated water which he claimed was a Communist-backed plot to weaken the minds of the American public.
The organization was long headquartered in the birthplace of Joe McCarthy, Appleton, Wisconsin. For the past five decades they have attacked and defamed practically every major political figure in the United States.
In his book “The Politician,” Welch said President Dwight Eisenhower was “a dedicated and conscious agent of the international communist conspiracy,” and the U.S. government was “under operational control of the Communist party.” He later amended this statement to say Communists only had “50-70 percent” control of the government.

Conservative CPAC Conference Backs Liberal Presidential Candidate by Gregory Hilton

The only good thing about Ron Paul’s victory at CPAC yesterday is that the stunned crowd responded to the announcement with loud booing. CPAC is the annual Conservative Political Action Conference. For the past three years the CPAC presidential straw poll has been won by former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA).
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) did not attend CPAC this year because he believes the event has been taken over by Libertarians. National Review commented “Heck, a lot of the time, it seemed like they (the Libertarians), not the American Conservative Union, was CPAC’s host.”
Paul received 31% of the CPAC vote compared to Romney’s 22%, Sarah Palin’s 7% and Huckabee’s 4%. Almost 12,000 people attended CPAC, but just 2,400 of them voted in the straw poll. Of this group, 48% described themselves as students.
The best description of the straw poll came from John Nichols of the liberal magazine, The Nation:

The good news from the Conservative Political Action Conference — and it really is very good news — is that the assembled activists have identified as their preferred choice for the presidency a militant opponent of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq who has voted against the Patriot Act, opposed free-trade deals, condemned the expansion of executive power and warned about collusion between “too-big-to-fail” bankers and the government regulators who are supposed to keep an eye on them. No, the CPAC crowd did not name Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold (D) as their preferred pick to oppose President Obama in 2012. But they did vote, rather overwhelmingly, for the one Republican who shares the views of Feingold — and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders — on the aforementioned issues.

Paul is the only 2008 GOP presidential candidate who refused to support the nominee of the Republican Party. The Texas Congressman was considered such a marginal candidate last time that Fox News banned him from the 2008 New Hampshire presidential debate.
Paul was the only speaker to fill the three CPAC ballrooms and he received an enthusiastic response when he vigorously denounced the liberal Democratic President. No, it was not Barack Obama, he was condemning President Woodrow Wilson who left office in 1921. The Texas lawmaker blamed him for America’s participation in WW I, establishing the Federal Reserve, the income tax (the top rate was 2% under Wilson), and most especially, his advocacy of the League of Nations. The CPAC college students responded by booing mention of Wilson’s name.
Other observations on Ron Paul’s speech and the Libertarian presence at CPAC are as follows:

* Paul’s speech was interrupted with chants of “End The Fed,” and apparently the Libertarians would prefer the old system. They would turn monetary policy over to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress.

* On Meet the Press in 2008, the Congressman claimed the Civil War was an unnecessary bloodbath which could have been avoided. Paul’s Campaign for Liberty sponsored a CPAC book signing with Thomas DiLorenzo, the author of “Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe.” His speech was entitled, “Friend or Foe? Abraham Lincoln on Liberty.”

* As Earl Hutchinson has noted, Paul believes “blacks are criminally inclined, political dumb bells, and chronic welfare deadbeats. Here’s what Paul’s campaign website ronpaul2008.com had to say about race. In fact he even highlighted this as ‘Issue: Racism,’ ‘Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry.’
“In other words, the 1954 landmark Supreme Court decision Brown vs. Board of Education school desegregation, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and legions of court decisions and state laws that bar discrimination are worthless. Worse, says Paul, they actually promote bigotry by dividing Americans into race and class.”

* Ron Paul advocates abolishing the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act and FISA. He wants the U.S. to leave NATO, the World Trade Organization, the UN, and to end all aid to Israel. The Libertarians sponsored a CPAC event entitled “Why Real Conservatives Are Against the War on Terror.” All of the Libertarian speakers were far to the left of the Obama Administration.

* Paul says: “Eliminate the minimum wage and full employment will immediately follow.” The minimum wage (.25 cents per hour) was passed in 1938, and there certainly was no full employment prior to that time.

* Rep. Paul made his usual isolationist denunciation of the American “empire.” Several European nations have been empire builders, but not the United States. The libertarians are correct that U.S. military bases continue to dot the globe. We are there to keep the sea-lanes open and the terrorists under wraps.
Americans are not seeking empire but we are keeping people safe and maintaining prosperity. We overthrew Noriega, Milosevic, Mullah Omar and Saddam Hussein to put in their places freely elected leaders, not puppet regimes. We use our power to keep peace rather than to rule.
Gov. Huckabee spoke for many in saying, “CPAC has becoming increasingly more libertarian and less Republican over the last years, one of the reasons I didn’t go this year.” He criticized the way CPAC “solicits sponsors, it’s almost becomes a pay-for-play. It’s kind of like, who will pay money to be able to be a sponsor and get time in the program. That’s one of the things that has hurt its credibility in the last couple of years.” In his November, 2008 book, “Do The Right Thing,” Huckabee says “The real threat to the Republican Party is something we saw a lot of in this past election cycle, libertarianism masked as conservatism. As it threatens to not only split the Republican Party, but rendered it is as irrelevant as the Whig Party.” He says libertarianism “is not an American message,” it is a “soulless type of economic conservatism.”
The Libertarian Party responded by issuing the following press release attacking the entire CPAC conference.
Libertarians criticize CPAC conservatives

WASHINGTON – As the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) holds its annual conference, Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict offered the following statement:

I’m sure we’ll hear an awful lot about “limited government” from the mouths of CPAC politicians over the next few days. If I had a nickel every time a conservative said “limited government” and didn’t mean it, I’d be a very rich man.

Unlike libertarians, most conservatives simply don’t want small government. They want their own version of big government. Of course, they have done a pretty good job of fooling American voters for decades by repeating the phrases “limited government” and “small government” like a hypnotic chant.

It’s interesting that conservatives only notice “big government” when it’s something their political enemies want. When conservatives want it, apparently it doesn’t count.
If a conservative wants a trillion-dollar foreign war, that doesn’t count.
If a conservative wants a 700-billion-dollar bank bailout, that doesn’t count.
If a conservative wants to spend billions fighting a needless and destructive War on Drugs, that doesn’t count.
If a conservative wants to spend billions building border fences, that doesn’t count.
If a conservative wants to “protect” the huge, unjust, and terribly inefficient Social Security and Medicare programs, that doesn’t count.
If a conservative wants billions in farm subsidies, that doesn’t count.
It’s truly amazing how many things “don’t count.”

Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh can’t ever be satisfied with enough military spending and foreign wars.

Conservatives like Mitt Romney want to force everyone to buy health insurance.

Conservatives like George W. Bush — well, his list of supporting big-government programs is almost endless.

Ronald Reagan, often praised as an icon of conservatism, signed massive spending bills that made his the biggest-spending administration (as a percentage of GDP) since World War II.

Some people claim that these big-government supporters aren’t “true conservatives.” Well, if a person opposes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, opposes the War on Drugs, opposes border fences, and opposes mandatory Social Security and Medicare, it’s hard to believe that anyone would describe that person as a conservative at all. Most people would say that person is a libertarian (or maybe even a liberal).

Obviously, most liberals don’t want limited government either. It’s just that their support for big government leans toward massive handout and redistribution programs.

The fact is, liberals and conservatives both want gigantic government. Their visions sometimes look different from each other, but both are huge. The only Americans who truly want small government are libertarians.

An article posted at CNS News, linked prominently from the Drudge Report, noted that the Obama administration is on track to beat the Franklin Roosevelt administration in terms of average federal spending as a percentage of GDP. However, the article failed to note that the Reagan Administration already beat the Franklin Roosevelt administration easily. Roosevelt’s average was 19.4 percent of GDP, while Reagan’s average was 22.3 percent of GDP. (Source: White House OMB data)

Wes Benedict will be observing the proceedings at the CPAC conference on Saturday, February 20. For more information, or to arrange an interview, call Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America’s third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

The Isolationist Republicans: John Hostettler and Rand Paul by Gregory Hilton

We desperately need more Republicans in the U.S. Senate, but in Indiana, Kentucky and Connecticut I may be forced to support the nominees of the Democratic Party. A paleoconservative is running in Indiana (John Hostettler) and two radical libertarians are running in Kentucky and Connecticut (Rand Paul and Peter Schiff). I am an enthusiastic Republican but I am an American first, and I could never feel comfortable about candidates who are dangerous to our national security interests.
I watched former Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) for a long time on the House Armed Services Committee, and on the most important votes he crossed over to help the anti-war lobby. He is a complete isolationist.
There is no difference between Hostettler, Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore on foreign policy and national security issues. In 2002 he was one of only six Republicans to vote against the Iraq war resolution. His book, “Nothing for the Nation: Who Got What Out of Iraq” is total lunacy. He is a disciple of Pat Buchanan and says we were in Iraq because of the influence of people “with Jewish backgrounds.”
There is a primary but as a former six term Member of Congress, Hostettler would have to be considered the front runner. His book also claims we intervened in Iraq because of oil. Two weeks ago the Evansville newspaper quoted him as attacking Obama because the President had abandoned the anti-war lobby.
The Republican “accused Obama of abandoning his anti-Iraq War views. ‘The one person, the one person who can get us out, who has unilateral authority to get us out, doesn’t want to,’ he said.” Many of Hostettler’s appearances have been sponsored by “Veterans for Peace.”
Many of the observations in the “Hoosier Hopeful” article in the isolationist “American Conservative” magazine are accurate. It says Hostettler “is unapologetic about his disagreements with neoconservatives. ‘The neocons know what a Senator Hostettler would mean,’ he says. ‘They would rather have Evan Bayh as the lead sponsor of sanctions against Iran, bringing us to the brink of war or a Republican who would do the same thing.’ Hostettler argues, ‘They want to mold the Republican Party’s image on foreign policy, and I am not of that mold.’ . . . Foreign policy is likely to remain a hotly debated topic in the general election, where the probable Democratic replacements for Bayh are all centrists not known for their antiwar views. But first, Hostettler will have to get there.”
I would also very reluctantly have to support a terrible liberal Democrat to take over a Republican U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky if Rand Paul wins the GOP nomination. I am a solid Republican but I can not jeopardize America’s national security interests. Rand Paul is the son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and he shares many of his father’s isolationist and anti-military policies. Nevertheless, he has been endorsed by former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK). The website Too Kooky for Kentucky http://www.tookookyforkentucky.com explains a few of Rand Paul’s wacko views. Kentucky is the home of Fort Campbell, Fort Knox and the famed 101st Airborne Division. An isolationist may win the GOP primary, but not the general election in this pro-military state.
Kentucky is a swing state. The Democrats will have plenty of ammunition to emphasize Rand Paul’s radical views and this will allow them to capture the center, and win the election. The traditional GOP unity breakfast will be very difficult after Paul’s primary victory. I am sure some prominent Kentucky Republicans will cross over to endorse the Democrat. If Rand Paul did make it to the Senate he would be the true RINO (Republican in Name Only).
Rand Paul has completely scrubbed his website, and all of his comments on things such as the Patriot Act have been taken down. His father also hid his record when he came back to Congress and defeated the GOP incumbent.
This strategy could work for Rand Paul in a GOP primary, but not in the general election. Rand Paul devoted 2008 to his father’s campaign and all of his past statements will be used against him. I would feel far better about Rand Paul if he would just tell us where he disagrees with his father. He is not going to do that because all of his money is coming from libertarians throughout the nation.
If Rand Paul wins the far left will ask him to be the lead co-sponsor on all of their legislation to dismantle the programs that protect us. We have already seen it in the House with the alliance between his father and the loony Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). The difference is that Rand Paul would have a lot more power. Their first objective would be the passage of the “bipartisan” Barbara Boxer/Rand Paul bill to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security.
We only have 40 GOP Senators and we can not afford to lose any of them. However, in this instance, it will be necessary. Under no circumstances could I ever support Rand Paul or John Hostettler.