In case you missed it, the old guard in the GOP is having a tantrum about the Delaware primary election victory of Christine O'Donnell. This comes on the heels of crying sessions related to the elections of Joe Miller in Alaska, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Rand Paul in Kentucky, Mike Lee in Utah, and Ken Buck in Colorado. However, all those whines were a little different, because nobody thought the GOP might win back the Senate until about a month ago. But now that the conservative wing of the party has grown a collective spine, the old guard is suddenly blaming the TEA Party for "ruining" the chance to take back a house that they lost in the first place.
And it isn't like they had some sort of conservative ephiphany in the past two years. Their campaign slogans primarily consisted of, "We're not Obama's party!" They haven't changed their positions one iota. They were perfectly content to tolerate a little hard-core fiscal conservative noise from the red states, but Delaware is more of a purple state. Seeing a small government message come from a section of the country that probably mirrors the color of "their" Congress ...well, how embarassing that must have been. But rather than listen to the message, they chose to essentially call those voters stupid and begin washing their hands clean of the whole nasty affair.
I get their supposed point about electability, but their performance in the 2006 and 2008 elections seems to indicate that they're a little short on credibility as far as that topic goes. Under their "expert" guidance, we ended up with a lot of Republicans that the Democrats like, and a Democrat majority in both houses. Apparently America doesn't like middle-of-the-road Republicans as much as the old guard keeps telling us they do. But if their reputations are not really in play, what exactly is it that they are they supposedly protecting?
Maybe the WSJ is on to something:
Could it be that the 2002 GOP is trying to hand on to their only semblance of relevance - their ability to dig deep into the deep pockets of corporate America? If so, that's nothing to brag about.
"In many instances, we don't know enough about the concerns of some of the winners in the primaries to be comfortable that they understand the intricacies of the battle for free enterprise," said Larry Harlow, who handles the Washington interests of the American Petroleum Institute and such firms as Boeing Co. and Union Pacific Corp.
Wow! What a condescending jerk. This guy makes his living off slithering through a corrupt system while hissing that those of us outside the beltway are simpletons, too intellectually impaired to understand why the system needs to be so complicated.
I suspect, or at least hope, that he is actually worried that at least some of us know a quite a bit about the battle for free enterprise, including the fact that we define it much differetently than he does. We don't want our money going to the customers of the American Petroleum Institute, Boeing and/or Union Pacific any more than we want it going to ACORN or the UAW. If we had our way, we would have Harlow looking for a real job, one where he produced something other than other people's money.
If that day ever comes, I won't feel too sorry for him, either.