Delaware GOP establishment still doesn't understand TEA Party movement

The "TEA Party" movement, more accurately described as the "Patriot Movement" has been alive and well in Delaware since March of 2009. For 20 months, everyday Delawareans have been raising their voices and letting them be heard. Thousands of Delawareans from all political persuasions have sought a new knowledge of America's roots. They have studied the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Federalist Papers along with newer sources like the "5000 Year Leap". They've gathered in churches, fire halls and even pavilions across the state. They've sought knowledge from some of the brightest minds in America like Dr. Moffit from the Heritage foundation. More and more come to each meeting and tell their friends. The numbers just seem to multiply each month! Still they are considered an uneducated and ignorant minority.

Thousands have rallied on street corners, on the Mall in Dover and at the Riverfront in Wilmington for "TEA Parties". They've called for a more fair media, a limited government restrained by the Constitution and an end to the out of control spending in Dover and Washington. Their signs have read "STOP SPENDING!" and "READ THE BILL". They have made it clear that they are Republicans, Independents AND Democrats and that there is no sexuality, gender or color boundary left uncrossed. Still they are labeled racists, bigots and social outcasts.

I have no doubt that radio personalities like Al Mascitti and the bloggers over at Delaware Liberal may be ignorant of what the Patriot Movement stands for. It's equally likely that they know EXACTLY what it stands for, understand the power of that message and therefore feel they must distort it. I cannot read inside their minds but either they are missing the obvious or they are deceitful. The same goes for the Delaware Democrat Party who may be the only group political or otherwise who actually DOES seem to understand the movement. They fear it and as well they should. The Patriot movement threatens to educate the electorate and an educated electorate more often than not leads to greater freedom and less government. That is why the Democrat Party and their operatives (like Maschitti and Delaware Liberal) work so hard to demonize the "TEA Party". They try to marginalize and push those of us who stand for the TEA Party principles to the fringe. They call us extremists, they call us racists and they call us "teabaggers". It's what liberals do, they attack the messenger and not the message because to be honest, their own message doesn't stand up well in the face of opposition.

The problem is that there is one group that clearly doesn't understand the message of the Patriot Movement. The Delaware GOP establishment. Despite the fact that the Patriot Movement came out in the tens of thousands to help Christine O'Donnell defeat longtime Congressman Mike Castle in the GOP primary in September. Congressman Castle was defeated for three reasons:
1.) He had moved away from his base and had begun courting the Democrats more and more. Perhaps this was in response to the registration numbers, perhaps it was just his nature. Either way he had lost his base. His votes for nearly every spending bill no longer showed him as even a Fiscal Conservative. Most Conservative groups labeled him THE most liberal Republican in the House of Representatives.
2.) He felt like he was entitled to the seat. Castle honestly felt like he didn't have to answer to the people he was sent to represent. This was clear in his answers at the few townhalls he held. It was also evident that Castle had CONTEMPT for many of the Patriot Movement members. He refused to debate or even appear at the same locations as his primary opponent and showed himself to be an elitist who was above those whose votes he desired.
3.) His votes for Cap and Trade and Financial Regulatory Reform soldified his fate. Castle claimed to have read the Cap and Trade bill yet he was stumped about some of the portions of the bill that were read to him by town hall attendees. The Financial Regulatory Reform bill harmed the credit card industry, caused layoffs and generally did little to protect consumers and yet Castle voted for it. He lobbied in FAVOR of Government controlled healthcare before voting AGAINST the bill and then sponsored a bill called the DISCLOSE Act that allowed all current special interests to operate as usual but which would have stifled the very grassroots organizations that threatened his election.

But Castle wasn't the only person that lost. Others around him lost and have faced severe backlash from the Patriot movement and from many Republican voters. Not everyone who lost election did so because they were ideologically like Mike, some lost because they aligned themselves with Mike thinking he was the right political choice. That was a calculation that caused otherwise acceptable candidates to the Patriot Movement to be rejected. For instance, Greenville businesswoman Michele Rollins. In a News Journal article today, Michele Rollins showed that the GOP establishment just doesn't understand the Patriot Movement:

"We need to sit back and say, 'Do we want to be a party of social issues?' If that's the case, then let it be that. But I can't be in that," said businesswoman Michele Rollins, who lost the GOP U.S. House primary to Glen Urquhart.

