Charles, I believe you fail to see that this is truly "not ordinary times". We have been awakened to the destructive beast of progressivism. Is it possible that not all Democratic voters across America are in step with where their party leadership is taking them. That they can see more clearly now how those ideas will destroy the country they love too. These are extraordinary times and she will be elected. Our eyes are now wide open and we can now distinguish between a progressive Republican (votes with the Democrats) and an imperfect candidate who will vote with America.

That is the attitude that brought on the arrival of where we are at. The big problem with moderation is there is no end to it because it does not stand for anything. The mind set of picking someone just because they can win is dangerous, we have seen the effects. In many places the difference between Democrat and Republican candidates are nonexistant. This has to stop and a real choice between candidates must be presented to the People. Your thoughts are just as condisending to the People as the current Administration.

You missed the entire point: Castle was NOT a conservative. People like you who can't tell their friends from their enemies deserve to be over run and ruled with an iron boot.

Doctor you missed the diagnosis! You have been within the Beltway to long! Outside the Beltway, Voters are tired of RINO's, and DEMS who are following the road to more government power over our lives. They said Christie could not win!

I'm confused - Charles says that Castle was "unbeatable." O'Donnell, who the establishment types say can't win just WON over the

"unbeatable" Castle. Thank God for the Tea Party.

Mr Krauthammer:

I have long respected you and your seeming iron will. You have lost me as an admirer with your reaction to the O'Donnell victory. What part of "pissed off and fed up" do you beltway pundits not get?

What the pundits fail to realize is that the Tea Party members see the election of RINO OR Demoncrats as a no win scenerio. Oh, Good, the republications will screw us over 3% less. Lets all stand up and cheer! The deep and abiding revulsion of the American people with weasel-word politicians and lawyers continues to grow.

Mr. Krauthammer:

You sound like an establishment Republican! Mike Castle is not a conservative and therefore does not meet the standard of "The Buckley Rule."

I immensely respect your opinion on all ranges of issues, but this opinion Charles..... You are just dead wrong. All the posts before me have summed it up nicely.

As I recall the Founding Fathers were unpopular and in the minority.

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands, which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" - Samuel Adams

Doctor K, I recognize O'Donnell has some serious flaws. Will she be one to "work well with others"? Will she be bipartisan? I hope not.

Bipartisan is code word for surrendering your principles, Sir!

I like the radio host Mark Davis am extremely saddened by your O'Donnell views.

Could it be that the Delaware GOP folks actually know what they're doing?

If a candidate supports Constitutional government, then her private issues and religious beliefs are inconsequential.

You missed it on this one brother!

Add me to the list. As I've said elsewhere in this forum, it's getting to where you can't tell the Republicans from the Democrats without a program. We need some real change, and we need it fast in order to begin turning back the clock on our 75 year long slide towards socialism.

If O'Donnell can beat the unbeatable Castle, then perhaps she really can win it all.

Charles writes: "You don't stop that [Obama's] agenda by nominating an O'Donnell in Delaware and turning a Senate seat from safe Republican to safe Democratic." He seems to imply that by choosing Castle you will be able to stop the agenda. Where is Charles getting his confidence that Castle (or other north east republicans i.e. Snow, Collins, etc.) will vote to stop the Obama agenda? Good heavens, it's reported that Castle said he wouldn't even vote to repeal Obama's Health Care Package. Doesn't Charles know that Castle isn't going to help stop Obama and the liberal Democrats?

Mr. Krauthammer,

I admire you and usually agree with your viewpoints. About the vote in Delaware, I admit when I first heard your comments in reference to the outcome, I wondered what had gotten into you. Now, in hindsight, I realize you have given me "food for thought". It is my intent to do some more thinking, and reading, before I determine my own opinion about the victory given to Ms. O'Donnell. Once I do that, I will again begin my own campaigning for those people I hope will be elected in the coming election. I, too, believe we need to stop the rush to socialism this president is demanding of us.

Thank you for what you offer; a calm, succinct, rational analysis of the ongoing drama our government perpetuates.

Maxine in Texas

Charles, you've almost always carried my sentiments and I look forward to seeing you on Fox. I'm surprised at all of the above comments since I can't remember very many times when you were not agreed with except by liberals. I'm scared to death that some action will get out of hand because I have grandchildren and children in large cities who really wouldn't be able to take care of themselves during a social upheaval, violent or otherwise. And, that's what I think may happen if we don't get America actually turned around without the constant give and take with the socialists. It must stop and it must stop now. What the liberals are doing does not make them an authentic political party-it makes them socialist/marxist/radicals whose aim is to destroy the "real" America. It's time we treat them as such. Or, we may have to pay the consequences of an honest to God revolt should we not get rid of them this time. Pussyfooting around with these scum has damn near destroyed our country. Everyone can handle them the way they want but I for one do not tolerate them, I do not let them speak their filth to me, and I've even thrown the trashy bastards out of my stores. I'm taking a stand. How about you? If not now, when?

You couldn't tick me off enough to lose me as an ardent admirer and appreciative fan.

But I am not afraid to get mad at people I love when they're off the deep end. (Trust me, I have a family full of glib Liberals.)

Let's clarify Bill Buckley's rule: Support the most conservative candidate who is electable...in the primary. THEN support the Republican candidate who is running.

You're writing Monday's column today.

Karl Rove invites us to forget his name.

We don't need you seconding his lame emotion because you remain a hero and patriot non pareil.

Motion denied. The Primary is Passed.

On to the General. No one cares if she has a few human flaws. This country elected Bill Clinton twice for heaven's sake!

The people did elect the most conservative Republican in the Delaware Primary. M Castle is a RINO who voted for cap & trade & obamacare. If she isn't elected in the general elections, at least Delaware got rid of a RINO. There's nothing worse than a RINO except a liberal Democrat.

This may prove to be a litmus test for the future of our country. You have two widely disparate agendas, on the one hand you have an avowed Constitutionalist who has done nothing illegal and PAID her student loans VS. a self proclaimed Marxist. Short of her committing some heinous crime the choice is obvious. This is a movement not to upset only Democrats but Republicans as well. Good riddance Mike Castle.

Dr. K. I admire your viewpoints and your political observations too. You and a few others like you have helped me to properly formulate and communicate my conservative thoughts and opinions. You wrote, "I would be happy to be proved wrong about O'Donnells electability". Let's all who want America restored back the Republican nominee and prove you wrong!

When you sacrifice your ideals on the altar of compromise don't be to surprised with the result. We've compromised too long and now we're suffering with the result. What next will you sacrifice?

'Tis a rare day indeed when I find myself at odds with the esteemed Dr. Krauthammer. His beef ought to be with the Republican voters of Delaware, not with conservatives across the country who merely supported a candidate that spoke to their values.

If the Republican establishment can't rally behind the Republican who's been nominated, then something is very wrong. And as for Castle, he has shown himself to be not only a RINO, but also a petty jerk for not throwing his support to the Republican who beat him. Good riddance, I say.

I can recall a time when many pundits scoffed at the candidacy of one Ronald Reagan, even calling him "unelectable" because he was thought to be too conservative.

Keep the faith, my conservative friends! Liberty is bound to triumph if we all stay diligent and active.

Mr.Krauthammer,

If she wins...what then is your position?

I believe Mr. Krauthammer to be accurate in regards to Ms. O'Donnell. The problem lies not in who won the nomination but why.

She may not be electable in the general, but it's the people letting the politicians, and the Republican party specifically, that moderation has moved the Overton window so far away from Constitutionalism that it can no longer be seen. That is what 'electability' has gotten us, and continuing in that vein will simply slow our descent, not stop or reverse it.

We either reverse course towards the founding or we crumble completely and start over.

Mr. Krauthammer,

I have always respected your opinion and look forward to reading your columns and rarely have I found myself in more than minor disagreement. On this point however, you are way off base. Voting for the "lesser of two evils" just isn't good enough anymore. You are one of the many "insiders" who have obviously and sorely misjudged the depth of the average Americans' anger. Make no mistake, Washington has "awoken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve."

I agree with Charles to a point.A good example is the Scott Brown "experiment". He will never be "conservative enough" for most of us.Being a longtime Mass. resident (FL now)I know he is the best you could have hoped for. I think though, that by choosing the "real" conservative, even with "warts and all" that O'Donnell may still be the better choice. And even if she isn't, the bar is being set for down the road. It would be great to win both houses back,this cycle, but even if it isn't accomplished this year, I feel that the momentum is with the "true" conservatives, and that will carry through beyond this cycle into 2012.

Oh Puhleese Charles - not another stupid Karl Rove statement. Christine O'Donnell won because people are sick of voting for the ineffectual, the better of two evils (John McCain and Bob Dole both come to mind). You talk about Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin now going to Delaware to get O'Donnell elected to the Senate. Well, what about the Republican party putting some effort behind O'Donnell? They are pissed because their nasty little candidate Mike Castle didn't win so they are going to hug all their money and effort to themselves and say "mine" like a bunch of two year olds? Grow up all of you pathetic naysayers. This woman won - do you not like her because she is a woman, a Christian, she stands for what she believes rather than sells out to the special interests? Or are you just talking to hear yourselves say something you think is intelligent? The Republican Party needs to get on the train or get left at the station.

The primary in Delaware was not about who is the most “electable”, clearly in this instance that was Ms. O’Donnell, it is about character and it’s about time. It’s time the American voter showed some character and picked the candidate who will serve the nation the best. In my view Ms. O’Donnell will be the best candidate in or out of office and if the RNC doesn’t get the message now we’ll keep sending it until they do. Amen.

Krauthammer is a solid conservative. He's talking about tactics, that's all. Some of this "you've lost my respect" nonsense over a single article is ridiculous. Besides, the last sentence is important. The people who got her the nomination had better be with her in force to get her seated in the Senate.

BTW Wasn't Reagan supposed to be unelectable because his ideas were "simplistic?"

Now will come the true test of character for Republicans who were defeated by the TEA Party. Should they run as independents, unsupported Republicans, turn coat party switchers, or just back out and support the winner of the party primary?

Should they run, as Murkowski is planning to do, they take the chance of garnering votes that will in the end do them no good, but will prevent a non-democrat from winning. By taking those votes from another candidate, they may be electing the democrat back to Congress by fiat, a'la Ross Perot.

We don't need to do that again. If a primary candidate is defeated and still insists on running in the General Election, I would have to vote against that candidate based on their lack of caring for the well being of the country. That would be a sure sign to me that they care more about keeping the power than caring for the nation and the people.

Maybe the problem with the current system is that the division of power is limited to either a majority of Democrat or Republican. Our government is formed of three branches, maybe Congress would be a little less likely to destroy our country if the split needed to be 2/3 to succeed in the corruption of the day, instead of just 1/2.

Neither party appears to have the interest of the country in mind compared to their desire to remain in power to implement agendas from their corporate or union sponsors.