Mike Castle rolls out his re-election strategy
First of all props to homegirl Maria Evans at WGMD for getting Castle’s Iraq views on the record. In this short audio clip (h/t Kavips, Nancy Willing DelDem) you can hear Mike Castle speaking directly to the voters and get a glimpse of his re-election strategy.
It is a simple strategy and one taken directly from the Rove playbook: Lie.
Mike Castle plans to lie about his record.
Mike Castle plans to lie about people who point out the lies about his record and,
That’s it. It is pure Rovian politics.
Notice how he lies about the aims of the protesters? Notice how he lies about his record?
He started rolling this out earlier in the month when he brazenly lied abouthis record saying that he voted with the Democrats on Iraq “more often than not.” That might have been a slip if not for less impromptu lies he allowed Maria Even to record.
My sense is that he feels (in light of his record) he has no other option than to just lie his ass off. Knowing that the Drew Volturo, Celia Cohen, and the News Journal’s Doug Williams will never ever, ever, ever call him out on his actual record – why not just say “fuck it” and lie?
The only question that now needs to be settled on election day is – Can Castle lie with impunity. He is clearly betting that he can.
That is why we are here, Jason.
Not only has he a compliant media, but also a historical tradition known as the Delaware Way (where incumbents are never challenged) and top tier state Democrats more willing to compete for the same job rather than challenge a liar.
Castle is a lying sack of poo-poo. Or he’s just senile. He was told the Iraq Summer Project was about an orderly, safe withdrawal with deadlines set by the people who know how to do this. I just listened to the interview and now I’ve got to duck-tape my speakers back together. Sheesh!
Is there a Republican anywhere who ever tells the truth? Sorry Tyler.
I”m sorry, what does he have wrong about the aim of the protesters? I just listened to the clip, and he said the protesters want to pressure members of Congress to vote to get out of Iraq now. Is that inaccurate? If so, how? That’s not snark, I’m seriously asking, because I thought that was the goal.
Hey WITS!
NOW is the operative word. He’s claiming that we’re irresponsible and don’t care about consequences for the Iraqi people. He says that by demanding that we get out NOW we’re getting his back up and it makes him want to oppose us. That’s a load of crap.
Yes, we want to reverse the trend now. Yes we want a plan for orderly redeployment now.
But we also recognize that we can’t line up a bunch of C-whatevers on the runway in Bagdad and have everyone home for the weekend. Look at the problems the Brits are having getting out of Basra.
Castle is deliberately distorting this to make himself look like a thoughtful statesman and the rest of us look like a bunch of fanatic kooks. Spin, spin, spin.
Wait a second….
but I thought it was the rest of us who were the thoughtful statesmen, and Castle was running with a bunch of fanatic kooks?
How can it be both way?
Oh,…yeah….it’s Castle we are talking about.
“He started rolling this out earlier in the month when he brazenly lied abouthis record saying that he voted with the Democrats on Iraq “more often than not.”
Now, now, Jason, it might be inaccurate to say Castle lied. After having two strokes last year, your shouldn’t expect his memory to be what it once was.
I’m serious about that. I hear reports all the time from people who see him on those rare occassions he’s in DE that he looks terrible…that he doesn’t seem to be well.
saying that he voted with the Democrats on Iraq “more often than not.”
Hmmmm…. he didn’t say *which* Democrats he voted with…
If he’s talking about Carper he may have some wiggle room here.
Yes, we want to reverse the trend now. Yes we want a plan for orderly redeployment now.
*
can’t be more clear than that
Rebecca: Thanks for taking my request seriously. Jason, you should probably keep a standing post here with Castle’s voting record on it. That way you can link to it every time he repeats this new mantra.
I disagree that Castle implied that the Iraq Summer group wants to “line up a bunch of C-whatevers on the runway in Bagdad and have everyone home for the weekend.”
He said that the Iraq Summer group wants to set a date for withdrawl and have American troops leave Iraq without helping to resolve any of the current problems that the Iraqi people face (many of which we’ve created). My impression, from what I’ve read, is that Castle’s assessment is an accurate one. Castle favors altering American policy per the ISG recommendations and setting a goal for withdrawl of early 2008, and the Iraq Summer group favors setting a firm date for complete withdrawl now and beginning a phased redeployment.
If this is inaccurate, then what is the essential difference between Castle’s stance and the Iraq Summer group’s stance?
The difference is that Iraq Summer wants to cut the crap and start redeployment ASAP.
We want to focus on American problems, save ourselves/our children from countless billions more of debt to China and to save American lives.
We have done what we can for the Iraqis and after giving it our all, we must let them work out their fate.
Castle is cravenly giving RNC line to redeploy next spring – in time to save this mess for the DEMs when we grab fullout control in 2008 – including his chickenhawk seat.
Answer me why next spring? Did the general – fairy whisper this in his ear or was it Rove?