Urquhart had ripped Rollins for supporting a woman's right to abortion. "No matter how often I said no decent person could be for abortion ... it didn't seem to matter," Rollins said.

Unfortunately, Michele has missed the mark here and her statements are indicitive of the majority of the leadership of the GOP. It was never about social issues. It happened to be that both Christine O'Donnell and Glen Urquhart were not only Fiscal Conservatives but also Social Conservatives however, that was never something that the Patriot movement made an issue. Perhaps below the canal those issues played major roles but New Castle County groups have been focused on three key issues:
1.) Fiscal Responsibility (including cutting spending, lowering taxes and managing the deficit)
2.) Limited Constitutional Government (Government within the bounds of the Constitution which limits Federal power)
3.) Free Markets (Free and open private markets in which people are allowed to innovate, participate and create without government intervention)

Those three issues were issues that Mike Castle and the Delaware GOP as a whole had drifted from. Michele unfortunately aligned herself with Castle which cast her as more of the same. The Republican electorate soundly rejected Castle and that carried on to those they saw as like him. Rightly or wrongly, that's a fact and so is the fact that conservatives in Delaware have felt more and more left out. It's unfortunate for Michele because many of us in the movement saw her as an opportunity where the Patriot Movement and the establishment could have come together. It was not until she campaigned with Castle and positioned herself in percieved opposition to the majority of the electorate that she began to lose favor. In fact, despite her move toward Castle, many Patriots voted for her and not for Castle hence the reason her primary was so close. I for one would not have been disappointed with Michele Rollins and even thought she had the better opportunity to beat John Carney. It is a shame that she and others within the GOP have still not figured out the pulse of the Patriot Movement.

The fact is that the Patriot movement is hard to qualify precisely because it is so grassroots but there are some central themes. A limited federal government who leaves the social issues to the States and who constrains itself within the boundaries of the Constitution leads the way. We also expect the government to get a handle on spending, on the budget deficit and on the out of control taxation. Then we expect the government to ensure that our business markets are free and open to the public and that government stays out of the market as much as possible. The problem is that the Delaware Republican electorate did not see the party embracing these ideals and neither did the Patriot movement. As such, a change was called for. It is never easy for political parties to change but this was so glaring and so obvious that anyone should have seen it. The fact that the Delaware GOP establishment still can't, shows that they may still have learning to do. The Patriot Movement is willing to teach them if need be. The following quote from former 6th District Rep Tom Kovach shows that some establishment Republicans haven't heard the message yet:

"Let's focus on the fiscal conservancy of the party," said former state Rep. Tom Kovach, who lost re-election in a northern New Castle County district

Thanks Tom, we've BEEN focusing on that. The problem is that the establishment wants to pick the candidates themselves for us. Now, in a desperate move to explain rejection by the left AND the right, the establishment is claiming that this was fiscal conservatives vs. social conservatives. It was not. Mike Castle was NOT a fiscal conservative and hadn't been in almost 10 years. Mike Castle was not even a MODERATE Republican, he was a Progressive left learning Republican who had more in common with liberal Democrats than he did with conservative Republicans. The people had their say and they chose candidates that should have moved the leadership to understand it needed to moderate BACK to the right in it's choices of candidates. Instead it has confused some moderates and sent Mike Castle into a rage that has led him to conclude that he has to start a war over control of the Republican Party. Castle is now choosing candidates that stand in near direct opposition to what the electorate voted for in September. Time will tell but the hope is that the Delaware GOP will figure it out sooner, rather than later. The only way to win is to work together.

Mike Castle makes it clear, he won't be part of the Republican opposition

In case you missed it, the Washington Post told us yesterday that Mike Castle had made his decision about how he will vote if elected to the Senate. Columnist David Broder spent time following Congressman Castle around the state. First, let me show you the way Mr. Broder describes Delaware's lone Congressman:

"the early favorite is Mike Castle, the state's former governor and longtime congressman at-large, a throwback to the kind of progressive Republican the Northeast used to elect regularly." (Emphasis added)

David Broder has just told us that Congressman Castle IS a Progressive (although those of us who follow his votes could have told you that YEARS ago). Congressman Castle takes this to a new level when he describes to the house party (a high end fundraiser) attendees:

"His reason for running, Castle explained to voters at a house party here, is that "I'm in the minority in a [Republican] minority of 435 people, and the rules and procedures make it difficult to express my independence. In the Senate, I hope I will have more impact."(emphasis added)"

So Congressman Castle feels like he is in a minority of a minority in the Republican House caucus. Why is that? It could be because Mike Castle is a Progressive Republican in the House and tends to vote more often with the Democrats than the Republicans (the Americans for Democratic Action group lists Castle as voting with the liberals 65% of the time in 2008). Castle was not yet done describing his plans for the U.S. Senate. Broder says:

"Later, Castle told me, "I don't go there with any notion of just building up seniority, but I think I can make a contribution there in the fields I've worked in. I don't plan to be part of the [Republican] opposition. I think I can do more than oppose." (emphasis added)"

Friends, Republicans, Americans, lend me your eyes...(put them back in your head first)...Congressman Mike Castle is not your friend. He does not care about you, or me, or our children. He doesn't care about anything but Mike Castle. He is going to grow government, give himself and his friends in Washington more power and he WILL betray the Republican party and the people of Delaware.

Please do not let this man fool you anymore. He has made his intentions clear. Cap & Trade, DISCLOSE, Cyber-Security, Bail-outs, Government takeovers of business, tax increases, etc. These things WILL pass with his signature, he has guaranteed it. Please do not let this happen. Do not let him destroy America. I urge you to support Christine O'Donnell in every way that you can. She will go to Washington and fight for the people.

Delaware will cast deciding vote again

For those of us who grew up in the Delaware Valley, the story of Caesar Rodney's ride from central Delaware to Philadelphia is as legendary as Revere's ride through Massachusetts. Anyone who has seen the HBO Miniseries "John Adams" will remember Rodney bursting through the doors with Thomas McKean only moments before casting the deciding vote in favor of Independence from Britain. For those who may be reading this and are not familiar with that historical moment, Delaware has the nickname "The First State" and that nickname relates to the ratifying of the U.S. Constitution by the state. However, Delaware was also the first state to secede from England having done so 3 days before the whole of the states declared their independence. Rodney's ride overnight and through the rain from south of Dover, DE (present day capital) to Philadelphia, PA (approximately 80 miles) signifies what it means to be a Delawarean, you do what you have to do and you do the right thing.

Delaware is again poised to be in the position of casting the deciding vote. This time it is to save America from a lame duck Obama led Congress. Both the House and Senate have made clear their intention to stall major legislation until the fall. John Fund recently wrote a piece about the Democrat plans for passing bills like Cap and Trade in the Lame Duck session. You'll note this part of the post specifically:

"there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning an
ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don’t want
to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then
be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation."

This means that the Senate and House leadership has decided not to pass any major legislation until after the election but before the winners are seated. All of the winners except ONE actually. As Robert Stacy McCain (no relation) wrote the other day, Christine O'Donnell is now gaining significant ground against liberal Republican Mike Castle in the special election to replace Joe Biden in 2010.



The key words there are "special election" and you will learn why in a moment. Senate Democrat leaders on climate change have specifically targeted Cap and Trade legislation as one of the bills they do not have support for, yet. Thus far there has been opposition to passing this dangerous legislation from the entire GOP caucus. Keep in mind, the U.S. Senate has 4 "moderate" Republicans in it's ranks. Olympia Snowe, Orrin Hatch, Susan Collins and Scott Brown have all been known to support Democrat bills when given proper cover.



The "special election" in Delaware means that the winner is seated immediately. That can be both good, and bad depending on who wins. If Mike Castle wins, who passed Cap and Trade (raises energy costs by $3,000 per person annually), Financial Regulatory Reform (created massive government bureaucracy and kills jobs) and who wrote the DISCLOSE Bill (1st Amendment killer) all in the last year while a member of the House of Representatives and who has voted with liberal democrats an average of 60% of the time over the last three years, he will have the chance to do it again. That is unless Delaware decides that they've had enough. There is another choice and her name is Christine O'Donnell. Christine has promised to help kill bad legislation during the lame duck session and to hold the fort against the Progressive assault until the Conservative wave washes in reinforcements in January. She will be the key brick in the wall that holds back the sea. We MUST ensure that she is elected to the U.S. Senate and that Mike Castle has a GREAT retirement ceremony.

Disclose Bill passes House - What was in it?

Mike Castle and Chris Van Hollen won a "bipartisan" victory with the help of progressive Democrats and Castle's Progressive Republican ally Joseph Cao of Louisiana (who voted for the wildly unpopular universal healthcare bill). Unfortunately for Castle and Van Hollen, opposition to the bill was even more solidly bi-partisan with 26 House Democrats voting against the measure. Admittedly, some of the angst among the opposition was in regards to the decision to give a special exemption to the NRA, Sierra Club and AARP from having to disclose anything.

Amendments that exempted Unions from participation, silenced anyone who holds a lease on the Outer Continental Shelf and which raised the the minimum limit that would bar government contractors from participating in campaign electioneering from $50,000 to $7 million were also included. As was a provision that exempted unions from adhering to disclosure of transfers of more than $50,000 among affiliate organizations if the money is used for electioneering.

The bill now moves on to the Senate which is historically the wiser of the two bodies. Here the bill will face a significant challenge in passing. This is where "We The People" will have a real opportunity to stop the insanity. This bill is nothing more than an Incumbent Protection Act that stifles the peoples voices. For DECADES liberals and progressives from both sides of the aisle have benefited from BILLIONS in union dollars without a word. Suddenly, when corporations, citizens groups (like your local T.E.A. Party/9-12 Patriot group) and other watchdogs get a bullhorn too, they want to shut the door on them, on YOU. This is where "We The People" must use OUR lobbying voice and make the phone calls...send the faxes and make them listen.

Call, write, fax and even show up to SEE your Senators and their staff. Engage them in a discussion about why OUR voice, the voice of the T.E.A. Party and of the small business owner is less important than the voices of unions and the huge activist groups like the NRA, Sierra Club and AARP. Click here to contact your Senator today. Below is a list of Senators who should be focused on:

Baucus, Max - (D - MT) 511 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-2651 - phone
(202) 224-9412 - fax

Bayh, Evan - (D - IN) 131 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5623 - phone
(202) 228-1377 - fax

Brown, Scott P. - (R - MA) 317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4543 - phone
(202) 228-2646 - fax


Carper, Thomas R. - (D - DE) 513 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2441 - phone
(202) 228-2190 - fax

Collins, Susan M. - (R - ME) 413 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2523 - phone
(202) 224-2693 - fax

Graham, Lindsey - (R - SC) 290 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5972 - phone

Lieberman, Joseph I. - (ID - CT) 706 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4041 - phone
(202) 224-9750 - fax

McCain, John - (R - AZ) 241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2235 - phone
(202) 228-2862 - fax

Snowe, Olympia J. - (R - ME) 154 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5344 - phone
(202) 224-1946 - fax

Is Mike Castle capable of being a Senator?

Congressman Mike Castle joined Progressive Democrat Chris Van Hollen from Maryland in authoring the much talked about "Disclose Bill" also known by the bill number H.R. 5175. On Thursday June 17th, Congressman Castle and Congressman Van Hollen posted an op-ed in the Washington Post. It claimed that the Supreme Court ruling on January 21, 2010 in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission "dramatically expanded the ability of special interests to influence the political process." 49% of Americans disagree and believe that this bill is nothing more than a last ditch effort by desperate law makers to get reelected or elected to new positions in government.

However, the case brought before the Supreme Court by citizens United (whose President by the way has endorsed Christine O'Donnell in her Delaware Senate bid against Mike Castle) actually evened the playing field for all speakers. Up until January 21 of this year there were restrictions placed only on corporations spending its own money on running "political ads" not coordinated with political campaigns. However, labor unions, citizens groups and others were free to promote/denounce issues and contribute to candidates. By allowing corporations the same freedoms granted to all Americans and reinstating the rights of corporate speech which had been stifled for 20 years, the courts reintroduced a sense of fairness. Now small businesses, corporations, labor unions and citizens groups can speak out for or against their elected officials. Now the thoughts and concerns of your neighbors, local business owners and other groups are no longer stifled.

As for the "Disclose Bill" it self, the legislation is at best ambiguous and at worst purposely so. The bill which was written at the direction of President Obama by Castle and Van Hollen does little to keep "corporate money" out of the process and in fact, the toughest points of the legislation impact citizens groups who have members and rely on "donors". Corporations like Goldman Sachs and Hewlett-Packard would not be included in these provisions. These and other large corporations spent an estimated $3.48 BILLION (more than twice as much as they spent in '99) on lobbying to get around laws similar to the "Disclose Bill" in 2009 and they have PLENTY to continue doing that.

It's the non-profit organizations on all sides of the aisle that the legislation hits. The Disclose act will increase the costs of political speech for groups like your local 9-12 chapter, union or gun advocacy group. Disclosure and disclaimers are called for down to the top 5 donors for a particular ad and these disclosures will be costly to implement for groups who do not have the immense resources that corporations have. These disclosures ("My name is Ted Smith and i approve this message." or "Citizens United for Furry Fat Sloths paid for the content of this advertising.") which currently are only required to be around 4-5 seconds would be expanded to cover around 1/2 of a 30 second commercial by requiring the top 5 donors to be exposed ("My name is Ted Smith, My name is Jill Anderson, My name is Keith Richards, My name is Tyson Gray and My name is Megan Bacon and we approve this message" or "Citizens United for Furry Fat Sloths paid for the content of this advertising with the help of Megan Bacon, Ted Smith, Jill Anderson, Keith Richards and Tyson Gray who donated $250,000 for this ad.).

Also, membership-based groups are required to file a report with the FEC within 24 hours of running political ads. For organizations that raise funds via multiple sources (mail, Internet, telephone, etc.) this task would be nearly impossible in such a short time. Even candidates who file their FEC reports are given 15 days to complete the paperwork. The bill has undergone a few changes since it was written including increasing the previous $50,000 minimum to exclude contractors from being able to influence elections. The minimum was increased to $7 million on May 20th, 3 weeks before Congressman Castle joined Van Hollen in espousing the virtues of the bill in the Washington Post. Amendments offered by some representatives that would have extended the prohibitions on political activity by government contractors to labor unions (currently excluded); require that itemization thresholds be set at the same amount as required for candidates and finally to make the legislation effective on Jan. 1, 2011 were all rejected prior to Castle's joint statement. According to the Politico, Van Hollen has said impacting 2010 is the goal,

"Van Hollen has said he’s hopeful the bill could be implemented in time to
affect newly legal ad spending in 2010 congressional races"

So why is Mike Castle now turning against the bill? Some supporters of the Congressman who is seeking to become the next Senator from Delaware claim that his support hinges on the exemptions, Congressman Van Hollen noted that the op-ed published in the Washington Post referenced above was done so AFTER the NRA deal (which "would exempt longstanding groups if they have more than 1 million members and received less than 15 percent of their funding from corporations) was announced. Mike Castle has an F-rating from the NRA and while some pundits may assume that it was the groups like the Sierra Club and the Brady Center for Gun Violence who caused Castle to rethink his support for the bill my guess is that this is little more than finger in the wind during the campaign political spin. Spokeswoman Kate Dickens told The Hill that

“This is a slippery slope,” she said. “It’s just disclosure, for God’s sake …
now you’re just handing talking points to those who oppose the bill.”

Mr. Castle, these changes were already in the bill when you last told us you were for it. With your VAST "experience" in D.C. did you think you could pass a bill as written? If so it shows that you are completely out of touch with not just your voters and the culture in D.C. but with reality itself. You HAD to know that the liberal Democrats, who rely on Union money to get reelected would fight tooth and nail to exclude them. In fact you knew they would because the markup hearing on May 20th was 3 weeks before you defended the bill in the Washington Post. Which is it Congressman? Are you for the legislation or against it?

Mike Castle's opponent, Christine O'Donnell has called the bill a "grassroots gag order" and a "Power-player Protection Act" since day one. In an email blast to supporters Christine said that Castle's reversal on his own bill is,

"Shades of John Kerry’s “I voted for it . . . before I voted against it.” Does
the phrase flip-flopping come to mind?"

So, Congressman Castle, how can we trust you with becoming "Senator Castle" when you don't even appear to understand the process of passing legislation that impacts the freedom of speech of tens of millions of Americans and tens of thousands of Delawareans? Also, why is it that you were totally OK with the legislation as amended with the NRA deal in place as late as June 17th but 4 days later after public opinion began to turn on the bill (which YOU helped write) you're going to vote against it? Are you lacking the courage of your convictions? You certainly had no problem "voting your conscience" in 2009 when you voted FOR the Cap and Trade bill. Then again, you weren't in an election in 2009 were you?