When the Republican voters of a state choose a party nominee in an open process like a primary, we Republican leaders must support the nominee. During my tenures as chairman of the RNC and RGA, neither organization endorsed candidates in primaries. That's because the party's role is to abide by the decisions of the Republican primary voters. We have no right whatsoever to substitute our will or judgment for that of the voters.[snip]
We don't have loyalty oaths in our party, so rank-and-file GOP voters aren't obligated to vote for the primary winner. We hope they will. But it is an obligation of party leaders and candidates who participate in our primaries to accept their outcomes.On another note, I've yet to hear a word of sense on Christine O'Donnell from anyone. She does seem odd, but her enemies make her more appealing. Is she at all odder than the Democratic nominee, the "bearded Marxist" who believes America is not a beacon of liberty?
However, the talk radio hosts and bloggers who think her primary win betokens a great victory for Conservatism are equally nuts. It's Delaware. Her victory is not a sign of voters' great migration Rightward, but a sign of how unhappy they are with the great Pelosi Putsch. They want someone --anyone-- who will push back against it, which Mike Castle did not, on any issue.
Had we a GOP President, such that a vote more or less in the Senate would be the difference between a good judge being appointed or not, I might be on Rove's side, trying to play the angles toward a takeover of the Senate. But with Obama as President, it doesn't really matter if the GOP takes the Senate --there's not a single senator with the stomach to fight him on judges, and a Senate victory attained by Mike Castle would be pointless in that regard. So this is a year to go for broke in the primaries.
