For example-me !
Whilst the right-The Other McCain and Dan Riehl to name just a couple of leading lights, are enthusiastic
supporters of Christine O’Donnell's bid to win the Republican nomination for Senator from Delaware, I find Palin's endorsement of O'Donnell the most challenging aspect of my Palin support I have had to face.
Miller in Alaska was no challenge at all and I enthusiastically embraced his campaign and applauded Palin for her courage in picking what seemed to all was a rank outsider and rejoiced with Miller's victory and Palin having the last laugh as pundits were grossly embarrassed.. The reason for Miller's campaign bringing no conflict to this ex-lib and I surmise many others, is that with his victory there would be little or no chance of the seat going to the Dem's in November-even if Murkowski ran as a third party candidate.
It is a different story in Delaware. It is an overwhelmingly Democratic party stalwart state;
Democrats Republicans Others Total
Statewide 291,429 182,179 145,364 618,972
For O'Donnell to win the November election against the Dem's without independent and some Dem crossover support would be a major hurdle-totally dependent on GOP voter enthusiasm vs Dem stay at home protesters. If a possible one vote senate majority for the Republicans was not at stake perhaps taking a chance on O'Donnell pulling out a victory over the centrist Republican Castle (who enjoys a substantial lead over his Democratic rival because of his long service to the state) would not cause any concern.
However the scenario of a Republican majority in the senate is very much in play and losing, what looks like a certain gain in Delaware with Castle, is a matter of very serious consideration (the left is rejoicing over the prospect). I am not concerned in the least with the left picking up the "Palin's endorsements are a kiss of death" meme again if O'Donnell loses. We know that this is countered by (and Miller of course) pointing out that Palin endorses on a "what is right for America" basis rather than simply running up a score of wins (which she could easily do by simply endorsing sure winners).
This is a deciding moment for ex-lib's and their commitment to Palin-do we support O'Donnell putting ideological purity ahead of political advantage or do we temper our Palin support to a case by case basis?
There is no turning back at this point-it is beyond a case by case basis-and is rather all in or all out I believe.
To assist with the final decision I believe there is nothing better to hand than to consider what Castle, or any other candidate who was defeated by a Palin endorsed candidate, would do subsequently. Crist,who I cautioned was suspicious as to motives, Murkowski who appears to have reneged on her pledge to support the winner in her primary, are examples of putting person before party.
Palin is an exemplary example of putting party before person and in that light the question to Castle is what would he do if he loses to O'Donnell.When asked that question by a reporter Castle is reported to have said:
"If I were to lose in a Primary circumstance, I'm not sure I'd want to move forward. I'd have to give it thought. But, that's not what my plans or interests are."
Okay Congressman, I responded... Didn't you leave a little bit of wiggle-room?
Castle: "The wiggle-room is in that I just really haven't approached it. I'm confident in our polls. I'm confident in what the outcome of this will be."
If Castle's answer had been-"I am a Republican and I will strongly support our nominee and will not under any circumstances consider running against her" then who to support would have been a matter of inner turmoil right up to election day. Given his reply, there can be only one way forward-to support O'Donnell and to burn any bridges leading back from the fullest support of Sarah Palin-her endorsements, her policies, her faith and her destiny.