Mark Hemingway Wants To Be Liked, Not Represented In DE

September 12, 2010

Mark Hemingway is the Heminator on Twitter. Perhaps Hem n haw-minator would better serve Mark. When not questioning other's masculinity, he seems like a pretty nice guy. We all know where those finish in the game of hardball politics. But perhaps there's some benefit when they're filling in as water boys for the GOP establishment.

Aside from the Examiner needing to work on its formatting, it's ridiculous for Hemingway to proclaim he has any idea what Buckley would do as regards Delaware. Evidently unable to defend his own support for a liberal Republican, he attempts to invoke the memory of someone he has less claim, or right to invoke than many on the other side of this debate.

What Hemingway is doing is what Beltway, or DC conventional wisdom always does. And they do it to keep from fighting one election at a time. Castle can't win on his record, so they need to distract and obfuscate. This is a dead end for conservatism.

William F. Buckley, the godfather of the modern conservative movement, had some simple advice for what to do on Election Day: Vote for the most conservative candidate that is electable. 

Looking ahead to the midterms, the big news out of Delaware is that a Republican might capture the Senate seat formerly held by Vice President Biden. The latest Rasmussen poll shows Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., is leading the Democratic candidate, Chris Coons, by 11 points.

Given Hemingway's reasoning, there would have been no Scott Brown. There'd be no Angle, no Mike Lee, Joe Miller, or Marco Rubio. No one knows who is electable, or not, until an election is held. By refusing to allow conservatism to even be represented in a blue, or even purple states, these so called analysts always manage to calculate a way to cede ground. They aren't willing to fight for much of anything.

That mentality doesn't work in business and it is tantamount to death, or surrender in politics. And it's why a Beltway pundit class that increasingly looks more interested in being nice, or being deemed suitable for employment, or advancement by the GOP establishment, is mostly worthless to the conservative movement today.

They aren't movers, they are scorekeepers, content to notch Ls and Ws for Republicans, even when it means advancing nothing for which they purport to stand. It's not principled, it's convenient and hints at political cowardice. If Buckley was anything, he was bold. Obviously that's not the case with Hemingway. He may as well invoke Tickle Me Elmo for all the similarities he shares with him, versus the late Bill Buckley.

AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
  1. Dave in dallas says:

    I am so, so tired of being told who’s electable.
    They said not to bother with Miller in Alaska, that Murkowski was incumbent, well liked, had the big machine and the money, Miller was unknown, yada yada. Well, he won, and will win easily in the general, even if Murkowski completes the destruction of her reputation by going write-in.
    Then they said well we were wrong about Miller, but Delaware isn’t Alaska, and we’re right about Castle. And besides, there’s something funny about that O’Donnell woman.
    Castle, meanwhile, says he’ll vote for crap and tax in the lame duck session, and that he won’t vote to repeal health care.
    That is not a MODERATE, that is a LIBERAL. He’s a big government swine, an aristorat, a democrap in repub clothing, and he deserves to be tossed. And he will be. And Delaware will elect Christine, and even if they don’t, we have LOST NOTHING.
    Obama will veto any bill out of a Repub controlled senate which he does not like. All we need for filibusters is a reliable 45 or so. Until Obama is gone, we will NOT accomplish anything worthwhile except standing the ground. We can stand that ground with 45, 49, 51 or 55 senators. If Castle is elected, that will be one vote we CANNOT count on in a pinch, like collins, snowe, etc.
    Damned aristorats, trying to preserve their status quo and cash flow. I’m beginning to really HATE those people.

  2. John Burke says:

    Hey Dan, it’s really working now. Dave here says he’s “beginning to really HATE those people.” Democrats? Liberals? No, other conservatives he’s beginning to HATE in all caps — and you’ve done it with an assist from Mark Levin and a dozen or so other guys.
    And by the way, Dan, this is total horseshit: “Given Hemingway’s reasoning, there would have been no Scott Brown.”
    Now why would that be? Scott Brown won in an upset in deep “blue” Massachusetts because people were/are really pissed off about taxes, healthcare, spending, the recession. But Scott Brown was not as a state senator or as a candidate much of a conservative at all. And he’s working his way quickly into “RINO” terrority in the US Senate, is he not?
    But like Hemingway says about Buckley’s advice, Scott Brown was the best guy that could be elected in his state from a conservative standpoint.
    And Hemingway is almost certainly right about what Buckley would advise about Delaware now, if he lived. In 1988, Buckley organized and led a campaign committee to help elect Democrat Joe Lieberman to the Senate for the first time, because he believed Joe would be better from a conservative standpoint than incumbent Republican Lowell Weiker. And guess what? He was right, although Joe has a mostly Democrat and liberal record in a lot of areas.
    Stop making things up and playing fast and loose with the truth. And stop inciting your readers to HATE other conservatives.

  3. Kyle says:

    These guys also said that McCain polled the best against Hillary, back in February ’08, so he was the most electable conservative in the presidential race. Big oops, as McCain ended facing Obama in the general, and the rest is history. You
    are completely on point when you say these guys are GOP scorekeepers; unfortunately, they are not good at it.

  4. Kyle says:

    Chill out Burke. I’ve been really tired of reading Powerline and NRO for a long time, and Riehl is the first blogger I’ve seen to point out the political sissies that these guys are. I didn’t need Riehl to point it out in order for me to notice, but it is nice to finally read someone who notices, too.
    I think Powerline and NRO are good at writing specialized articles and analysis on certain issues, but I don’t think they are good on analyzing legislative battles and gauging what everyday conservatives across the country care about. They definitely seem to have an “above it all” and spectator like attitude. They write as if they would like conservativism to rule the day, but if it doesn’t, that’s fine too.

  5. Demosthenes9 says:

    Kyle, the thing is, Burke was right.
    If Scott Brown were running today against an actual Conservative, wouldn’t many of the “Conservatives” say that he’s not Conservative enough ??
    Sorry, if anything, Scott Brown is a stunning example of the fact that in certain cases, we should worry more about the R after the name, and less about Conservative purity.

  6. Ken says:

    So, Demosthenes9 and John Burke, are you or aren’t you in agreement with Tourdefrance when he says that it’s a sign of poor character to take longer than usual to get a [worthless] college degree? Are you with him when he says that the fact that she isn’t married proves she’s a slut of low character? (Because, of course, there’s absolutely nothing else to do in the world other than sex). Do you agree with him that Biden mopped the floor with Palin (and, implicitly, that this means that all gun owners are inbred retards and should be exterminated)? I don’t see you distancing yourselves from his wicked, genocidal remarks, so until you do, I’ll assume you’re out to kill me and act accordingly.

  7. Moobs says:

    ken they won’t distance themsleves from his genocidal remarks because quite frankly they agree with them like every gun rabbing fascist

  8. Demosthenes9 says:

    Nope, I don’t agree with most of those statements, though I’m not at all sure that your characterizations are all accurate :)
    Fair enough ?

  9. jimmy says: