Newt Gingrich tweets a win prediction for Christine O'Donnell in November. In the meantime, Karl Rove on Hannity last night walked off a popularity cliff with those of us who believe that votes for socialism have no place in the Republican party (I refer to Mike Castle's cap-and-tax vote).
The United States has only two viable parties, both of whom to a greater and lesser extent have had roles in expanding government. Of the two, only the Republican party even gives lip service to limiting government. The Republicans seem to feel that tea party supporters must vote Republican as the lesser of two evils.
Well, GOP, here is the deal. The tea partiers want to force you to walk the talk. The time is ripe, now that most of the country has figured out that the Democratic party is the party of socialism.
My assessment is that the Karl Roves of the party are too party obsessed. My-party-right-or-wrong, that sort of thinking. If the GOP did not want its endorsed candidate to lost in Delaware, it should not have endorsed someone who voted for cap-and-tax. That is it in a nut shell.
Memo to GOP: If you want endorsed candidates to win primaries (and Obama-Pelosi-Reid backlash general elections), endorse limited government candidates.
Update: Clever commentary from Matt Welch on Reason.com's Hit & Run:
One way of interpreting O'Donnell's upset victory is as a sign that insane anti-masturbators are emerging from America's fever swamps and marching toward Capitol Hill, ready to sic ex-gay-ministry counselors on Barney Frank in the unlikely event they can get past Democrats on Nov. 2. And maybe that's true. But I might propose an alternate way of looking at it: Anti-spending and anti-establishment sentiment is running so strong right now that even an obviously flawed, possibly nutsoid political neophyte looks better to a lot of people than just another TARP supporter. While I'm troubled by the former, the latter bothers me very little. But then again, I'm no Republican, and I'm certainly no David Frum.