Governor Chris Christie: O'Donnell Was a 'Missed Opportunity'

One thing I learned during the 2008 election was to stay away from intra-conservative battles. I was calling some right-wing bloggers all kinds of names for opposing John McCain's nomination. I regret it, mainly because I wasn't taking the long view. Whatever my policy differences, and my feelings for McCain (he was the best on foreign policy), it did little good to beat up on folks to the right of me --- especially since, in terms of important ideological trends on the right, their positions were more vindicated than mine were. And not only that: I've learned. When conservatives compromise with the middle --- and by that I mean endorsing moderate Republicans who will be "better" than centrist Dems --- they get burned every time. Newt Gingrich's endorsement of "moderate" Republican Dede Scozzafava in the NY-23's special election was a slap in the face to tea partiers (she endorsed Democrat Bill Owens after losing); and in California, we've had a "moderate" GOP governor in Arnold Schwarzenegger for seven years and this state is totally FUBAR. I won't be surprised if Governor-elect Jerry Brown pulls off a better incumbency than "The Governator," and that's saying a whole lot, believe me.

This brings me to the right's intra-ideological squabbles yesterday over New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's statement that Delaware conservatives (and voters) would have been better served with the nomination of RINO Mike Castle. We saw this debate during the primary (Patterico was at the center of this, if I recall). I'm not invested, but when Frum Forum links approvingly to radical leftist Amada Terkel at Puff Ho, that ought to be a heads up on squishy "moderate" conservative loyalties. The left is the left. Compromise kills conservatives.

Anyway, here's the lineup from yesterday. Dan Riehl goes for the ideological purity: "Post 2010: Conservatives Must Reject Christie, Powerline And Other Short-Term Thinkers." Skipping the introduction (taking aim at both Christie and Paul at Powerline), here's the beef:

While a Republican, a corporatist, or a governmentalist might describe Castle as potentially a good Senator, no honest, serious thinking Conservative ever would. That does not mean that O'Donnell was an ideal candidate. But it is imperative that the conservative movement learn from 2010, come to understand why we lost where we did, and reject the conventional Republican wisdom that only serves to undermine our cause. Surrendering to liberalism, while claiming victory as a Republican, is a defeat for conservatism. And it is precisely those types of defeats Republicans have been fostering for too long, damaging our movement and, ultimately, their own brand in the process.

I like it. But how's the going over with folks? Well, Dan triggered a pretty good reaction among some other familiar bloggers. Check Jimmie at Sundries Shack, for example, "Conservatives, It’s Time to Grow the Hell Up":

It is obvious that Castle would make a far better Senator compared to Chris Coons who will be the Senator. In other words, had the Tea Parties shown a bit more discretion and wisdom, they most likely would not be looking at a reliable progressive vote in the Senate but someone who would side with Republicans at least as often as he would Democrats.

That’s not to say that Castle would have been our bestest buddy. We would have had to fight with him at least as often as we would with the Maine sisters, but we wouldn’t have to fight him all the time. I’m not big-shot blogger like my friend Dan, but even I know that someone who votes with conservatives half the time is much better than one who will never vote with conservatives. [edited].

I like that part about "I'm not a bigshot blogger." But be sure to read the rest. Jimmie suggests that whiny brats grow up and join the real world of bipartisan cooperation.

Which leads us to Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway. Doug is anything but unpredictable: If it's ideologically conservative along Sarah Palin/tea party lines ... well, that's just too f**king crazy. See, "The Circular Firing Squad Takes Aim at Chris Christie":

Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is rarely a good idea, and the fact that there are now two Senate seats in Delaware that are likely to be controlled by Democrats for the foreseeable future rather than just one should stand as a lesson to those who demand purity even when it’s suicidal.

And one final note.

When you start seeing people like Chris Christie being attacked for not being conservative enough, you know that the right is in danger of going off the rails. Or at least some parts of it.

Folks can quibble about all of this, and I'm betting Dan and the others are not tweeting each other sweet nothings this morning, but after seven years of RINO government in California, I can tell you that successful fake Republicans are no better than genuine socialist commie Democrats. Sure, a vote here or there might be reassuring for GOP insiders, but every compromise helps the left in the end, on bullshit cap-and-trade, on budgetary bloat, on appeasement in international affairs, and so forth and so on. Just look where pragmatic conservatives line up. It if were me, I wouldn't come close to Frum Forum RINOs with a ten-foot pole --- and you can make that 100 if the name Alex Knepper gets thrown in there for some "pragmatic" icing on the cake!