Terry Jeffrey
Recommend this article

Now, how would a "moderate" politician vote on this bill, which won a majority in the House of 236 to 187?

Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware was one of only 27 Republicans voting against it.

Both before and after Castle was defeated in Delaware's Republican Senate primary by a pro-life, pro-marriage constitutionalist name Christine O'Donnell, the establishment press in this country insisted Castle was a "moderate."

"Ms. O'Donnell defeated Mike Castle, a veteran congressman and example of the moderate and conciliatory approach that Northeast Republicans once brought to Washington," The New York Times lamented in an editorial.

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne described Castle on the eve of last week's primary as follows: "A genial and courtly man in the manner of the elder President Bush (who held a fundraiser for him in Kennebunkport, Maine), the nine-term member of Congress was mourning the decline of both the conciliatory style of politics that animated his career and the moderate Republican disposition that the tea party is determined to destroy."

Castle is not a moderate, but an extremist. He stood in opposition to the most fundamental values of our civilization: He voted against the right of parents to protect their children from moral and physical harm. He voted against protecting the right to life of innocents. He voted against marriage. And he even voted against preventing human cloning from taking place in our country.

Can anyone imagine John F. Kennedy advancing policies such as these in 1960? The liberal Democrats of just 50 years ago would never have imagined, let alone embraced as a kindred spirit, the type of politician we are supposed to accept as a "moderate" Republican today.

Recommend this article

Terry Jeffrey

Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSNews

Be the first to read Terence Jeffrey's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate