Christine O'Donnell: Yeah, Republican Disunity Was To Blame For My Defeat

Come on, you knew this post was coming. It's been a decent interval but let us get it over with and move on.

I put the video below the fold because sometimes CNN vids are a pain to load and slow the site down. Take a look at it and then let's discuss.

The most glaringly stupid thing about her making the disunity excuse is that she ran as a write-in candidate two years ago after losing the primary. I really don't want to hear about a lack of unity from a person who demands it but never gets around to giving it.

Yes, according to exit polls she did come close to matching Coons in independents (she ran 3 points behind him) but close isn't good enough in a state where Democrats are an overwhelmingly large part of the electorate.

Look at how voters identified themselves by ideology...23% liberal, 66% moderate, 17% conservative. Coons cleaned up with liberals and moderates winning those groups 88 and 66 percent respectively. Do you really think those two groups were simply waiting for the ok from Karl Rove and John Cornyn to vote for O'Donnell?

If only there were some way to test the theory that liberal Democrats are popular in Delaware and that it hand nothing to do with Karl Rove giving a 'true' conservative the stink eye....Oh wait! There is.

Let's look at the House race which covers the same territory in Delaware.

The Democrat won that race 57-41. Now let's check the Coons/O'Donnell race margin..hey look! Coons won 56-40! The only logical question is, why does Karl Rove hate Glen Urquhart?

You can compare the Senate exit polls on party and ideological breakdowns with the House ones and they are essentially the same.

Karl Rove and the NRSC had nothing to do with O'Donnell's defeat. In fact, as bad of a candidate as I think O'Donnell is, she had little to do with her defeat. It's a deeply blue state that actually likes liberals. We had a chance to get a moderate-liberal Republican and passed on it. To me, that was tactically stupid. Yes, Castle would have been a pain in the ass but not as big a one when there were 47 or 48 Republicans in the Senate. The power of the moderates is when they are all the deciding vote, add a cushion and they are manageable. Personally, I would have liked to have had another no vote on HCR in the Senate but others didn't think that was important enough.

In a state like Delaware, the universe of voters for a candidate like O'Donnell is simply not enough to win. If you are looking for a candidate to make national conservatives feel good, she was awesome. Alas, only people in Delaware could vote. You either accept you are going to get a squish like Castle in a place like Delaware and take what benefit you can get from them or you consign the Republican to irrelevancy in a number of states.

Here's what really bothers me about this race and people's positions on it...every party and movement is going to nominate a stinker every now and then. It happens. Usually though you just politely turn away and ignore them. In this case a lot of folks not only didn't want to ignore O'Donnell (that was RINOism!) but embraced and promoted her.

That was a mistake, not because of what it meant in Delaware (a lost cause without Castle on the ballot) but what it means nationally. O'Donnell was a lousy candidate. She had a sketchy personal story, no record of achievement before coming to the race and no real ability to further the conservative message. We spent a lot of money and time on a candidate that had no shot. If you were a Democrat and wanted to hurt conservatives or the tea party by making someone the face of those groups, you'd pick Christine O'Donnell. The fact that a lot of conservatives willingly did that is simply an unforced error we should not repeat.

Added: Something I forgot but saw mentioned in the comments...the exit polls showed Coons beating Castle 44-43. I have to say that needs to be taken with a grain of salt. First, it's a hypothetical that ignores what happened for the last 6 weeks. The race obviously got a lot more attention with O'Donnell, how many Democrats came out to vote against her that might have stayed home otherwise? How many more conservatives came out for her that hated Castle? Obama, Biden and the DNC don't show up with Castle as the Republican (they didn't go because they were worried, they did it to raise O'Donnell's profile nationally and in PA to hurt Republicans). You can't assume the electorate that showed up and answered that question is the one that would have showed up had Castle won the primary.

Here's the O'Donnell interview on CNN:

27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep">

Posted by: DrewM. at 12:28 PM



Comments

1 I would hope that SOME on here would learn a lesson from the O'Donnell and Angle disasters. We need to support good candidates, not any crackpot who suddenly starts pandering to us.

Posted by: Chris R at November 04, 2010 12:31 PM (AO4qz)

2 Rush ripping Mezvinski and Grahamnesty!

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 04, 2010 12:31 PM (9Cooa)

3 Being Tea Party-approved ain't enough in a blue state, you need big-league political talent. Natural or learned, you still need it.

Posted by: Bat Chain Puller at November 04, 2010 12:32 PM (SCcgT)

4 The RECRIMINATION Post. Let me get my popcorn.


Oh, and I agree completely with Drew.

Posted by: JAFKIAC at November 04, 2010 12:32 PM (/eZwY)

5 OOH this is gonna be great!
/flounder

Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 04, 2010 12:33 PM (SB0V2)

6 Time for the Airing of Grievances! Where's Morgenholz?

Posted by: Waterhouse at November 04, 2010 12:33 PM (8P1HU)

7
OT but WTF: Geitner meets with Jon Stewart to get advice?

Posted by: IreneFingIrene at November 04, 2010 12:33 PM (JNqU9)

8 Popcorn time! All aboard the Crazy Train!

Posted by: Delta Smelt at November 04, 2010 12:33 PM (AZWim)

9 You said it all, Drew.

Posted by: MrScribbler at November 04, 2010 12:34 PM (Ulu3i)

10 O'Donnell was a lousy candidate. She had a sketchy personal story, no record of achievement before coming to the race and no real ability
This describesa certain 'King Maker'equally as well...

Posted by: garrett at November 04, 2010 12:34 PM (NuEHe)

11 Delaware is a lost cause, just like California and Massachusetts.

Posted by: Dick Cheney at November 04, 2010 12:35 PM (zgZzy)

12 meh, i'm sure 'history' could have been calling castle soon enough.

Posted by: Reality Man at November 04, 2010 12:36 PM (L2x1w)

13 ...mind the step-children, Palinistos.
Mind the step-children.

Posted by: Karl Rove at November 04, 2010 12:36 PM (NuEHe)

14 This describesa certain 'King Maker'equally as well...


And a certain POTUS.

Posted by: Joe Biden at November 04, 2010 12:36 PM (zgZzy)

15 So, an Officer and a Gentleman and Richard Gere walk in to this bar; - which one is a rodent wrangler?

Posted by: Fritz at November 04, 2010 12:36 PM (GwPRU)

16 The NYT thinks that something historic happened.

Posted by: rockhead at November 04, 2010 12:36 PM (RykTt)

17 The big lesson to take away from this is that candidates cannot just overlook the primary anymore.

Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 12:36 PM (oVQFe)

18 10 Obama is the king not the king maker

Posted by: dagny at November 04, 2010 12:36 PM (mDISt)

19 Drew is channeling his inner Barney Frank?

Posted by: Bruceinsocal at November 04, 2010 12:36 PM (J6hTO)

20 She's a disingenuous tw*t. I can say it now.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at November 04, 2010 12:36 PM (KDS3E)

21 This election isn't over until Christine O'Donnell pins me!

Posted by: Frank Costanza at November 04, 2010 12:37 PM (zgZzy)

22 Read Palin's op ed at national review online today. All will be explained.

Posted by: Dan at November 04, 2010 12:37 PM (1jzSs)

23 We had a chance to get a moderate-liberal Republican and passed on it. To me, that was tactically stupid.

Wrong! Mike Castle passed on being a conservative. He read the tea leaves wrong. He spent umpty-ump years in the House and compiled a thoroughly left-of-center record. So conservatives in Delaware should just embrace the sonofabitch because it's "tactically" intelligent?

Do you have any recollection at all of a guy named Arlen Specter? That worked out fucking brilliantly.

Posted by: Fresh Air at November 04, 2010 12:37 PM (gkOi+)

24 HAHAHA garret goes for the brass ring as well........

*Buying stock in flame-retardant*

Posted by: citizen khan at November 04, 2010 12:37 PM (yTmCs)

25 Joe Biden got reelected 5 times (for a total of 26 years) in Delaware. That should say enough about the Delaware electorate.

That being said, I 'm not that broken up over O'Donnell losing. Not having Castle in the Senate s means less opportunity for dems to say that their failures are bi-partisan. If he were the potential 40th vote for a filibuster I'd be pissed, but in this case, not so much.

Posted by: taylork at November 04, 2010 12:38 PM (0Hn5w)

26 She was the single most-covered candidate in this whole cycle; she received greater scrutiny than Obama.
The media took an honest-to-God American woman and made her look like a Harridan, and ignored a lifetime hack who bankrupted his last executive charge.
She couldn't win, and it had nothing to do with her campaign.

Posted by: Truman North at November 04, 2010 12:38 PM (G5JPI)

27 I might counter that the California gambit was probably far more wasteful of energy and resources. Same for Massachusetts, nothing against Bielat, but it wasn't going to happen. To borrow a phrase, one does not simply walk into Mordor.

That being the case...it could have been won, but you have to decide if it would have been worth the cost. And I'm not now convinced the resources it would have taken wouldn't have been more fruitfully used elsewhere, though you have to keep in mind we can make these judgments after the fact, knowing things we probably didn't know as well then.

I still have no regrets saying she should have been supported once nominated--and the way she was treated in some circles remains very questionable, in my mind. (I remain staunch in observance of Reagan's 11th Commandment.) But yeah, this was probably a lost cause from the word go. (And I remain unconvinced a tactical win by electing Castle would have translated to any strategic advantage, unless the resulting shift in resources meant electing at least two solid conservatives to counter the RINOcity.)


Posted by: DarkLordOfTheIntarWebs at November 04, 2010 12:38 PM (GBXon)

28 17 The big lesson to take away from this is that candidates cannot just overlook the primary anymore.



And neither can the voters.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at November 04, 2010 12:38 PM (zgZzy)

29 And a certain POTUS.
My point has always been just that...and let's be honest. If we were to believe the Kings, God made them.
God doesn't put up numbers in the .70's.

Posted by: garrett at November 04, 2010 12:38 PM (NuEHe)

30 We should have focused our attention on getting Sean Bielat elected.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 12:38 PM (LLZiU)

31 Unlike the "early vote" extrapolations, which I think were all wrong or exaggerated, I think absentee ballots will clearly skew GOP. You don't bother with the logistics of getting an absentee ballot unless you're really, really interested in voting--Dems weren't this time.

Posted by: ParisParamus at November 04, 2010 12:38 PM (bN5ZU)

32 McClung was on Beck, and (at least Beck said) that she refused money from the RNC becuase she felt there were strings attached.

She lost by 3% ... I wish she'd taken the money and the help, and just tell them "no strings". Instead we have the guy the wanted his own state (AZ) boycotted.


Posted by: bill at November 04, 2010 12:39 PM (QaM3N)

33 Well, at least we can dispense with the idea that she alone was going to cost us the Senate.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 04, 2010 12:39 PM (fLHQe)

34 Alright, she was a personally lousy candidate running in a deep blue state and got her butt kicked.
But I'd still hit that.

Posted by: OSUsux at November 04, 2010 12:40 PM (DFXmi)

35 rove has no balls, instead of beating up on o'donnell, he should have said exactly what rush is saying now. how was o'donnell any worse than the kkk member the dems put in wv for however many years, or the murdered ted kennedy the dems put in place for years. i'm tired of being too polite to bring up the truth.
we need a mentality to defend our own as hard as possible instead of joining in, whether that be a squish like mike castle or a chrstine o'donnell.

Posted by: Reality Man at November 04, 2010 12:41 PM (L2x1w)

36 HAHAHA garret goes for the brass ring as well........
I've been swinging from that ring since 08.
Read Palin's op ed at national review online today.
I wonder who wrote that?

Posted by: garrett at November 04, 2010 12:41 PM (NuEHe)

37 Yeah, blue States have no hope of ever electing anything resembling a real conservative. Just look at Chris Cristie in New Jersey. Oh wait...

::cue that annoying but hilarious music from last night's Glen Beck link::

I don't think conservatives, at least fiscal conservatives are a lost cause anywhere. They're an uphill battle in some places (such as the Land of the Eternally Boned, formerly known as California), but they can make it happen because fiscal conservatism does well when it is well articulated.

O'D was a social conservatives as well, which isn't necessarily bad, but is a much harder ticket to run on in a blue State, and she wasn't good at articulating fiscal conservatism, in part because so much of the race was about the awful smears leveled against her so early.

I'm sympathetic, and I like the message she sends, but she was a super-longshot from the get-go, even before the mud-slinging.

Posted by: shillelagh at November 04, 2010 12:41 PM (Oz4Bj)

38 The lesson here is that we should avoid/ignore all* Blue State Hells as a national party. We can run the show without them. If we held the seats we should in Nebraska, Florida, Montana, New Mexico and Minnesota, we wouldn't have to worry about the dipshit states on the coasts.

* With one or two exceptions per cycle where brilliant candidates are running (e.g. Scott Brown).

Posted by: Fresh Air at November 04, 2010 12:41 PM (gkOi+)

39 But I'd still hit that.


Me too!

Posted by: Portia DiRossi at November 04, 2010 12:41 PM (zgZzy)

40 So now David Frumites want to declare war on Conservatives? Again?

Gawd....what else is new.

Rinos have been battling us for decades, agitating for and with the commie Dems to defeat, isolate and marginalize Conservatives.

Give it up Rinos, your perfidy was completely and utterly exposed this year, thanks to Murk, Crist, Castle, and many others.




Posted by: pam at November 04, 2010 12:41 PM (h8R9p)

41
Look at how voters identified themselves by ideology...23% liberal, 66%
moderate, 17% conservative. Coons cleaned up with liberals and
moderates winning those groups 88 and 66 percent respectively. Do you
really think those two groups were simply waiting for the ok from Karl
Rove and John Cornyn to vote for O'Donnell?
Thank YOU.

Posted by: Democrat cretin at November 04, 2010 12:41 PM (0fzsA)

42 Totally agree. I had to shut-up about O'Donnell to not further piss off my fellow right-winger friends. Candidates need a history of accomplishment -- even if it's a fake affirmative action history of accomplishment like Obama. Obama really did have impressive credentials even if they had been handed to for having the right skin tone and a pretty smile.

But good candidates need to be either credentialed (like Obama) or have a real history of accomplishment in the real world of business, military, etc (like Christ Christie, Allen West, etc). It's harder for right-wingers to get bogus Obama credential, so we have to rely more on people with real accomplishments.

Posted by: huh at November 04, 2010 12:41 PM (QcFbt)

43 But I'd still hit that.
I would too, if I could find it under all that Muff!

Posted by: anonymous at November 04, 2010 12:42 PM (NuEHe)

44 I might counter that the California gambit was probably far more wasteful of energy and resources. Same for Massachusetts, nothing against Bielat, but it wasn't going to happen. To borrow a phrase, one does not simply walk into Mordor.The DCCC spent $10M in MA and the nine contested districts were won by a total of ~380,000 votes.
For that $10M and 380,000 votes, they could have defended six seats that flipped to red in Ohio.
So... the little cash and shoe leather we spent in MA meant a net 6 seat gain.

Posted by: Truman North at November 04, 2010 12:42 PM (G5JPI)

45 Yeah, we should elect more John McCains, Lindsey Grahams, Susan Collinses, and Arlen Specters.
You guys are absolutely right.

Posted by: dagny at November 04, 2010 12:42 PM (mDISt)

46 OT: My wife uses the euphemism "interesting" when what she means is "OMFG I can't believe how awfully, stupid, and downright insulting that is." With that in mined, here is an interesting column from a Kos Kook.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 04, 2010 12:42 PM (xxgag)

47 30 We should have focused our attention on getting Sean Bielat elected.
Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 12:38 PM (LLZiU)
Ouch

Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 04, 2010 12:43 PM (fLHQe)

48 Dunno. I think O'Donnell (inadvertently) did a great service by acting as a national lightning rod which focussed a good deal of the news cycle on her alleged deficiencies. This sucked away attention from so many other races, preventing the MSM from magnifying the minor (or non-existent) gaffes of other GOP candidates. Additionally, whatever flaws the MSM identified in other candidates seemed boring compared to the "witch" nonsense.

Posted by: Northeast Elizabeth at November 04, 2010 12:43 PM (bN5ZU)

49 Moderates are liberals who have had a bath in the last week.

Posted by: dagny at November 04, 2010 12:43 PM (mDISt)

50 I wonder who wrote that?

That's because you're a dummy.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at November 04, 2010 12:43 PM (KDS3E)

51 We should have focused our attention on getting Sean Bielat elected.
Yes! This.

Posted by: garrett at November 04, 2010 12:43 PM (NuEHe)

52 EXCELLENT post, Drew, btw.

Delaware is full of idiots! I mean COME ON! I'm so, so sorry, Blue Hen, but it's true. I have friends and family there - and all my friends and family are LIBERALS!

I have this old friend who is true-blue Dem, pals with the Bidens, Hahvahd (polisci) grad, MBA, etc and his wife and others are constantly trying to get him into local politics. (He used to work for the Clinton WH.) He told me he doesn't want anything to do with DE politics - too liberal!

What's annoying is that this little carpetbagging flake of a Christine is so not going away. Like Bristol Palin she'll be on all kinds of reality tv crap and maybe on Hannity as a regular - UGH. she is a media whore and will continue to do damage to the R brand for YEARS.

Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 04, 2010 12:43 PM (SB0V2)

53 I wonder who wrote that?
Bill Ayers?

Posted by: Delta Smelt at November 04, 2010 12:43 PM (AZWim)

54
Better luck next time. Agreed, we blew it by passing on Castle. But I suspect the conservatives passed on the 70 year old based on the "we are sick of the political class establishment incumbent forever bullshit"

It's honest, but not strategic.

Posted by: Democrat cretin at November 04, 2010 12:44 PM (0fzsA)

55 You are WAAAY off on the Castle thing. O'Donnell already did us a solid keeping that guy out of the Senate. That's what the Republican party needs; more Olympia Snows and Arlen Specters. Pass.

Posted by: Ken Begg at November 04, 2010 12:44 PM (0pNdu)

56 sock off.


Posted by: Lemon Kitten at November 04, 2010 12:44 PM (0fzsA)

57 That's because you're a dummy.
No. That's because it is too long to fit on your palm.

Posted by: garrett at November 04, 2010 12:44 PM (NuEHe)

58 If I'd had my way, she would have been our first witch-American senator.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 04, 2010 12:44 PM (xxgag)

59 The most glaringly stupid thing about her making the disunity excuse is
that she ran as a write-in candidate two years ago after losing the
primary. I really don't want to hear about a lack of unity from a person
who demands it but never gets around to giving it.

I understand that you might have missed it, but last election was quite different from this one. Context changed a bit.

I'm not sure that O'Donnell lost BECAUSE of the shenanigans by the Vichy Right, but she probably would have run within 5% if they had not done what their nature dictated they do.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at November 04, 2010 12:44 PM (G/MYk)

60 It simply was not meant to be Christine. The party may not have supported you, but we individual conservatives sure as hell did. Remember that near three million dollars we donated to you? Even though some of us did not think you were the best candidate we still gave.If you were ever going to make it it would have been this year. It didn't happen, it won't ever happen for you. Please retire from the public scene, go do something aside from run for office.

Posted by: sandbagger at November 04, 2010 12:44 PM (mJg2y)

61 RINO!!!11!

Posted by: Andy at November 04, 2010 12:44 PM (5Rurq)

62 Like Bristol Palin she'll be on all kinds of reality tv crap and maybe on Hannity as a regular - UGH. she is a media whore and will continue to do damage to the R brand for YEARS.
Bristol has better tittehs!

Posted by: Dave Chappell at November 04, 2010 12:45 PM (NuEHe)

63 Seriously, fuck Christine O'Donnell. I might have considered voting for Chris Coons had I lived in Delaware. Ultimately I'd have held my nose, but for god's sake people she really was that bad. Not even just as a candidate, but as a person with serious character issues - you guys can vote however you please, but I personally don't think it's appropriate to send near-criminal serial liars to the U.S. Senate regardless of how reliable a vote for my party I think they'll be.

And if you disagree, then ask yourself: how did Alan Grayson lose by nearly 20 points on Tuesday? He haemorrhaged Democratic voters to the reasonable-seeming Dan Webster, just like Charlie Crist lost voters by behaving like such a douchebag in the last week of the campaign. When O'Donnell is capable of losing people like ME -- reliable Republican partisans who hate Democrats, but still can't justify sending a shady grifter to Congress -- then it's no longer Karl Rove's fault, now is it?

Candidates matter. Personality, character -- it matters. Ideology is only part of it, a big part, but Christine O'Donnell was/is radioactive in every way. I hope she swiftly disappears. And I expect her to take a lot of that money with her -- note how much of it she had left on hand?

Somebody's about to get a nice new SUV!

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 12:46 PM (NjYDy)

64
Come on, you knew this post was coming. It's been a decent interval but let us get it over with and move on.

You are a fucking loser.

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 12:46 PM (uFokq)

65 Uhmm Drew, while I agree O' Donnell was a lousy candidate the exit polls also showed Castle losing.
The biggest mistake we made was the RNSC dumping $8 Million in the Fiorina fiasco in California. Speaking of lousy candidates.That money could have been used in Washington.

Posted by: robtr at November 04, 2010 12:46 PM (hVDig)

66 oh man I'm supposed to go to Delaware with you guys on Saturday!

I'd better wear some kind of body armor.

btw - delaware conservatives?!??! what are there, three thou of those maybe?

this is a tiny state! it's essentially just Delaware County but with state lines.

Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 04, 2010 12:46 PM (SB0V2)

67 Like Bristol Palin she'll be on all kinds of reality tv crap and maybe on Hannity as a regular - UGH. she is a media whore and will continue to do damage to the R brand for YEARS.

She's a great American!

Posted by: Sean Hannity at November 04, 2010 12:46 PM (zgZzy)

68 I wouldn't have enjoyed voting for her or Castle - both would have been hold the nose votes.


Posted by: loppyd at November 04, 2010 12:47 PM (ZF9sf)

69 Ship them 'baggers back! Yee-haw!

Posted by: oblig. at November 04, 2010 12:47 PM (x7Ao8)

70 No. That's because it is too long to fit on your palm.
It certainly is.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at November 04, 2010 12:47 PM (KDS3E)

71 O'Donnell's biggest problem is that without any real record of accomplishment, it was easy for the MFM to paint her as a cook. OTH, Castle's biggest problems were his accomplishments as a left of center Republican.

Delaware has a year to get someone that fits both criteria.

Posted by: taylork at November 04, 2010 12:47 PM (0Hn5w)

72 45
Yeah, we should elect more John McCains, Lindsey Grahams, Susan Collinses, and Arlen Specters.
You guys are absolutely right.
Posted by: dagny at November 04, 2010 12:42 PM (mDISt)
Honestly I'd be less concerned about those candidates if they were in blue states. But they're not. The fact that they're in states where we should do better is the disgusting thing.

Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 12:47 PM (oVQFe)

73 Here's my comment:

Carly Fiorina sucked. Demonsheep. 'white guys will lose to Barbara Boxer, so vote for me'. Ousted from HP and reviled by employees of the company. Hadn't voted in ten years. Sold goods to Iran. Her loss was pretty much a foregone conclusion.

She won the primary, and I kept my mouth shut. O'Donnell bashers kept going and wouldn't stop. They still won't stop.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 04, 2010 12:48 PM (FkKjr)

74 O'Donnell lost for a number of reasons. Some Drew has hit.....like the voter break down. Others he has not mentioned. Such as:
1. O'Donnell was never able to get on offense. The Mahr tapes put her on defense from the start. While the late primary helped O'Donnell win the primary, it shortened the general election cycle, thus, when she started on defense, she pretty much stayed on defense.
2. While Drew does not view the Rove/Cornyn criticism as significant, and it was not the only reasons she lost, it did not help. Their early criticism left an impression in the minds of some moderates that O'Donnell was too extreme for them. Or, and more likely, these moderate voters had an impression that she was too extreme, and the criticism by Rove allowed them an excuse to justify that initial impression.
3. O'Donnell never developed a clear message as to why she was the better choice. This, in part, goes back to reason number 1, above. In the primary, O'Donnell was able to cast the choice in a light favorable to her, conservative vs. RINO (a term that is, frankly, over used). In the general, she was unable to develop a similar narrative. And a good narrative provides the reason for voters to vote.
4. Organization. From afar (my vantage point) O'Donnell never seemed to make the transistion from insurgent campaigner to serious candidate. Campaign organizations that start off as insurgent just run differently, they are allowed to be more of a firebrander........because they lack money and need to motivate the troops to pull off the upset. Once she became the nominee, however, she needed to transistion from insurgent campaign to something different, with more discipline and cohesion. One of the problems for O'Donnell (and Angle) was that neither could really stay on message for extended period of time. Ron Johnson's campaign in Wisconsin is the model all insurgent campaigns should use. Johnson went from outside nobody to Senator elect by developing campaign discipline and staying on message. Once it became clear to Johnson that he was going to be the Republican nominee, he tightened up the organization, developed a clear message and stayed on message.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 12:48 PM (OWjjx)

75 I think this is correct but it should be noted from the exit polls the discrepancy in party support for the candidate by party voters. This was not unique to COD and Urqhart either. Across the country Tea party candidates, and even in CT, did worse with their own party then their Dem rival. A significant portion of the republican party in these states voted for the Dem candidate for senator. This wasn't just noise either. It was double digit loss of party support for the R compared to single digit for the Dem.

The intense distaste for COD among republicans was probably greater than anywhere else but it was not only her and that distaste translated into not just apathy and a lack of votes for the R but votes for the Democrat which amounts to a double hit in the vote count.

I would note that isn't true for guys like Coates and Kirk. The Tea Party came out and voted for them.



Posted by: Rocks at November 04, 2010 12:48 PM (Q1lie)

76 While Palin is far from my 1st choice for president, I wouldn't put her in the same league with Crazy Train. SP's record is thin, but she was a governor after all, if only for a short while.
ODonnell had no record, not even a thin one. And yeah, I wanted her to beat Coons, and felt she was treated unfairly.
I think it's a wash really. Establishment types were put on notice not to get beltway fever if they want to get reelected, and I hope the tea party understands that certain candidates can't and will never win in deep blue states like Delaware.

Posted by: Delta Smelt at November 04, 2010 12:48 PM (AZWim)

77 I feel her position on masturbation hurt her chances with potential Delaware constituents.

queue up Billy Squire's "The Stroke"

Posted by: The Chewbacca Defense at November 04, 2010 12:48 PM (GGEUV)

78 I can imagine Drew's leg-tingles had Castle won and cast the deciding vote for Cap and Trade, thereby permanently disabling the US economy.

Posted by: Ian S. at November 04, 2010 12:49 PM (imD7p)

79 Yeah, blue States have no hope of ever electing anything resembling a real conservative. Just look at Chris Cristie in New Jersey. Oh wait...The difference is, Chris Christie (a) had a record of accomplishment before the election as a prosecutor; (b) is not a doctrinaire conservative (he's pro-choice and pro-cap-and-tax, IIRC) so he is a better fit to the bluishness of New Jersey and (c) he didn't whine and complain when he wasn't getting the support he thought he deserved, he just soldiered on.
I think part of the problem here is the knee-jerk assumption that people who have been in government a long time are automatic sellouts and should be discarded in favor of the complete newbie who hasn't been "tainted by the system" yet. The problem is, working your way up the political ladder givesone insight, experience and instinct that the newbie doesn't have. Mike Castle was a RINO, yes - but at least he was a RINO who had the ability to sell his brand of Republicanism to blue-state Delaware voters, when they could have chosen barking moonbat liberalism any time they wanted. Think about that - it's an important point - for years and years voters chose Castle's moderate wishy-washy conservatism over kneejerk liberalism. O'Donnell did not have the ability to sell her brand of Republicanism to Delaware voters.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 04, 2010 12:49 PM (RY/Dc)

80 Morons, there is picking at a corpse and then there is full-blown necrophilia.

O'Donnell won the primary, was a lousy candidate and ran in a thoroughly blue state.

All three--true.

I hereby offer the motion to move on.

Do I hear a second?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 04, 2010 12:49 PM (gDbxE)

81 Disunity was a factor but not the decider. It made the difference of losing by 16 points and losing by, say 11: But a loss none the less. Christine, the biggest problem with your campaign was you. And your failure to take responsibility for a 16 point loss, after all the money and pundit coverage thrown your way, is disheartening. So Rove and Kraut cost you a few points, big deal, you lost by way more than a few points. Own it, it's not them, it's you.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 04, 2010 12:49 PM (0q2P7)

82 Let me say this up front.
I supported Castle, I think O'Donnell was a bad candidate (not for her politics), and I think nominating her cost us that seat. However, if you think sending a message to the GOP was worth it, then it was well worth the senate seat.

That said. I am impressed, looking at the numbers, that she won the independents. So O'Donnell was able to get the so-called "moderates".
However the people who didn't vote for her were the "liberal-moderate" Republicans who supported Castle.
This is another perfect example of what happened in 1964. Goldwater beats Rockafeller and the Republican establishment screws over Goldwater. Not that he would have won had they not, but they certainly hurt him.
Conservatives have to vote for all Republican candidates no matter how liberal, but liberal Republicans will never vote for a conservative candidate.
I don't think this will ever change, but it does piss me off.

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 12:49 PM (wuv1c)

83
Honestly I'd be less concerned about those
candidates if they were in blue states. But they're not. The fact
that they're in states where we should do better is the disgusting
thing.

Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 12:47 PM (oVQFe)
Susan Collins her Maine twin need to pay close attention to what just happened up there.

Posted by: loppyd at November 04, 2010 12:49 PM (ZF9sf)

84 She couldn't even make it close against a Marxist in one of the biggest wave elections in U.S. history. So here come the excuses. God forbid she actually takes some responsibility for her own campaign or mistakes.

She lost because she's a terrible candidate. What is her case for being ready to be a U.S. Senator? What has she done or accomplished in her life to prepare her for the Senate? Her list of life accomplishments makes the 2008 Obama look like the Most Interesting Man in the World from the Dos Equis commercials.

If she wants to be taken seriously, maybe she should do something crazy like be productive in the real world. But we know that's never going to happen. She's probably already looking for the next public office she can run for. After all, all that TV exposure over the past 10 years is proof that she's very important and that we definitely need her in the government.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 12:50 PM (81ia8)

85 I personally don't think it's appropriate to send near-criminal serial liars to the U.S. Senate regardless of how reliable a vote for my party I think they'll be.


We wholeheartedly agree!

Posted by: Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Al Franken, Zombie Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd . . . at November 04, 2010 12:50 PM (zgZzy)

86 Uhmm Drew, while I agree O' Donnell was a lousy candidate the exit polls also showed Castle losing.
Yes it did 47-46. Of course, Castle had not campaigned, advertised, participated in a debate and was pretty much forgotten and still pulled 46 percent. Apples - Oranges.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 12:50 PM (OWjjx)

87 She was a sub par candidate. Can we please move on.

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 04, 2010 12:50 PM (0GFWk)

88 16 The NYT thinks that something historic happened.
Posted by: rockhead at November 04, 2010 12:36 PM (RykTt)
Damn that link is amazing. With this and that election map they put out, that's two things worth a shit the NYTs has put out since...ever.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 04, 2010 12:50 PM (fLHQe)

89 Using the logic of some people on this thread, Castle will do wonder for the R brand in DE! What bothers me about this race is the vicious attack against CO from our side. It is fine and good to point out her flaws and advocated for Castle during the primary. After it is over, just let it go and we won't have all this natural reaction against the attack against her. Looks like the Rep, esp DE Rep party, wanted her to lose and tried to aid in defeating her! This is a lesson for the Rep party to learn. You can nominate someone like Chris Christie that is acceptable to the base. Don't nominate someone like McCain again. No Romney or Huckabee, big gov republicans.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 12:51 PM (R4ub4)

90 OT: You ungrateful bastards!

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 04, 2010 12:51 PM (xxgag)

91 Come on, you knew this post was coming. It's been a decent interval but let us get it over with and move on.

.................

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 12:51 PM (5aa4z)

92 Yes, Castle would have been a pain in the ass but not as big a one when there were 47 or 48 Republicans in the House.

I call absolute BS on this. In fact, the closer the margin in the Senate, the more power Castle would have wielded as a swing vote.

Why is it so hard to understand? You put power in the hands of "moderates", you end up with what we had last time the 'pubs were in power -- Moderates trading votes to stroke their own egos. Trading votes to prop up incumbents. Eff that noise.

Putting power in the hands of "moderates" gives disproportionate influence to people who frankly haven't done anything to deserve it.

Principles matter.


Posted by: krakatoa at November 04, 2010 12:51 PM (a0Jhx)

93 O'Donnell got 29,000 votes in the primary, almost all of them from the rural areas of the state. There were Congressional districts where third-party wackos got more than 29,000 votes. How did anyone think someone like her could get from 29,000 to a majority in a general election, in a state with 2-1 Democrat registration? Mike Castle was elected 9 times statewide in this state, meaning there were thousands of Democrats who had voted for him many times and would have again. And many, many Republicans in Delaware were never going to vote for O'Donnell after the way she trashed Castle in the primary, fed rumors he was gay, etc. She won dirty and it blew back on her. She should be happy she even got a check from the NRSC.
I never understood the abject hate out there for Castle. Mark Kirk made the same votes Castle did in the House, yet the "RINO-hunters" left him alone, and today he is being sworn in to the Senate seat once held by Barack Obama. If Republicans had nominated someone like Christine O'Donnell in Illinois, today we would be welcoming an actual criminal to the Senate, one of Obama's biggest butt-buddies.

Posted by: rockmom at November 04, 2010 12:51 PM (w/gVZ)

94 Drew - I disagree. Those of you who won't let this go are gonna drive a lot of people away from your McConnell-driven, little country club.

AOSHQ, and others, did a lot to hurt O'Donnell.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at November 04, 2010 12:52 PM (G5qLy)

95 Can we say NOW that O'Christine is a stupid bitch? Though I'm happy Coons won, the commie is better than eather her or Castle.

Posted by: Juicer at November 04, 2010 12:52 PM (5Sb2R)

96 Oh and overall getting Mike Castle out of Congress and out of influence in the Republican party was worth it. I would have voted for a bale of hay against him in a primary. This election has put a dagger through the heart of the moribound R party in DE. Hopefully they can rebuild into into something other than where them Dems throw their table scraps.

Posted by: Rocks at November 04, 2010 12:52 PM (Q1lie)

97 Drew,,,,,,,

Please fucking quit it with the "we should have handed Judas a Senate seat because she sly little bastard put an 'R' behind his name" thing.

Please.... Look, we cannot get shit accomplished having a "majority" that earns the Republican party all the culpability for fucking something up, but which isn't actually a CONSERVATIVE majority because of the got-damned turncoat rinos... Suppose we HAD elected Castle to that seat. And suppose we HAD run RINOs in a couple other places and picked up the 51s seat. Now we "control" the senate, but we can ONLY EVER actually PASS liberal legislation because the RINOs kill our majority by defecting on OUR big issues, and the flip and hand the Dems a majority on THEIR big issues. If DE wants a fucking liberal, then let it be a party liberal and let the Democrats own the consequences.

Posted by: GonJaMa at November 04, 2010 12:52 PM (nTd0a)

98 Also - It'd be nice if people would stop grouping Angle and O'Donnell is the same case - Angles race was a) a lot closer b) Run much better and c) She has a lot more legitimate complaints about Dem fraud/dirty tricks (see the Casino unions literally rounding up people and demanding they give a reason why they hadn't voted yet)

Posted by: Ryan Frank at November 04, 2010 12:52 PM (DMqxX)

99 Castle is in his 70s now. Why should he care about "conservative" pressure? What can we do to Murkowski now. Obama now has another target for his bipartisanship bandwagon!

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 12:52 PM (R4ub4)

100 O'Donnell was a lousy candidate. She had a sketchy personal story, no record of achievement before coming to the race and no real ability
This describesa certain 'King Maker'equally as well...

oooooooo snap

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 12:52 PM (wuv1c)

101 Rove hurt her to the extent that every time she had to answer the, "Karl Rove said X" question was a chance she did not get to put her views forward the way she wanted to.

Posted by: Have Blue at November 04, 2010 12:53 PM (mV+es)

102 I have stayed out of this one but I will say that I don't see why the blame for O'Donnell running lies with anyone but the voters in CT.

If enough Castle supporters didn't get their butts out to vote for him, how is that her or her supporters faults?

I have had to vote for some pretty faulty Rs here in CA, but I voted for them nonetheless. I'd have voted for Beelzebub over Boxer. OR Coons.

Posted by: MissTammy at November 04, 2010 12:53 PM (m8uUu)

103
I really don't want to hear about a lack of unity from a person who demands it but never gets around to giving it.

Yeah, I'm looking directly at you, Castle. And the GOP state senator in Nevada endorsing Reid. You might as well join the Dem party.

And the same to the rest of the Cocktail Party who expect conservatives to get in the back of the bus and just shut up and go along.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at November 04, 2010 12:53 PM (1hM1d)

104 What's annoying is that this little carpetbagging flake of a Christine
is so not going away. Like Bristol Palin she'll be on all kinds of
reality tv crap and maybe on Hannity as a regular - UGH. she is a media
whore and will continue to do damage to the R brand for YEARS.



Wow. I wish I had that kind of power.

Seriously, how does a single person on the fringe of a major political party do "damage" to the "brand"?

If the GOP is that fragile, they need to get into another business.

Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at November 04, 2010 12:53 PM (WKRYJ)

105 I'm blaming Karl Rove and all the sore loser republicans who stabbed conservatives in the back. Conservatives consistently supported moderates who won the primaries. But Rove and his merry band of idiots actively undermined conservative candidates. When the going gets tough, we can count on the moderates to endorse the democrat. While these gutless wussies argued that republicans should not oppose Obama and go along to get along, conservatives and the tea parties took to the streets and made the tsunami possible. Once the movement began to suceed, here comes Karl "anyone who opposes amnesty hates brown people" Rove to co-opt the movement. Hey Karl, don't go away mad, just GO AWAY.

Posted by: BlackRedneck at November 04, 2010 12:53 PM (Mh30H)

106
I'd hit it too, provided she wore the Ladybug outfit and didn't shave the muff.

Posted by: Terminix Company at November 04, 2010 12:53 PM (v1gw3)

107 I think we as conservative voters should be looking for _federalist_ candidates for all of the 57 states, and not so much for particular views on individual issues- quite frankly I'd be okay with a Republican RINO Senator from Vermont who was in favor of personally strangling fetuses in the womb himself as long as that RINO also voted to restore local power to the states.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 04, 2010 12:54 PM (RY/Dc)

108 Susan Collins her Maine twin need to pay close attention to what just happened up there.

Posted by: loppyd at November 04, 2010 12:49 PM (ZF9sf)
Yeah, I think Snowe is up in 2012? And I think she's already trying to court the Tea Party up there.

Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 12:54 PM (oVQFe)

109 This describesa certain 'King Maker'equally as well...


Bullshit.

Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at November 04, 2010 12:54 PM (WKRYJ)

110 Posted by: robtr at November 04, 2010 12:46 PM (hVDig)

Fair point. I addressed it in an update on the post.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 12:54 PM (HicGG)

111 Why couldn't Castle do what Mark Kirk did?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 04, 2010 12:55 PM (FkKjr)

112 Well I don't agree at all. 99.9% of all the negatives said about her was either a lie of an outright distortion. All of you "we should have got Castle because he would have won" are basing that on a damn worthless local poll ran many months in advance of the election.

If the polls were accurate we would have picked up a 100 seats in the House and 11 in the Senate. Castle couldn't even win his own primary what other evidence do you have that he would have won the general?

None She lost because DE is is a liberal ass State that likes an avowed communist. Hell, they sent slo-joe back year after year. That is not a sign of a reasonable electorate.

And yes, the DE and and national Republican establishment shit all over her. Just like they did for Angle, Miller, and Rubio initially.

Face it, the ruling elites in the Republican party are all squishy RINOs. Now the buzz is they are going after DeMint.

If they make a serious stab at that they can write off the Republican Party because it will be dead in 5 years.

Posted by: Vic at November 04, 2010 12:55 PM (/jbAw)

113 O'Donnell was a lousy candidate. She had a sketchy personal
story, no record of achievement before coming to the race and no real
ability

This describesa certain 'King Maker'equally as well...

No not really. A certain 'King Maker', has held executive office. Has family with some issues, but no real problems herself. She has accomplished quite a bit politically both in and out of office. And is quite capable. So all in all a wholly inaccurate description of a certain 'King Maker'.

No I don't support her as our candidate for 2012. (Unless Obama drops below 20%) but using soft lies exaggerating her faults and diminishing her true accomplishments isn't a way to convince her supporters that another candidate would be a better idea.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 04, 2010 12:55 PM (0q2P7)

114 MissTammy - As a Connecticut (CT) voter I will take a lot of blame but please don
t blame us for Delaware (DE) primaries.

Posted by: Have Blue at November 04, 2010 12:55 PM (mV+es)

115 Castle would have made the Maine Twins look like Jim DeMint

If you look at Rick Scott or Marco Rubio, we CAN put up real conservatives against the Old Boy Insiders if said conservatives are higher quality candidates. If it was up to the "brains" of the NRSCC and insider chattering class, we would have watched "moderates" like Bill McCollum and Charlie Crist lose politely to Sink and whomever the Dems decided was better than Meeks


Posted by: kbdabear at November 04, 2010 12:56 PM (vdfwz)

116 I hereby offer the motion to move on.Do I hear a second?



SECONDED!

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at November 04, 2010 12:56 PM (zgZzy)

117
"Come on, you knew this post was coming."
Not really. Your defensiveness says it all. Let it go, dude.

Posted by: Beefy Meatball at November 04, 2010 12:56 PM (YYaIP)

118 She lost because she's a terrible candidate.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 12:50 PM (81ia
Not really. She makes a valid, and well-known, point about the First Amendment in a debate in which Coons and the Widener Law School make utter fools of themselves, and she is painted as not knowing what she's talking about. That was the last big media piece about her. You can't call her a bad candidate for stuff like that. Even many "conservative" lawyers refused to defend her point. Go look at how many of the "libertarians" over at Volokh covered that. It was crazy, and really stupid.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at November 04, 2010 12:56 PM (G/MYk)

119 [Fiorina] won the primary, and I kept my mouth shut. O'Donnell bashers kept going and wouldn't stop. They still won't stop.Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 04, 2010 12:48 PM (FkKjr)


^ This.

Posted by: krakatoa at November 04, 2010 12:56 PM (a0Jhx)

120 Yes it did 47-46. Of course, Castle had not campaigned, advertised,
participated in a debate and was pretty much forgotten and still pulled
46 percent. Apples - Oranges.

Seriously. If there's one thing that makes me want to smack my forehead right now, it's the amazingly dense post-election rationalizing going on by some O'Donnell defenders, and this is my favorite of all. Mike Castle was only a point behind after losing and being completely forgotten! And they interpret that to mean, somehow, that he would have ALSO lost? And been a weaker candidate, or something or whatever? (They're not too clear on this part.)

Face it, O'Donnell purity-only backers: you blew it in Delaware! You flat-out fucking 100% blew it, with no upside whatsoever and significant downside.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 12:56 PM (NjYDy)

121 And if you think I'm being overly dramatic, I present you the Cocktail Party's preference for Florida's US Senate seat:

Senator-elect Charlie Crist

He was pretty much hand-selected, and the Cocktail Party tripped over themselves to annoint him as the GOP nominee. He would have been the Senator if we'd just shut up and showed some "party unity".

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at November 04, 2010 12:56 PM (1hM1d)

122 O'Donnell lost because she was a conservative candidate in a dark blue state.

Posted by: dagny at November 04, 2010 12:57 PM (mDISt)

123 The flip side of this is we get Murkowski, and Crist. How can we stand for ANYTHING if we stand for candidates and people like this?


And we don't get Rubio or Rand Paul, or any of a number of people that we're deemed poor picks.

If you're a Republican first, then Castle is a fine choice; it's all
about the team winning, even when the team is nearly indistinguishable
from the other side on policy. Castle may have won that race, but I have my doubts; I truly believe DE is a lost cause for the Republicans.

Voters in DE might describe themselves as moderate, but the fact is that the moderates chose a marxist with a history of rasing taxes. How is that simply NOT worse than someone with a 'sketchy' history. Not a CRIMINAL sketchy history, either. If DE wants self-proclaimed marxists or closet marxists like Castle, then we should stop wasting money in the state; we cannot support candidates that align with them.

I think you are only viewing short-term tactics, not the long-term damage that liberal Republicans like Mike Castle do to conservatism and any chance we have of turning the ship around.

Slowing the ship down doesn't prevent reaching the end goal. It just means some or all of us will be dead when it reaches port.

As far as Angle being a 'bad candidate', huh? How was she a bad candidate? Her CAMPAIGN might have been poorly run at times, but SHE seemed like a good CANDIDATE.

Posted by: blindside at November 04, 2010 12:57 PM (x7g7t)

124 2nd

Posted by: Beefy Meatball at November 04, 2010 12:57 PM (YYaIP)

125 Christ. Sarah Palin has been playing politics for 8 years. She is nothing like COD. And SP's political instincts are off the charts. Moreover, SP walks the Social Con walk, COD didn't.

Posted by: Holger at November 04, 2010 12:57 PM (V9Q+f)

126 The election is only 2 days old. We won an historic victory. Can we enjoy it some before we start ripping each other to shreds?

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 04, 2010 12:58 PM (0GFWk)

127 I never understood the abject hate out there for Castle
Please. We can bury Misty O'Donnell in this thread, but no way in heck are we gonna use it to resurrect that asshole. Fuck him and the rest of the country-fucking RINO's. They, not the O'Donnell's of the world, will be the death of the party and the death of America. Fuck them.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at November 04, 2010 12:58 PM (KDS3E)

128 And yes, the DE and and national Republican establishment shit all over her. Just like they did for Angle, Miller, and Rubio initially
Actually, Vic, Rove's Crossroad 527 group ran a ton of ads in Nevada on behalf of Angle. Rove can fairly be criticized for some of his post-Delaware antics but to pound on him for Nevada is below the belt.
Angle was a candidate who could not stay on message. Period. If you are a conservative/Republican candidate you have to understand that the media is (or, as we saw in Alaska, willing to manufacture) comments from you that will hurt you. That requires you stay on message. That requires discipline. Angle did not have it.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 12:58 PM (OWjjx)

129 Rush going absolutely ballistic on this topic. He is demolishing the GOP "leadership" for being totally useless, self-serving, fat-cat pieces of shit.

His questions:
Do you look upon Lindsay Graham and/or Trent Lott as the "future" of the GOP? WTF did they do to promote genuine conservative candidates??? You don't like the T-Party candidates?

Sharon Angle (the GOP primary winner by the way) goes up against the U.S. Senate Majority leader - without a whole lot of support from anybody but the T-Party. Where was the RINO leadership for this election?

COD (who also won her primary) at least has the balls to take on the Dems in a thoroughly blue state to fight for "Joe Biden's" seat of all things. Where the fuck was the GOP "leadership", and yes, Mr. McConnell, that includes you!

Russ believes if these sorry pieces of shit who call themselves the "leadership" of the GOP think for one moment they're just going to pick up tomorrow where they left off yesterday (i.e. before the elections) let's primary them out as quickly as possible and replace them with true conservatives. And it will be up to us the conservative electorate (GOP, Demo and Independents) to get behind those candidates and sweep them to victory.

Posted by: alwyr at November 04, 2010 12:58 PM (w2++y)

130
Some of you need to get on your knees and thank God we had people in this country with the courage to go to their public commons and criticize Obama at a time when the Republican party was cowering in fear.

You need to thank Rush Limbaugh for breaking the silence and saying he hopes Obama's radical agenda fails.

You need to thank Joe Wilson for literally standing up for the millions of good Americans without a voice and holding Obama accountable for his lies.

But instead here some of you, after a HUGE election victory, making a case Mike Fucking Castle. The Castles are the slow death of the GOP. But some of you will never learn, will you?


Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 12:58 PM (uFokq)

131 O'Donnell is as qualified as Precedent O'Dumbass.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at November 04, 2010 12:59 PM (9cflz)

132 I'd much rather have the bearded marxist in the seat and KNOW where he stands than the RINO Castle in there, just waiting to fuck us in the ass on something so to make history ala the bitches from Maine.

Posted by: TexBob at November 04, 2010 12:59 PM (7cXE7)

133 Since I have no sense of humor (according to my kids anyway), I won't attempt any witty remarks. Christine O'Donnell's issues were Christine O'Donnell AND the Delaware GOP AND the media and certain pundits. The one thing that is correct to point out is that it is difficult for a conservative to get elected in a very blue state. But it's not impossible. It simply has to be the right candidate. COD was not that candidate. She was unable to articulate her positions with the clarity that was required, especially given the negative coverage that was being put on her, whether it was deserved or not. Had Mike Castle endorsed her, and really what would it have cost him, I think the race could have been a lot closer. She still likely would have lost, but definitely closer. But no, Castle refused to endorse her. He took his ball and went home, like most RINO's who don't get what they want.
COD also should have hired better people to help her manage her campaign message. Instead of that first stupid "I'm not a witch ad", she should have focused 100% on Coons raising taxes, misusing funds, etc. Hammer the fiscal message over and over and over. If the people of Delaware decide they don't care about their taxes going up and jobs going away, then I guess that's their business. God help em.
COD should have spent a lot more time learning how to debate and how to speak in public, especially in how to defend herself and her positions. I suspect if she went the Christie route though, she'd just be labeled a harsh shrew for being confrontational. Still, she had many personal flaws that led to her losing.
Finally, the state and national GOP, and the media "pundits" like Rove did as much to hurt her credibility as COD did herself. Total lack of support, even parroting lib lines against her, etc.
It seems to me a lot of the problem with these blue-states is the GOP organization in the state itself. They seem totally dysfunctional. Look no further than NY for a prime example.
Conservatives should never give up on blue states. But you need to pick your candidates wisely, control the message, and GOTV. It can happen.

Posted by: Jon in TX at November 04, 2010 12:59 PM (lRqIF)

134 52





What's annoying is that this little carpetbagging flake of a Christine
is so not going away. Like Bristol Palin she'll be on all kinds of
reality tv crap and maybe on Hannity as a regular - UGH. she is a media
whore and will continue to do damage to the R brand for YEARS.







Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 04, 2010 12:43 PM (SB0V2)
Definitely. She's the ultimate reality TV star. "I'm important because I'm on TV and I deserve to be on TV because I'm important."

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 12:59 PM (81ia8)

135 Let me turn this thread nuclear.

I don't think we should primary either of the Maine sisters.
That's right. I said it. We have two Republicans in a Democratic stronghold.
Why destroy that, even if they only vote with us 40% of the time.

Look, I want the most conservative senators from conservative states when possible. See: Mike Lee replacing Bennett.
However, I am willing to accept moderate/liberal Republicans in the Bluest of the Blue states. See: Scott Brown andMaine Sisters.
Look, Scott Brown might not win in Massachusetts in 2012, if we primaried him, we would guarantee a loss.
I don't buy the old, Conservatism always works when its tried. There are some places that will NEVER accept a Conservative Republican.
And please spare me the "Well Ronald Reagan....". Reagan was a one of a kind phenom that will probably never be seen again in American politics. And keep in mind that even though he did win the entire north east in the 1980-1984, if you look at the Senators and House members from the Northeast in the 1980s, they were almost to a person Liberal Republicans, not conservatives.
There are states that might vote for a conservative president, but they will never vote for local conservative politicians.

Our biggest problem in our party is the fact that we have liberal Republicans in Conservative states. We need to focus energy and money on getting rid of people like Lindsey graham, not Scott Brown

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 12:59 PM (wuv1c)

136 I agree we should stop talking about Christine. THe liberal media will keep trying to have her front and center, however, and she'll play right into that.

Beats working.

My only thing I wanted to say was, her very existence (and maybe this isn't at all her fault, maybe 5 percent her fault?) almost cost Toomey this election.

I argued that point with Ben, I think - I never thought that could be true? But I have asked a LOT of people here, dems and repubs and indies in PA, and they all voted for Corbett but NOT Toomey, purely because he was associated with HER somehow in their minds. They could not really articulate why! but the media successfully did that, and it was not helpful AT ALL here. Maybe in other races too, I dunno.

she's irritating. I do hope she will go away.

Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 04, 2010 12:59 PM (SB0V2)

137 Hey Castle Lovers and Drew:
Shoove it.
I did not see Castle endorse O'Donnell. I did not see Lindsey Graham, Snow, Collins, or others campaign for O'Donnell.
When conservatives lose the primary, they back the moderate (Murray VA 8th and Fiorina in CA). When moderates lose, we get abused prison wives.
Be prepared for more primariesfor 2012. It is not about the candidates; it is about the cause: FREEDOM.

Posted by: Scoob at November 04, 2010 01:00 PM (T7+JL)

138 The election is only 2 days old. We won an historic victory. Can we enjoy it some before we start ripping each other to shreds?

The sooner we get this out of the way, the sooner we can move on. Lame duck coming up remember?

UNITY!

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 04, 2010 01:00 PM (0q2P7)

139 I'm glad Chris Christie never read this. Talk about your cesspool-blue states where conservatism doesn't have a chance...

Posted by: t-bird at November 04, 2010 01:00 PM (FcR7P)

140 OT, but this is funny. From Al Greens website concerning the "Ultimate Warrior" comic book, err novel.
"Click on"Alvin Greene is the Ultimate Warrior" above for your own copy of the 5 pagenovel or for a donation to the campaign, get a copy of the novel signed by Alvin Greene."
This 5 page novel.
That is funny.

Now, back to acrimony.

Posted by: MikeB at November 04, 2010 01:00 PM (RuF8n)

141 I'm still so pissed I want to say it again:Seriously, fuck Christine O'Donnell. I might have considered voting for
Chris Coons had I lived in Delaware. Ultimately I'd have held my nose,
but for god's sake people she really was that bad.
Not even just as a candidate, but as a person with serious character
issues - you guys can vote however you please, but I personally don't
think it's appropriate to send near-criminal serial liars to the U.S.
Senate regardless of how reliable a vote for my party I think they'll
be.

And if you disagree, then ask yourself: how did Alan Grayson lose by nearly 20 points on Tuesday?
He haemorrhaged Democratic voters to the reasonable-seeming Dan
Webster, just like Charlie Crist lost voters by behaving like such a
douchebag in the last week of the campaign. When O'Donnell is capable
of losing people like ME -- reliable Republican partisans who hate
Democrats, but still can't justify sending a shady grifter to Congress
-- then it's no longer Karl Rove's fault, now is it?

Candidates
matter. Personality, character -- it matters. Ideology is only part of
it, a big part, but Christine O'Donnell was/is radioactive in every
way. I hope she swiftly disappears. And I expect her to take a lot of
that money with her -- note how much of it she had left on hand?

Somebody's about to get a nice new SUV!

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 01:00 PM (NjYDy)

142 131
O'Donnell is as qualified as Precedent O'Dumbass.


Posted by: FlaviusJulius at November 04, 2010 12:59 PM (9cflz)
Which means she's NOT QUALIFIED. So let's remember that as conservatives, we're supposed to be too smart to get excited about people are aren't qualified and get the hell rid of her.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 01:00 PM (81ia8)

143 44 That logic can (and by others has been) turn to explain why the resources the Dems were forced to expend in Delaware (where they were previously expecting to do basically nothing) probably drained resources from elsewhere, helping other candidates in close-run races. It's ultimately circular and inconclusive, though certainly food for thought.



It may be more useful to examine why O'Donnell won the primary to begin with. That having been said, this is my second post in this thread, which is fully two more than it probably even calls for. Have fun with the equine necrosadism, folks; get it out of your systems so we can start with the useful discussions.

Like, say, cheerleaders...

Posted by: DarkLordOfTheIntarWebs at November 04, 2010 01:00 PM (GBXon)

144 Where's that chicken!

Come here chicky chicky chicky!

Posted by: JAFKIAC at November 04, 2010 01:01 PM (/eZwY)

145 Karl Rove and the NRSC had nothing to do with O'Donnell's defeat.

Thank you. The Rove and Krauthammer trashing have been silly.

Posted by: arhooley, future ex-Californian at November 04, 2010 01:01 PM (OzY4y)

146 Face it, O'Donnell purity-only backers: you blew it in Delaware! You
flat-out fucking 100% blew it, with no upside whatsoever and significant
downside.

I wasn't aware that purity-only backers flew en-masse to Delaware and voted in the primaries. See, I thought that only Delaware Republicans could vote in those.

Oh that's right: the person who blew it in Delaware was MIKE CASTLE.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 04, 2010 01:01 PM (FkKjr)

147 Coons cleaned up with liberals and moderates winning those groups 88 and 66 percent respectively.

Well, then they weren't really moderates, were they?


Hey, I'm sick of this O'Donnell thing too...

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at November 04, 2010 01:01 PM (vbh31)

148 If DE wants a fucking liberal, then let it be a party liberal and let the Democrats own the consequences.

Posted by: GonJaMa at November 04, 2010 12:52 PM (nTd0a)

And This ^

Posted by: krakatoa at November 04, 2010 01:02 PM (a0Jhx)

149 O'Donnell's loss makes a Palin 2012 run much less likely. Her opponents will be able to point (fairly or unfairly) to DE 2010 and use the "She cannot win" card. Which means Palin will almost certainly be a force in the primary as kingmaker.
If Palin were to run seriously, the best chance for any candidate is to run as a "not-Palin" viable alternative. Now, with her odds much longer, a wise candidate will court her and run as "Palin +" with the same values, but without the baggage and plus something else. Palin seems to care more about values than anything else, so this should work well for anyone who shares those values.
DeMint - my best guess as the eventual "Palin +" candidate at this time.

Posted by: Dan in Philly at November 04, 2010 01:02 PM (UpqKo)

150 I don't think the question is why she lost but why people supported her in the first place. And I mean rabidly supported someone that was just unfit for office.
I don't recall Sharon Angle getting the same push that COD received. She took a lot of heat as well and at least had a political resume.
One if very cute. The other is fairly average.
That's pretty easy math there.
Just a thought.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 04, 2010 01:02 PM (CjjL4)

151 I don't think we should primary either of the Maine sisters.
That's right. I said it. We have two Republicans in a Democratic stronghold.
Why destroy that, even if they only vote with us 40% of the time.
See, this is so obviously commonsensical to me that I don't understand why anyone would DISAGREE.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 01:02 PM (NjYDy)

152 Washington state has an area of 71,303 square miles of which all but Seattle is mostly red, Delaware has an area of 1,954 square miles and all of it is blue... I care about this woman why?

Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at November 04, 2010 01:02 PM (++JJM)

153 Castle hadn't campaigned but saying people forgot about a former governor and current congressman is revisionism.
You seem to forget he also lost the primary a few short weeks before. He didn't campaign but he also wasn't attacked for 4 weeks. Had he been on the ticket he would have been attacked non stop.
I am not and O' Donnell purity backer but I don't miss Castle anymore than I miss Charley Crist.
I will miss not having Rossi because of the poor decision made in California.

Posted by: robtr at November 04, 2010 01:02 PM (hVDig)

154 We need to support good candidates, not any crackpot who suddenly starts pandering to us.

by: Chris R at November 04, 2010 12:31 PM (AO4qz)

You mean like liberal Republicans?

Posted by: catmman at November 04, 2010 01:03 PM (DTzwU)

155 Awwwww. The chocolate jesus wants to get off on a good foot with congress.
I can't hear this stuff without hearing the happy days are here again spoof......obama wants to get a good start but congress will whip his ass, da da dadadadada

Posted by: dagny at November 04, 2010 01:03 PM (mDISt)

156 139 I'm glad Chris Christie never read this. Talk about your cesspool-blue states where conservatism doesn't have a chance...



You know he endorsed Cap and Trade Castle - Right?

Posted by: JAFKIAC at November 04, 2010 01:03 PM (/eZwY)

157 118
She lost because she's a terrible candidate.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 12:50 PM (81ia
Not
really. She makes a valid, and well-known, point about the First
Amendment in a debate in which Coons and the Widener Law School make
utter fools of themselves, and she is painted as not knowing what she's
talking about. That was the last big media piece about her. You can't
call her a bad candidate for stuff like that. Even many "conservative"
lawyers refused to defend her point. Go look at how many of the
"libertarians" over at Volokh covered that. It was crazy, and really
stupid.


Posted by: iknowtheleft at November 04, 2010 12:56 PM (G/MYk)
Yes I can call her a bad candidate for that. Because even though she was correct in saying that "Separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution, she said it in such a way that you knew she'd be ridiculed for it. If she's so stupid that she didn't think that would get taken out of context and used against her, then she's never going to win. She constantly makes idiotic mistakes like that. There's a reason she was so easy to parody.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 01:03 PM (81ia8)

158 I 100% blame the RNC. Why is our choice between a complete RINO and an unprepared conservative in the first place. If they did their jobs and tried to recruit candidates who were both polished and moderately conservative, we wouldn't be put in this dilemma in the first place

Posted by: Rhode Island and Providence Plantations at November 04, 2010 01:04 PM (8s9tr)

159 We can eventually turn places Conservative. Just don't fucking expect to do it in one fucking Election. You think Liberalism went from the University to the political scene and controlling the DNC in one election, it didn't. It took them a generation to go from '68 to now.

That is what COD was, a Conservative wish cast.

Posted by: Holger at November 04, 2010 01:04 PM (V9Q+f)

160 The tea party and Republicans need to decide how to approach races in deep-blue states like DE, CA, MA, etc. ... as ideologically pure losers or competitive pragmatists.

Someone conservative, and credible, like Pat Toomey can win in any red or purple state. He'd be unlikely to win in a true-blue one. A lightweight like O'Donnell has zero chance.

Posted by: kcs at November 04, 2010 01:04 PM (/8qpd)

161 O'Donnell's loss makes a Palin 2012 run much less likely. Her opponents
will be able to point (fairly or unfairly) to DE 2010 and use the "She
cannot win" card. Which means Palin will almost certainly be a force in
the primary as kingmaker.

Dan,

Though I like her a great deal, Palin can't win. Neither can Newt. Neither can Huck.
Look elsewhere.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 04, 2010 01:04 PM (gDbxE)

162 Mike Castle was a RINO, yes - but at least he was a RINO who had the
ability to sell his brand of Republicanism to blue-state Delaware
voters, when they could have chosen barking moonbat liberalism any time
they wanted. Think about that - it's an important point - for years and
years voters chose Castle's moderate wishy-washy conservatism over
kneejerk liberalism

Mike Castle couldn't even sell his "moderate wishy-washy conservatism" to his own freakin' party. Remember? Couldn't secure his own party's nomination? Ringing any bells?

I do enjoy juxtaposing articles like this with one written below by Ace, giving advice to Republicans about how important it is NOT to own the current government policy debacle. Yeah, 70 year old, SEIU endorsed, Mike Castle, seat warmer for Beau, with a lifetime ACU rating to the left of Lindsey Graham -- LINDSEY GRAHAM -- was going to be a staunch proponent of small government. Come on. Dude would have pushed over McCain for a shot at kicking conservatives in the nuts.

Posted by: Chocolate covered, Freaky, and Habit Forming at November 04, 2010 01:05 PM (2y3ry)

163 The GOPs treatment of COD, state and national, was atrocious. Reminds me of how they treated Toomey when he ran against Specter in 2004. Once COD won the primary the only alternative was to support her. Except for the country club and ruling class GOP dickheads, that is.

Posted by: Ed Anger at November 04, 2010 01:05 PM (7+pP9)

164
Face it, O'Donnell purity-only backers: you blew it in Delaware! You
flat-out fucking 100% blew it, with no upside whatsoever and
significant downside.

No, Castle blew it when he couldn't win his primary. He further blew it by refusing to endorse his party's nominee. He might as well complete the trifecta and switch parties.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at November 04, 2010 01:05 PM (1hM1d)

165 122 O'Donnell lost because she was a conservative candidate in a dark blue state.


THIS!

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at November 04, 2010 01:06 PM (zgZzy)

166 I don't think we should primary either of the Maine sisters.
That's right. I said it. We have two Republicans in a Democratic stronghold.
Why destroy that, even if they only vote with us 40% of the time.
Duck and cover!
There's already someone who has declared that he's going to challenge Snowe in 2012. He's already got a website and everything:
http://www.damboiseforsenate.com/

Posted by: Slublog at November 04, 2010 01:06 PM (0nqdj)

167 >>Face it, O'Donnell purity-only backers: you blew it in Delaware!
You flat-out fucking 100% blew it, with no upside whatsoever and
significant downside.

Castle would have hurt the Republican brand in 2012 especially if he was an important vote on Cap Trade or some other bullshit liberal must-have policy. When you have the Maine sisters, Graham, McCain and others crossing the aisle in the spirit of bipartisanship to help enact policies conservatives hate, it hurts the party. It hurts the brand. I think O'Donnell, if elected, may have very well hurt the brand for 2012, and that's the important election. Not only is 2012 a presidential election but the Dems have like 21 seats to defend in the Senate with a lot to defend in red or purple states.


Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 01:06 PM (LLZiU)

168 The election is only 2 days old. We won an historic victory. Can we enjoy it some before we start ripping each other to shreds?
No, I think this fight needs to be had before 2012 rolls around.
There are several Liberal Republicans up for re-election in Democratic strong holds, and we either learn a lesson or we decide that losing a senate seat is worth making a point that will never result in any real change.
I don't think we should primary certain Senators in 2012, because if we beat obama, and hold the house, we will need every senator pickup we can get to roll back Obama care.
We need to think long term goals not short term gratification. It may feel good if Olympia Snow gets creamed in a primary, but it will hurt us in our long term goal of killing the baby in the cradle(obamacare). If we don't end obamacare in 2012, its over. We lost. If you don't kill an entitlement quickly, you never will.

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:06 PM (wuv1c)

169 how was o'donnell any worse than the kkk member the dems put in wv for
however many years, or the murdered ted kennedy the dems put in place
for years.

Not much of a campaign theme. "I'm not a witch . . . or a wizard!"

Posted by: arhooley, future ex-Californian at November 04, 2010 01:06 PM (OzY4y)

170
I don't think we should primary either of the Maine sisters.

This is why we call you the gay genius, Jeff. You're brilliant. This way, Snowe Collins will NEVER feel accountable to the Republicans Conservatives who put them into office. They'll vote without regard to anything. Brilliant!


Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 01:06 PM (uFokq)

171 I might have considered voting for Chris Coons had I lived in Delaware.
Dude. Cmon. The Senate isn't rocket science. ODonnell could have held her own against the likes of Franken. Coons is a non entity, and a hack.

Posted by: Delta Smelt at November 04, 2010 01:07 PM (AZWim)

172 Though I like her a great deal, Palin can't win. Neither can Newt. Neither can Huck.Look elsewhere.


John. Thune.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at November 04, 2010 01:07 PM (zgZzy)

173 And I expect her to take a lot of that money with her -- note how much of it she had left on hand?

Somebody's about to get a nice new SUV!

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 12:46 PM (NjYDy)

Speaking of that, does anybody know how much (if any) campaign money good ol' Alvin Greene raised- and is now keeping?

Maybe he wasn't so stupid after all....

Posted by: Nighthawk at November 04, 2010 01:07 PM (02uN6)

174 O/T from The Smoking Gun:She then reportedly uttered a line never before memorialized in a police report: “Somebody is going to eat my pussy or I’m going to cut your fucking throat.”

Warning: what has been seen cannot be unseen

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at November 04, 2010 01:07 PM (IoUF1)

175 I haven't read the comments yet, but has anyone noticed that Coons, Castle and O'Donnell all suck?

Posted by: The Mega Independent at November 04, 2010 01:07 PM (KDS3E)

176 "The Democrat won that race 57-41. Now let's check the Coons/O'Donnell race margin..hey look! Coons won 56-40! The only logical question is, why does Karl Rove hate Glen Urquhart?"

What a ridiculous argument just as the rest of this entire piece of crap article was. Uh, news flash to Drew: Karl Rove didn't go on national TV two seconds after he won the primary and denounce everything about Urquhart.

And this business about her being a weak candidate? What the hell is that supposed to mean? She's supposed to be Lindsay Effing Graham? I'll tell you what a weak candidate is: one is loses worse than he/she should have. By your very numbers, O'Donnell evened or beat the spread against her.

Actually, this article sickened me and I'm wondering why Ace even has this Drew guy post here.

Posted by: Mythbusters guys at November 04, 2010 01:07 PM (90bLF)

177
It would appear that Drew only likes exit polls that he agrees with - i.e. "take all the exits as gospel - oh but, not this one that says Coons would have beaten Castle anyway".
Laughable.
Is O'Donnell right? Hell I don't know - I have no "crystal ball" like Drew does.
But I can tell you that ... my logical thinking tells me that Karl Rove's inexplainable rants against her DID NOT HELP get her more votes.
I can tell you that ... the NRSC saying "We Will Not Support Her" while she was on the podium making her primary victory speech DID NOT HELP get her more votes.
And let's just talk about that last one - because Ayatollay John Cornyn flat out lied the next morning when he said the NRSC never said that. He's the goddam chairman of the NRSC - and, as such, he's got his eyes glued on election returns on TV - he was up and watching the tube when the suppposed "erroneou report" came through that the NRSC wouldn't support her - all he had to do was pick up a phone and call FOX and tell them the report was wrong. He didn't do it ...
He waited until the next morning - when he had overflowing voicemail from Senators threatening to pull the plug on support for the NRSC - then he went out and lied about the "erroneous report".
The NRSC is headed by a DAMN LIAR - AND HIS NAME IS JOHN CORNYN.

Posted by: HondaV65 at November 04, 2010 01:07 PM (8NiWI)

178 Posted by: robtr at November 04, 2010 01:02 PM (hVDig)
Perhaps forgotten was a poor word choice...but the fact that Castle had not run an ad, participated in a debate or did any active campaigning for an extended period of time would, in most people's mind, be a significant impediment to getting elected. Yes, it has worked before in our country . Butsince William McKinnelly in 1900 it has not proven to be an effective campaign. Even Carter had toforego his Rose Garden strategy in 1980 and go out and finish off Ted Kennedy.
And 43-42is within theMOE even for exit polling.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 01:07 PM (OWjjx)

179 You know he endorsed Cap and Trade Castle - Right?
Posted by: JAFKIAC at November 04, 2010 01:03 PM (/eZwY)
Chris Chistie is a good governor for New Jersey. Probably the best. He has some problems though nationaly.
He's pro cap and tax
He's pro New Jersey's draconian gun laws
He's pro "comprehensive" immigration reform
He's against offshore drilling

Posted by: robtr at November 04, 2010 01:08 PM (hVDig)

180 I don't get the point of sticking this up here today at all Drew. Are you deliberately trying to stir up enough shit between the Establishment RINO lovers and the Hard Right Conservatives here?

What purpose does that server to throw gas on that fire here?


Posted by: Unclefacts, Summoner of Meteors, Pudding Dipper Extraodinaire at November 04, 2010 01:08 PM (eCAn3)

181 Happy days are here again, the GOP is in the house again, the socialists can bite it, happy days are here again

Posted by: dagny at November 04, 2010 01:08 PM (mDISt)

182 Angle was a candidate who could not stay on message. Period. If you are a conservative/Republican candidate you have to understand that the media is (or, as we saw in Alaska, willing to manufacture) comments from you that will hurt you. That requires you stay on message. That requires discipline. Angle did not have it.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 12:58 PM (OWjjx)

Every dollar that was sunk into defending Reid, Boxer, and Murray cost Democrats in Illinois and Pennsylvania.

I thank Angle for at least fighting and fighting hard, but she was a gaffe machine and that was exploited by Reid and the media. I hold no ill will towards Angle- she didn't use hearsay to destroy her primary opponent- she let them use that against each other.
In short time we need to start looking at the next 24 months.
We need to defend Ensign (or replace him), Brown and Snowe are both enormously popular and will probably take care of themselves even in a Presidential year (Snowe going the way of Collins in 08- winning by double digits). Time to focus now on 2012 and flipping seats. There are 23 Democrats up compared to just 10 Republicans. Many of those are in states that went very, very hard R just two days ago. Get this anger out our systems and start focusing on '12.

Posted by: CAC at November 04, 2010 01:08 PM (lV4Fs)

183 This is why we call you the gay genius, Jeff. You're brilliant. This way, Snowe Collins will NEVER feel accountable to the Republicans Conservatives who put them into office. They'll vote without regard to anything. Brilliant!
Exactly, just makes us cheap whores willing to do anything for our next fix.

Posted by: EZB at November 04, 2010 01:08 PM (Ty06w)

184 161 Dan,Though I like her a great deal, Palin can't win. Neither can Newt. Neither can Huck.Look elsewhere.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 04, 2010 01:04 PM (gDbxE)
Circa, that was sort of my point. I didn't think she could win, but IMHO an O'D win in DE would have changed the perception for me, and I think for many others. Therefore, she becomes less likely to run, and more likely to endorse. Her endorsement will have, it seems, a whole lot of weight in the primaries.

Posted by: Dan in Philly at November 04, 2010 01:08 PM (UpqKo)

185 DE is an open seat. No one is SUPER ENTHUSIASTIC about CO. But we are even less enthusiastic about Castle. The reason people came to the support of CO because the viciousness of the attack against her from the establishment Rep. Del REP even sued her! After the primary is over, they should have let it go. And she probably won't get the much attention in any case.

Let 's say the Maine sisters vote with us for 40% of the time or peripheral issues. Now if they work with Obama to advocate Obamacare, promote cap trade, card check and increase spending greatly. I will sure want to primary them. I used to believe in the 40% logic to the tee.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:08 PM (R4ub4)

186 The tea party and Republicans need to decide how to approach races in deep-blue states like DE, CA, MA, etc. ... as ideologically pure losers or competitive pragmatists.Someone conservative, and credible, like Pat Toomey can win in any red or purple state. He'd be unlikely to win in a true-blue one. A lightweight like O'Donnell has zero chance.
May I point out that Toomey just barely squeeked by here in PA. He is the most fiscally conservative senator ever to represent PA and he may be the most fiscally conservative senator in the senate. But he was articulate and a good politician. O'Donnell was neither.

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:08 PM (wuv1c)

187 All of you "we should have got Castle because he would have won" are
basing that on a damn worthless local poll ran many months in advance of
the election.
Posted by: Vic at November 04, 2010 12:55 PM (/jbAw)


Sorry but that's just bullshit.

No one here liked Castle, we simply accepted the compromise of taking a gift when it was offered. That position wasn't based on one "worthless local poll" but a 30 fucking year record of winning in that state.



Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 01:09 PM (HicGG)

188
Question: In light of Tuesday's election, will Lindsey Graham move to the right or to the left?

hint: he's up for reelection in 2014


Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 01:09 PM (uFokq)

189 One if very cute. The other is fairly average.
This is a good thought. It's funny she just might have gotten undue support from the right, and undue hatred from the left because of it.
Good point about Angle as well.

Posted by: Delta Smelt at November 04, 2010 01:09 PM (AZWim)

190 Bottom line, it's a good thing we did not win the Senate. We can win that in 2012
along with the White House. The crap train has been derailed, that' the important takeaway from 2010.

Posted by: Tom at November 04, 2010 01:09 PM (wj+Hw)

191 I wasn't aware that purity-only backers flew en-masse to Delaware and voted in the primaries. See, I thought that only Delaware Republicans could vote in those.Oh that's right: the person who blew it in Delaware was MIKE CASTLE.
Castle didn't anticipate that Palin and the Tea Party Express would suddenly, and without first doing any form of vetting,throw their support and money behind his an unqualified, unelectableleech of an opponent.
Delaware Republicans (all 14 of them) trusted Palin and the TPE that she was the better candidate and got burned because if it.
O'Donnell needs to shut the fuck up, permanently disappear from the national scene,and start looking for a way to pay her rent that doesn't involve campaign contributions or frivoulous lawsuits.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 01:09 PM (plsiE)

192 For me no Romney, Newt, or Huckabee this round.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:09 PM (R4ub4)

193 165
122 O'Donnell lost because she was a conservative candidate in a dark blue state.


THIS!

Agreed, though I will also add (JMO) that she wasn't a great candidate (fair, buty not great). Some of the GOP insiders and voters certainly didn't help, but she wasn't going to win this race anyway. The deck of cards was stacked against her and the road was too tough of a climb.


Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 01:10 PM (xc0ds)

194 As for the O'Donnell and Angle disasters some of you speak of, bullshit. I for one am much happier with super-libs Reid and Coons in office who provide a contrast for true conservatives than having RINO's like Castle -- a proven crybaby -- and Graham go to Washington and schmooze with Libs under the flag of conservativism.

Angle and O'Donnell flushed out the cockroaches. You've got to exterminate the house before you can live in it.

Posted by: Mythbusters guys at November 04, 2010 01:10 PM (90bLF)

195 This is why we call you the gay genius, Jeff. You're brilliant. This
way, Snowe Collins will NEVER feel accountable to the Republicans
Conservatives who put them into office. They'll vote without
regard to anything. Brilliant!

Snowe doesn't represent Republicans or conservatives. She represents Maine - mostly center-left Maine.

Posted by: Slublog at November 04, 2010 01:10 PM (0nqdj)

196 Look, Scott Brown might not win in Massachusetts in 2012, if we primaried him, we would guarantee a loss.

Oh dear god, no.

Posted by: arhooley, future ex-Californian at November 04, 2010 01:10 PM (OzY4y)

197 **General, drop the bomb on this thread**

Posted by: Harry Truman at November 04, 2010 01:11 PM (ctq0s)

198 Anyone who thinks there is any way that Castle would've lost the general election (short of having a stroke or something) is merely rationalizing at this point.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 01:11 PM (NjYDy)

199 John. Thune.

There are some intriguing possibilities out there. Pence. Thune. Jindal. Christie (who would be thoroughly entertaining if nothing else). Pawlenty wants it really bad, but if he doesn't repent on the global warming BS, it's a no-go. Although it may be too soon, Portman and Kasich could have a role to play.

And if Rubio is not the #2, I will be shocked.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 04, 2010 01:12 PM (gDbxE)

200 The Castle people or the Delaware Reps now have the Castle type spokeman in Lisa Murkowski if she wins. That would do wonder for the R brand! The DE Reps need to be run out of town. They should have kept Castle in his own seat and ran someone else more acceptable.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:12 PM (R4ub4)

201 What purpose does that server to throw gas on that fire here?

There seems to be this unhealthy fixation on the O'Donnell mess. It's like the truck is stuck in the mud, with the tires just a'spinnin' and a'spinnin'.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at November 04, 2010 01:12 PM (vbh31)

202 I don't think we should primary either of the Maine sisters.

This is why we call you the gay genius, Jeff. You're brilliant. This way, Snowe Collins will NEVER feel accountable to the Republicans Conservatives who put them into office. They'll vote without regard to anything. Brilliant!
I said that. and I'm not gay, or Jeff. (not sure which one is worse)
You know what's more brilliant?
The possibility of us winning the Presidency, holding the house, and then not getting a majority in the senate in 2012, thereby preventing us from being able to repeal Obamacare.
That's will be fucking AWESOME. Yay losing a chance at repealing !

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:12 PM (wuv1c)

203 <i>Yeah, blue States have no hope of ever electing
anything resembling a real conservative. Just look at Chris Cristie in
New Jersey. Oh wait...

I
don't think conservatives, at least fiscal conservatives are a lost
cause anywhere. They're an uphill battle in some places (such as the
Land of the Eternally Boned, formerly known as California), but they can
make it happen because fiscal conservatism does well when it is well
articulated.

Posted by: shillelagh at November 04, 2010 12:41 PM (Oz4Bj)</i>I agree with everything you say here, but here's the problem: none of it applies to O'Donnell.Chris Christie ran as a moderate. Nobody knew he was a star until after he took office. Everybody thought McConnell in Virginia was the big conservative winner of that election cycle and he's sort of disappeared off the radar. Christie only started making waves after he was sworn in. Before that, he was considered another RINO from a blue state.
You're absolutely right that fiscal conservatism can win if it is articulated well. What on earth made anyone think O'Donnell could articulate anything well? She looked like a deer caught in the headlights during most of her debate with Coons. It was a disaster when she couldn't answer how to deal with people who choose not to buy insurance when they suddenly need emergency treatment.
What irks me most is that she is constantly referred to as a "tea party candidate." She was anything but. She was a perennial candidate, a professional politician who hadn't held any other job for years, and who was trying to ride the tea party's coattails. Even worse, she wasn't endorsed by FreedomWorks, which organized 9/12 tea party rallies, or by the Tea Party Patriots. No, she was endorsed by the Tea Party Express, which is a group of political phonies who stole the tea party name.The only thing O'Donnell had above Castle was that she whispered sweet nothings in conservatives' ears. She talked the talk, but she didn't walk the walk -- she sued a conservative think-tank for gender discrimination, for Chrissakes! When push came to shove, she wasn't really much of a conservative... she just said all the things conservatives like to hear.I'm sick of mindless fuckwits like Mark Levin endorsing candidates based on who panders best and not based on their record. O'Donnell's record as a conservative was paper thin and there's a good reason for that -- she's a phony. But what do you expect? When the Republicans were betraying their small government principles for the last decade, Mark Levin and company were enabling them and making excuses.

Posted by: Caiwyn at November 04, 2010 01:12 PM (ttktr)

204 OT but wondering why BOzo is taking 34 warships with him on his $200,000,000/day ten-day trip ...

Posted by: incognito at November 04, 2010 01:12 PM (qC2hE)

205
It's pretty simple.

Do you want to follow the Tea Party/Rush Limbaugh strategy into 2012, or do you want to use the GOP's 2006/2008 model for 2012?

We ran conservatives and we lost some races. But we won a shitload of races and made a lot of headway for 2012.


Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 01:12 PM (uFokq)

206 Friends, friends. This is a 'appy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue about 'o killed 'o.

Posted by: toby928™ at November 04, 2010 01:12 PM (S5YRY)

207 Alvin Greene must have raised less then $5,000. He would have been required to file had he reached that threshold.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at November 04, 2010 01:12 PM (9cflz)

208 The reason Coons could eke out a win vs Castle in the exit polls is many Castle voters stayed home.

Anyone who claims we are "better off" or it "makes no difference" with Coons in office instead of Castle is mentally defective. Castle votes with conservatives 53% of the time - but 78% in years when he isn't up for reelection. Coons will be with Obama close to 100% of the time.

Were you morons out on the playground drinking vodka when basic arithmetic was being taught?

Posted by: Adjoran at November 04, 2010 01:13 PM (VfmLu)

209 Look, Scott Brown might not win in Massachusetts in 2012, if we primaried him, we would guarantee a loss.Oh dear god, no.
What? You think someone more conservative is going to win is Massachusetts? You base this on what facts?

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:13 PM (wuv1c)

210 I think O'Donnell hurt Urquahart. They showed up to vote her down and voted him down in the process.

Posted by: rdbrewer at November 04, 2010 01:13 PM (FKt9E)

211 179 You know he endorsed Cap and Trade Castle - Right?
Posted by: JAFKIAC at November 04, 2010 01:03 PM (/eZwY)

Chris Chistie is a good governor for New Jersey. Probably the best. He has some problems though nationaly.

He's pro cap and tax

He's pro New Jersey's draconian gun laws

He's pro "comprehensive" immigration reform

He's against offshore drilling

Posted by: robtr at November 04, 2010 01:08 PM (hVDig)


_____________________________________________

Oh I agree. I love Chris in his current position, but people were extolling his conservative credentials as a true conservative who could win in the Blue north.

I was just trying to point out that he was someone who was as "bad" as Castle. But Christie is a hero and Castle is a goat.

Posted by: JAFKIAC at November 04, 2010 01:13 PM (/eZwY)

212 I'm with Rush. COD did more to advance conservatism in Delaware than anyone else did -- esp the GOP. So the GOP's blue RINO didn't get elected. So freakin' what. He wants crap and tax and everything else Obama wants. I don't see where we lost on anything except another hollow "R.".

Posted by: RushBabe at November 04, 2010 01:14 PM (a3Z62)

213 Random thought: I need for the government to regulate what I can buy at McDonalds because I have a hard time deciphering the fine line between boredom and hunger.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 04, 2010 01:14 PM (xxgag)

214 OT but wondering why BOzo is taking 34 warships with him on his $200,000,000/day ten-day trip
we're trying to force the Indians to buy weapons from us and not the Russians and Chinese, would be my guess

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:14 PM (wuv1c)

215 Castle will be good for the Obama bipartisanship bandwagon. He is in his 70s, why would he care about conservative pressure? He can work for cap and trade etc... Castle would have gone the third party or write-in route if he could win. Just look at Murkowski. She is also a gift!

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:14 PM (R4ub4)

216 Indeed.

Posted by: Teal'c at November 04, 2010 01:15 PM (eF5rF)

217 It makes no difference if we lose those who do not vote with us anyway.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at November 04, 2010 01:15 PM (9cflz)

218 Christine's a dunce.

Posted by: donkeyhotay at November 04, 2010 01:15 PM (utVkB)

219 When's ace coming back? I'm tired of the second rate hacks.

There, I said it.

Posted by: Angel Martin at November 04, 2010 01:15 PM (xRcKp)

220 Oh dear god, no.


Posted by: arhooley, future ex-Californian at November 04, 2010 01:10 PM (OzY4y)
And the Tea Party as well as Conservative Purity types are going to have to suck it up and throw their weight behind Scott Brown.

Posted by: Holger at November 04, 2010 01:15 PM (V9Q+f)

221 As shitty a candidate as O'Donnell was, she didn't need Karl Rove putting a curse on her on national TV the second she won the primary. You dance with the the date you have not the one you wish you had.

Posted by: SurferDoc at November 04, 2010 01:16 PM (RKpGM)

222 Happy days are here again. We kicked you ass up and down the field. Happy days are here again.

Posted by: dagny at November 04, 2010 01:16 PM (mDISt)

223 I don't get the point of sticking this up here today at all Drew. Are
you deliberately trying to stir up enough shit between the
Establishment RINO lovers and the Hard Right Conservatives here?What purpose does that server to throw gas on that fire here?

Actually, some of us think that the weaselly O'Donnell backers are just trying to back away from their obviously disastrously stupid support of her, now that it's become clear what a failure she was. They're trying to get out of facing any reckoning for their poor decisionmaking, and cloaking it in the even weaselier guise of "let's not be divisive so soon after the elections!"

I've got news for you: the elections are over. Nothing we say right here or now is going to affect the way Congress governs one bit. We can talk all we want, no problemo!

So I don't want to let it drop. Because elections have fucking consequences, and they need to be fucking WON. And unless people are forced to learn from their unpleasant mistakes (mistake #1: VET YOUR FUCKING CANDIDATE) we're going to keep making them over and over again.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 01:16 PM (NjYDy)

224 But we won a shitload of races and made a lot of headway for 2012.
THIS ns Mallamutt 72 point bold font style!
And has anyone even discussed this?
600 freaking 80! Let's say it together, class: unprecedented!

Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 04, 2010 01:16 PM (CjjL4)

225 I was just trying to point out that he was someone who was as "bad" as Castle. But Christie is a hero and Castle is a goat.
Are you serious? When was the last time Castle voted against spending? I even heard he got money for Soros.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:16 PM (R4ub4)

226 Speaking as a "national conservative" she did not make me feel good. She made me feel awful, as she made a hash of ideas that really matter to me.

Posted by: SarahW at November 04, 2010 01:16 PM (Z4T49)

227 O'Donnell is like sophisiticated Alvin Greene.

Posted by: rdbrewer at November 04, 2010 01:16 PM (FKt9E)

228 218
Christine's a dunce.

In your case, it takes one to know one.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 04, 2010 01:16 PM (9hSKh)

229 O'Donnell supporters: you suck at math. There is no reason for your outrage. It was a foregone conclusion that she would lose when she got nominated. Yes, yes, it's so exciting to Stick It To The Man and Take The Power Back!

Here's the problem, Sparky: in Delaware, NO ONE AGREES WITH YOU. All your other complaints about Castle, while valid, are immaterial. Your argument is that you'd rather have your way none of the time than only 40% of the time.

Well, there's no arguing with someone throwing an illogical and entirely emotional temper tantrum, so fuckit. You were told she was a shit candidate from the beginning, and you didn't want to hear it. You think she lost because of Karl Rove. You're acting like moonbats and someone needs to call you on your shit.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 04, 2010 01:16 PM (OW0nw)

230 The DE Reps need to be run out of town. They should have kept Castle in his own seat and ran someone else more acceptable.

Hayley. Barbour. Run Steele out of town on New Year's Eve.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at November 04, 2010 01:16 PM (zgZzy)

231 This is why we call you the gay genius, Jeff. You're brilliant. This way, Snowe Collins will NEVER feel accountable to the Republicans Conservatives who put them into office. They'll vote without regard to anything. Brilliant!Snowe doesn't represent Republicans or conservatives. She represents Maine - mostly center-left Maine.
Right, people keep forgetting that Senators often vote to please the people of their state, not the national conservative or liberal base. Only in states where the senator is guaranteed re-election due to party dominance, then they can vote as ideologues.

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:16 PM (wuv1c)

232 C O'D is happily making herself the "face of the Tea Party."

and Her Flakiness almost cost a good goy like Pat Toomey the election

THAT'S why I think we need to go over this.

She talked the talk fine; but she WAS a flake. she ACTS like a flake. I don't just go by words.

Every damn time I put the TV on she's on there yapping. You think she's going to go away? When the libs in media know she hurts us so much?

Keep holding her up on that pedestal, guys. That's soooo helpful.

Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 04, 2010 01:17 PM (SB0V2)

233 Dude, this shit is harhin' my Gloat thread buzz.

But yeah, she moved the ball down the field. So now a less flamboyant Conservative may be more palatable to moderate Delawareans.

Posted by: Iblis at November 04, 2010 01:17 PM (9221z)

234
OT but wondering why BOzo is taking 34 warships with him on his $200,000,000/day ten-day trip ...


Posted by: incognito at November 04, 2010 01:12 PM (qC2hE)
In case all forty of the airplanes break down?

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 04, 2010 01:17 PM (xxgag)

235 mistake #1: VET YOUR FUCKING CANDIDATE

Good point. No more Castle type in 2012 esp presidential election.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:17 PM (R4ub4)

236 It's pretty simple. Do you want to follow the Tea Party/Rush Limbaugh strategy into 2012, or do you want to use the GOP's 2006/2008 model for 2012?We ran conservatives and we lost some races. But we won a shitload of races and made a lot of headway for 2012. And this is comparing apples to oranges. Different dynamics of the cycle. 2006 and 2008 were Democratic wave elections. Did not matter who you nominated in certain districts/states...it was an election that was about Bush. Had Gore somehow managed to steal Florida in 2000 and got re-elected in 2004, with the economic cycle in play, the GOP would have made serious gains in 2006 and 2008.
2010 became an election about.....Obama and Pelosi. When you have a different dynamic, you have a different result. Also, there wzs a certain corrective nature about the 2010 cycle - you had too many districts that McCain won in 2008 that were represented by Democrats that won in 2006.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 01:17 PM (OWjjx)

237 You elected a dunce President dumbass.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at November 04, 2010 01:18 PM (zgZzy)

238 What? You think someone more conservative is going to win is Massachusetts? You base this on what facts?

Posted by: Ben

Stand down! I mean "dear god no" to the idea of primarying Scott Brown.

Posted by: arhooley, future ex-Californian at November 04, 2010 01:18 PM (OzY4y)

239 This is very simple.It should be obvious after Tuesday's historic outcome that conservatives CAN and DO win in blue states and areas. In order to do so you have to have a good candidate. O'Donnell was not one of them, plain and simple. A good conservative candidate could have had a much better chance to win there.
The positives of the Delaware race and the others is that it might have finally woken the establishment up. Primaries actually mean something with a good tea party candidate. Same for the elections obviously. The establishment Republicans better realize that their hand picking of insider candidates is over. They also better embrace that side of the movement or get swept away by it. Yes I'm looking at you Lindsay Grhamnesty.
It's obvious why the lefties made Odonnell the face of the tea party. She's easy pickings. Fortunately for us the face of the left is Obama. Odonnell now gets to fade into obscurity, Obama and Biden will be out there everyday reminding the voters of just how inept they are.

Posted by: Bruce The Robert at November 04, 2010 01:18 PM (uClAA)

240 Jeff B. you're kinda a dick.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 01:18 PM (LLZiU)

241 Sorry, that was in response to this:

218 Christine's a dunce.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at November 04, 2010 01:18 PM (zgZzy)

242 The Castles are the slow death of the GOP.

This. Some soldiers die in battle but the battalion can win.

Posted by: Midwestern Nobody at November 04, 2010 01:19 PM (gbCNS)

243 At the time this went down in primary, I really was on the fence. But after hearing for months the howling of the Castle supporters, I would say, if placed in that position with the same choice today, I would support COD from the get go. Because until the establishment realizes, it's not about Pols sporting a vestigial R holding another buddy buddy favor trading position but some actual useful conservatism in governance, then there is no point in giving the GOP the seats.

I'm not talking pure here. But cap n trade tax utterly kick an economy on its knees in the nads while expanding governments power limitlessly? Come ON!

If you don't get that point yet. Put up another Scozzofava, and I'll support a ham sandwich that rips fur out of kittens on Youtube, so long as it has a solid conservative platform.

You establishment types want to bitch about tea party candidate vetting? Then vet and present conservative candidates that make tea party candidates unnecessary. Remember it is establishment Republican complicity that owns a very large lessor share of the demise of this country. It is establishment incompetence at fielding quality candidates and pols that makes tea party candidates a necessity. But with those candidates comes more challenges to victory. In short.

IF YOU DID YOUR F*ING JOB YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO BITCH ABOUT SOME UNORGANIZED F*ING YOCALS DOING IT FOR YOU AND OCCASIONALLY GAFFING IT UP!

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 04, 2010 01:19 PM (0q2P7)

244 I agree that Castle was a bridge too far -- but Christine the Teenage Witch really is a jobless, attention seeking crazy person. My question is: There wasn't one conservative small business person -- a restaurant owner, a realtor, ANYBODY -- that couldn't have run? From someone who admittedly doesn't know DE politics, it looked like ANY conservative could have beaten Castle in the primary, and a real live small business person would have at least not made conservatives look like lunatics. I can understand and agree we don't need more Lindsey Graham's stabbing us in the back, but in a blue state can't we find somebody good at missionary work? Someone to start convincing the moderates about why liberalism is bad? Running in blue districts should be looked at as starting to educate people.

Posted by: MaureenTheTemp at November 04, 2010 01:19 PM (8kq7+)

245
Conservatives have to vote for all Republican
candidates no matter how liberal, but liberal Republicans will never
vote for a conservative candidate.

I don't think this will ever change, but it does piss me off.


Posted by: Ben



Liberal Republicans, or "Moderate-Liberal" Republicans, are Liberals first, and Republicans only as a distant second. In an election, or any other situation, they are a wild card that simply can't be relied upon in the clinch.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 04, 2010 01:19 PM (BTyMb)

246 Can't we have a thread about Barry's Excellent Adventure? I'm concerned about the removal of the coconuts and the monkey catchers/snipers. Why should the poor coconuts and monkeys suffer for The One's visit?

Hmmm. Actually, come to think of it: monkeys + coconuts, some assembly required.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at November 04, 2010 01:20 PM (UOM48)

247 This thread is a complete waste of time. It has already been argued to death and one side is not going to agree with the other EVER.

All this is doing is encouraging a flame war.

Over and out.

Posted by: Vic at November 04, 2010 01:20 PM (/jbAw)

248 We have already tried electing "electable" conservatives and where has that got us? We get republicans who vote with democrats on important issues, and make it look to voters that there isn't a lick of difference between the two parties. Because, with "moderate" republicans, there isn't a difference. If a state is just too liberal for a decent conservative candidate, let them have the seat. I am tired of RINOs.

However, those who think it's a great idea to lose more slowly will keep on keeping on with "pragmatic" candidates, and those of us who think stopping the juggernaut and reversing its course will try to find principled candidates. I guess we'll see who can win this for us, if the pragmatists don't help row us over the cliff first.


Posted by: cranky-d at November 04, 2010 01:20 PM (eY8zV)

249 And the Tea Party as well as
Conservative Purity types are going to have to suck it up and throw
their weight behind Scott Brown.


Posted by: Holger

Damn straight.

Posted by: arhooley, future ex-Californian at November 04, 2010 01:20 PM (OzY4y)

250 What? You think someone more conservative is going to win is Massachusetts? You base this on what facts?
Posted by: BenStand down! I mean "dear god no" to the idea of primarying Scott Brown.
ok. sorry, but iwas worried that there would be someone out there insane enough to suggest we should run a primary oppenent against Scott Brown.
I was worried this thread just hit insanity level.

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:20 PM (wuv1c)

251 As for the O'Donnell and Angle disasters some of you speak of, bullshit. I for one am much happier with super-libs Reid and Coons in office who provide a contrast for true conservatives than having RINO's like Castle -- a proven crybaby -- and Graham go to Washington and schmooze with Libs under the flag of conservativism.
You tell 'em!
Let's become a permanent minority comprised only of True Conservatives! That'll show those Democrats! Sure, we'll lose every vote and will be helpless to prevent the Dems from pushing their agenda, but we'll lose with principle.
Bloody hell some of you are stupid. I'd rather deal with idiot lefty trolls all day then the stupidity coming from our own side.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 01:21 PM (plsiE)

252 These type threads accomplish nothing. No minds are changed. Just my humble opinion.

Posted by: Ronster at November 04, 2010 01:21 PM (9q4PA)

253 you smug establishment republicans make me SICK.

Posted by: Vergeltung at November 04, 2010 01:21 PM (jttPx)

254 My question is: There wasn't one conservative small business person -- a restaurant owner, a realtor, ANYBODY -- that couldn't have run?

Reen - Look at today's political landscape. Who wants to put themselves and their families through the bullshit the media throws at Republicans? I wouldn't, and neither would most people. The fact is that many good people don't think political office is worth the risk.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at November 04, 2010 01:21 PM (zgZzy)

255 Meh, I've got work to do. I am tired arguing about a fucking senate race where the winner got 170,000 votes.

Posted by: robtr at November 04, 2010 01:22 PM (hVDig)

256 I temporarily interrupt this pointless back biting thread to introduce a cubic centimeter of knowledge/history.
You may continue with your regularly scheduled thrashing about.

Posted by: maddogg at November 04, 2010 01:22 PM (OlN4e)

257 I'm with Rush. COD did more to advance conservatism in Delaware than
anyone else did -- esp the GOP. So the GOP's blue RINO didn't get
elected. So freakin' what. He wants crap and tax and everything else
Obama wants. I don't see where we lost on anything except another
hollow "R.".

Rush is out of his goddamned mind if he really said that. The only thing Christine O'Donnell did for conservatism in Delaware was make it look stupid and incompetent. She confirmed liberals' perceptions of conservatives as inarticulate, reactionary dullards. You and I know that stereotype is complete bullshit, but O'Donnell made it seem true.

And Mike Castle voted against ObamaCare, so you can take your bullshit assertion that he "wants everything else Obama wants" and shove it right up your ass. This is the fairy tale you O'Donnell fuckwits tell yourselves so you can sleep better at night about having helped elect a bearded Marxist to the Senate. You traded a vote against ObamaCare for a full-on Marxist Senator. Thanks for nothing.

Posted by: Caiwyn at November 04, 2010 01:23 PM (ttktr)

258 #214 we're trying to force the Indians to buy weapons from us and not the Russians and Chinese, would be my guess.

If this armada is escorting Obama to show off our naval capabilities to the Indians, that would actually be a smart move on Obama's part in coercing the Indians to buy some weapons. India is a good counterweight to the Red Dragon, although I am a little apprehensive about using them as a firewall, given the Indians' former dealings with the USSR and current dealings with Russia.

But this move would be advancing American security interests, so that cannot be the reason for the large security force.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 04, 2010 01:23 PM (9hSKh)

259 I don't get the point of sticking this up here today at all Drew. Are you deliberately trying to stir up enough shit between the Establishment RINO lovers and the Hard Right Conservatives here?What purpose does that server to throw gas on that fire here?The post has very little to do with Christine O'Donnell and more to do with 2012 *coughMittRomneyTimPawlentycough*

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at November 04, 2010 01:23 PM (JxMoP)

260 Jeff, it's thanks to the Maine twins and their "calls from history" that we have Obamacare in the first place. You do remember that, right? The whole having a filibuster coalition in place until the one dingbat (dont recall which one) switched? We complain about lib republicans growing government, then talk about how sodding important it is to have a certain number of people with (R)'s after their name. I'd rather have a strong coalition of conservatives, even if it's a filibuster capable minority, that can gum up the works than another lib who gets the Obama agenda moved forward. Being with us 40% is not enough if it helps the enemy the other 60%. I know Coons is against us 100% but he's on the other front, easily targeted, not within our ranks.

Posted by: AlexC at November 04, 2010 01:23 PM (ybnTQ)

261 Dr. Spank --

I fully agree, I'm blowing pretty hot right now. Sorry, it's just that I've been bottling this shit up for quite some time now. I said nothing after the primary, but now when I see the EXCUSE-MAKING by O'Donnell supporters ("it was Rove's fault!" "it's the NRSC's fault! Hang John Cornyn!") I want to vomit. I want to fucking vomit. It's a denial of reality on the level of the DailyKosketeers, and it makes me sick to my stomach to see that virus, that disease of unreality, infecting my team.

Face facts: she blew it not only because she's a terrible person and a terrible candidate, but because hardcore conservative politics are a terrible fit for Delaware. Refusal to acknowledge that is, to me, like refusing to acknowledge gravity. Or the existence of ice ages.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 01:23 PM (NjYDy)

262 Can O'Donnell supporters accept in good faith that I think O'Donnell was a terrible candidate and politician without taking it as a personal insult?
I know the media was unfair to her. We all agree with that, but I still think she was a bad candidate.
And as Orchard pointed out, she cost Toomey votes in Eastern Pennsylvania, .

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:23 PM (wuv1c)

263 We took 680 State Seats, fer chrissakes!
200+ more than 1994.
Let's get a post on this.
Maybe it would also help to focus on what we did right.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 04, 2010 01:23 PM (CjjL4)

264 Let's become a permanent minority comprised only of True Conservatives!

I've got a better idea. Let's be a moderate majority which just moves to socialism slower, and then gets thrown out for true socialists during the swings! Wait that's what the UK does. Who doesn't want to be like the UK right?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 04, 2010 01:23 PM (0q2P7)

265 What a stupid f*cking post. If I wanted to read self important as*holes who think they're smarter than conservative i'll go to huffpo.

BTW smartguy, by your awesome logic if Rove is so impotent that his coming out against COD made no impact then he also deserves no credit where R's won, correct?

Posted by: flyondawall at November 04, 2010 01:24 PM (GzhjM)

266 Mike the Moose at 243:
THREAD WINNER

Posted by: Truman North at November 04, 2010 01:24 PM (G5JPI)

267
The flagellating over COD will continue until morale improves.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 04, 2010 01:24 PM (tf9Ne)

268 Ben......... in particular: Is the goal to have 51 "R" votes in the Senate, or is the goal to ENACT CONSERVATIVE POLICY PREFERENCES AND RESIST LIBERAL ONES? You're whole "lets keep the RINOs because they give us the Senate" is treating control of the Senate (numerically, though not actually -- Since the RINOS defect whenever the chips are down) as the objective. I say the objective is getting America back on track, or if the VOTERS in those blue states really want Communism/Socialism/or whatever, that the actual LIBERAL party have to own that. THese fucking people aren't just "moderate." They are bona-fide liberals who register as republicans just to dupe the contingent that believes, as you do, that the "R" makes or breaks the candidate. Sorry, i'm not playing that any fucking more. Bottom line: LACK of control of the Senate because we lost the seat is BETTER than "FAKE" control of the Senate where Castle would have been the swing vote. Same goes for the idiots in Maine.

Posted by: GonJaMa at November 04, 2010 01:24 PM (nTd0a)

269 I don't get the point of sticking this up here today at all Drew. Are you deliberately trying to stir up enough shit between the Establishment RINO lovers and the Hard Right Conservatives here?What purpose does that server to throw gas on that fire here?The post has very little to do with Christine O'Donnell and more to do with 2012 *coughMittRomneyTimPawlentycough*
i think it has less to do with that and more to do with the Republican senators running in primaries in 2012.

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:24 PM (wuv1c)

270 237
You elected a dunce President dumbass.

We resent being linked with that duncy dumbass!

Posted by: Dunces all over the world at November 04, 2010 01:24 PM (9hSKh)

271 How is it possible that anyone could defend Karl Rove's obnoxious urine-dump on O'Donnell's primary victory? We can only speculate how things might have been had this not happened -- and had Castle had the decency to back her -- but to defend Rove or to attack O'Donnell at this point is beyond comprehension. She gave it a great effort, fumbled the ball about three times, scrapped to recover it ... and still only lost by 16 points, which was better than Delaware numbers indicate she should have.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at November 04, 2010 01:24 PM (90bLF)

272 Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 01:16 PM (NjYDy)

way to completely miss the point shitforbrains.

Posted by: Unclefacts, Summoner of Meteors, Pudding Dipper Extraodinaire at November 04, 2010 01:25 PM (eCAn3)

273 I've actually got equanimity about the whole situation at this point.

O'Donnell was a flake and couldn't win, we now see. It wasn't just Rove being a dick (though he often is). I hope her 15 min. is up. I would not be surprised if the point above is correct, that indies' negative perceptions of O'Donnell seeped over into PA and almost spoiled Toomey's victory, which would have sucked.

On the other hand, I can't bring myself to feel any regret about the loss of Mike Castle's services. That dude was a lame, gun-grabbing uber-RINO.

As someone said above, the main purpose of guys like Castle is to provide the token GOP vote for the latest Dem stupidity, which then magically becomes a "bipartisan" bill. Good riddance.

Finally, I am hopeful that this experience will push Palin, whom I like, over into the role of "2012 kingmaker / rallymaker", which is perfect for her, and us, and away from the role of "2012 candidate" which, sadly, would mean 4 more years of Obama and the loss of the Supreme Court majority -- underlined for emphasis.

Scalia and Kennedy are not spring chickens. The Supreme Court alone is enough to make the 2012 Presidential (and Senate) elections the most important in a generation. Obama must go in two years.

Posted by: P.M. at November 04, 2010 01:25 PM (2AfKV)

274 she blew it not only because she's a terrible person
Damn, and I thought I was down on Crazy Train. lol

Posted by: Delta Smelt at November 04, 2010 01:27 PM (AZWim)

275 You know who was a fucking electoral dynamo?

Alvin Greene, with 396,000 votes.

If O'Donnell had pulled half that number, you'd be sniffing her Senatorial seat in January.


Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 04, 2010 01:27 PM (bpP/w)

276 Jeff, it's thanks to the Maine twins and their "calls from history" that
we have Obamacare in the first place. You do remember that, right?
Actually, what I remember, in MY version of history (which coincides with reality's oddly enough), is that the Maine twins stood firm in upholding the Republican filibuster against Health Care. They voted against it. DO YOU THINK A MAINE DEMOCRAT WOULD HAVE DONE THAT?

SERIOUSLY?

SERIOUSLY?

I ask you: do you understand what would have happened had we not had the Maine Twins you so revile holding the line for us on the filibuster? THE PUBLIC OPTION.

Jesus Christ, some of you purity people know nothing -- absolutely nothing -- about how this game is played. Jesus wept.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 01:27 PM (NjYDy)

277 Christine's a dunce. Posted by: donkeyhotay

Oh lord.

Posted by: officer paddy o'irony at November 04, 2010 01:27 PM (S5YRY)

278 Slowly roast O'Donnell thread at high heat and add hate and pepper to taste...

Posted by: ErikW at November 04, 2010 01:28 PM (NNa2i)

279 And as Orchard pointed out, she cost Toomey votes in Eastern Pennsylvania.


Dude, so incorrect. I live in Philly, and Philly is a lost cause, as are most of the surrounding counties. Southeastern PA was voting blue - at least the majority was - whether O'Donnell was messing with other races or not.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at November 04, 2010 01:28 PM (zgZzy)

280 I ask you: do you understand what would have
happened had we not had the Maine Twins you so revile holding the line
for us on the filibuster? THE PUBLIC OPTION.

Jesus Christ, some of you purity people know nothing -- absolutely nothing -- about how this game is played. Jesus wept.


Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 01:27 PM (NjYDy)

Tell me oh so middle of the road, how's Lindsey Graham's cock taste?

Posted by: Unclefacts, Summoner of Meteors, Pudding Dipper Extraodinaire at November 04, 2010 01:28 PM (eCAn3)

281 We won. Big. Almost everywhere.

Delaware doesn't matter today. Maybe we get them next time.

Castle's done. One less RINO to sell us out when the going gets tough.

Everything costs something. This was worth it to me.

Posted by: SurferDoc at November 04, 2010 01:28 PM (RKpGM)

282 MissTammy - As a Connecticut (CT) voter I will take a lot of blame but please don't blame us for Delaware (DE) primaries.

OMG, sorry about that!!!

Posted by: MissTammy at November 04, 2010 01:28 PM (m8uUu)

283 "Bloody hell some of you are stupid. I'd rather deal with idiot lefty trolls all day then the stupidity coming from our own side."

@Hollowpoint

I'm an idiot, huh? I guess that makes you smarter than Leviin, Hannity, and Limbaugh.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at November 04, 2010 01:28 PM (90bLF)

284 This post is driving a firefighting tugboat into a giant pool of spilled gasoline enclosed by a refinery with several active uncapped wells, pumping gas through the vast array of "watercannons", then carpet bombing the whole area with lit magensium, white phosphorus and tons of thermite.

Hey, some (*(*(* asshole set fire to the truck of marshmellows I ordered!

Posted by: Al at November 04, 2010 01:29 PM (MzQOZ)

285 O'Donnell was flakey, no doubt, and that hurt her chances. That's too bad because I think her principals were solid. But we all know that her nomination was a protest directed toward the Republican establishment. We ended up losing the seat.Get over it, mistakes happen. She should now STFU and go away and get a real job.
I understand the desire to have an "R" in the seat no matter what. I get the "win at all costs" mentality, I really do. But let's rememberone examplehere that is a microcosm of the whole RINO mindset and is very important. The key to getting Obamacare out of committee and on to the Senate floor was Olympia Snowe. All of you "win no matter what" people need to remember that. The whole Frickin' gawdawful Obamacare nightmarewould have died right there in Committee if Snowe had voted "no" on cloture. Mike Castle is cut from the same cloth as Snowe. So Castle might have won and voted with the "r's when it didn't really matter. But do you think Mike Castle would have voted differently if he were in Snowes place on the committee vote to get the Heatlthcare bill to the Senate floor? Go to the bank and buy a clue. He'd sell us out in a heartbeat for a chance to go on CNN and get praised by Paul Begala for being such a reasonable guy.
So I have a hard time swallowing it when folks start tellin me that Castle would have beenbetter than nothing. He would sell out the R's at every opportunity so that he could be lavished with praise my the MFM for being such a practical moderate. Screw that. I've got that with Grahamnesty and McCain and his pig daughter. At least I know exactly what Coons isand where he stands all the time.

Posted by: Anabolic Stae at November 04, 2010 01:29 PM (t0J33)

286 "Candidates matter. Personality, character -- it matters. Ideology is
only part of it, a big part, but Christine O'Donnell was/is radioactive
in every way. I hope she swiftly disappears. And I expect her to take a
lot of that money with her -- note how much of it she had left on
hand?
Somebody's about to get a nice new SUV!"
Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 12:46 PM (NjYDy)


Jeff makes a very good point here. I am on the fence (sort of) on the whole issue of ideological purity, but when the Republican candidate is seriously flawed, there is a problem in the selection process. And...I liked the idea of an O'Donnell run because Castle was such a fucktard, but that blinded me to the now obvious flaws in O'Donnell.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ( NJConservative) at November 04, 2010 01:30 PM (LH6ir)

287 The question is, was O'Donnell worth it? Of course she was. "Moderates" like Castle now have reason to fear their RINOism. Might make them a little more hesitant to jump ship on key votes.

If Castle was the new Senator, he often would have been a Republican vote for a leftist piece of legislation providing "bi-partisan" cover for it. Will there be one piece of significant legislation in the next two years that will be stopped because we have Coons instead?

For years, the Rove types have warned off conservatives from challenging "moderates" in primaries because we couldn't risk the seat. Although O'Donnell was a swing and a miss, Johnson, Rubio, Toomey, et.al. put the lie to that theory. If a candidate is solid, they can win.

Posted by: lawdvd at November 04, 2010 01:30 PM (UpdGw)

288 Ben......... in particular: Is the goal to have 51 "R" votes in the Senate, or is the goal to ENACT CONSERVATIVE POLICY PREFERENCES AND RESIST LIBERAL ONES? You're whole "lets keep the RINOs because they give us the Senate" is treating control of the Senate (numerically, though not actually -- Since the RINOS defect whenever the chips are down) as the objective. I say the objective is getting America back on track, or if the VOTERS in those blue states really want Communism/Socialism/or whatever, that the actual LIBERAL party have to own that. THese fucking people aren't just "moderate." They are bona-fide liberals who register as republicans just to dupe the contingent that believes, as you do, that the "R" makes or breaks the candidate. Sorry, i'm not playing that any fucking more. Bottom line: LACK of control of the Senate because we lost the seat is BETTER than "FAKE" control of the Senate where Castle would have been the swing vote. Same goes for the idiots in Maine
The following states will never vote in a conservative republican
New York, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Delaware, New Jersey, Minnesota, Illinois, California, Washington, Oregon, and Hawai'i.
That is 30 Senate seats that will under no circumstances be filled by someone conservative enough for you. You're not willing to compromise in those states?
A Scott Brown or Maine sisters aren't enough? I get it. They pisss me off to, but we need them. As much as it sucks we need them. Even if they only vote with us on the major Republican issues.
I understand that people in those states vote based on their own preference, not some idealistic view on how I think they should vote.
Let's do this. Let's not compromise in states that will elect conservatives, and lets compromise in states that won.
In 2012, what are you going to tell me when we hold the house, win the presidency, but don't get the senate? You're dislike of moderate republicans in liberal states won't get Obamacare undone.
I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that Obamacare be repealed in 2012. One the entitlements of it kick in, we will never get it undone. Instead it will become like Social Security or Medicare, where both parties argue they can administer it best and agree it can never be cut.

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:30 PM (wuv1c)

289 i think it has less to do with that and more to do with the Republican senators running in primaries in 2012.
It's all part of the same package, namely, the idea that we need to run candidates who are "electable". Never mind that we've been doing that for years and the only thing it's done is put us on a slow bus to socialisminstead ofa bullet train.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at November 04, 2010 01:30 PM (JxMoP)

290 O'Donnell was a bad candidate. Castle was a worse candidate, he couldn't even win the party nomination. In the end, there was only chaos.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 01:30 PM (LLZiU)

291 Bloody hell some of you are stupid. I'd rather deal with idiot lefty trolls all day then the stupidity coming from our own side." @Hollowpoint I'm an idiot, huh? I guess that makes you smarter than Leviin, Hannity, and Limbaugh.
um. i do think everyone is smarter than hannity.

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:31 PM (wuv1c)

292 I've got a better idea. Let's be a moderate majority which just moves to socialism slower, and then gets thrown out for true socialists during the swings! Wait that's what the UK does. Who doesn't want to be like the UK right?
False choice.
Our guiding principle when nominating candidates should be "pick the most conservative candidate that can win."
In the case of O'Donnell, they went with "pick the most conservative-sounding candidate althoughshe has zero chance of winning".

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 01:31 PM (plsiE)

293 I really don't know why virtually everyone, it seems, has to draw some kind of Big and Very Important Conclusion about Delaware that goes beyond a)It's an overwhelmingly Dem state and b)Christine O'Donnell's very pleasant to look at but simply was an awful, horrible, terrible candidate. They knew she was a terrible candidate - she's never won an election for anything despite multiple campaigns, she has a virtually nonexistent professional resume, she has a history of saying goofy things.

Bottom line - if you're of the mind that it doesn't matter who you nominate so long as they mouth the right phrases, you're wrong. Candidates do matter, and so do venues. O'Donnell might have stood a fair shot of getting elected in Utah, but not in Delaware.

Posted by: radar at November 04, 2010 01:31 PM (sWEaY)

294 I ask you: do you understand what would have happened had we not had the
Maine Twins you so revile holding the line for us on the filibuster?
THE PUBLIC OPTION.

That 's fine. As long as they are with us on big issues, they can be the token opposition to us on minor issues. That 's what I hope them to be. No point to primary them if they can fill that role. The point is that I only need them to vote with us 40% on major issues, not the other way around. That 's the criteria to judge each individual case. IT 's that simple!

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:31 PM (R4ub4)

295 Let 's say the Maine sisters vote with us for 40% of the time or peripheral issues. Now if they work with Obama to advocate Obamacare, promote cap trade, card check and increase spending greatly. I will sure want to primary them. I used to believe in the 40% logic to the tee.
That's the issue-- the lack of trust we can have in them and the lack of loyalty-ethics-whathaveyou they have towards conservatism.
It's like letting a rattlesnake loose in your child's bedroom hoping he'll eat the rat investation and not bite your baby.The Maine Sisters are more like a snake that eats the baby and curls up with the rats for warmth.

Posted by: EZB at November 04, 2010 01:31 PM (Ty06w)

296 It's interesting that 'moderate' republicans find it more distasteful to vote for a social conservative than voting for a tax and spend liberal. You all are a bunch of fucking hypocrites. Social conservative should back a candidate that violates deeply held beliefs so that you can get a liberal light, but aqua buddha forbid you guys support a social conservative? 2012 may already be lost. Oh, and Karl Rove is an arrogant prick who thinks premature ejaculation is a win.

Posted by: Dr. Eviler at November 04, 2010 01:32 PM (yhE8r)

297 #273 spot on

Posted by: Anabolic Stae at November 04, 2010 01:32 PM (t0J33)

298 How did the vote break down between men and women? The post doesn't say.

Just wondering.

Posted by: rickl at November 04, 2010 01:32 PM (4qwtk)

299 My 2 cents as a Blue Hen in exile...

1) I agree with everything Ace said about CO'D late Tuesday night on twitter, and Drew says above. The problem in her case was never the message, but the MESSENGER! Her role as a national punchline was not good for the tea party movement. Squishy moderate/independent voters vote based on emotional things like "She's a witch!" and not things they have to really think about. If they thought about policies and their outcomes, they'd be in one of the two parties. If someone of her stature becomes the face of any movement, as the MSM made her, then it does nothing positive.

Look on the flip side of things; if you were an independent following the 2004 primaries and not happy with President Bush at the time, maybe getting ready to vote in NH, what turned you off from Dean - Dean's message, something Kerry said, or that Dean became a national joke after screaming on stage in Iowa?

2) An anecdote: My old college roommate is very apolitical, and still lives in Newark doing HVAC work. Tuesday night after the race was called he sent me a text that simply said "Can I never hear of or from Christine O'Donnell again, please?" My reply "God I hope so".

Posted by: Doc at November 04, 2010 01:32 PM (AG6vT)

300 You anti-purity people make me sick. Barry Goldwater got crushed in 1964 ... and that was the beginning of the modern conservative movement. He lost the election but won the ideology.

You snivelers cry about losing a contest or two and fail to see how it was the purists -- the tea partiers, Limbaugh, Levin, me -- who pulled hard enough on the rope to move the tug-of-war center sharply to the right.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at November 04, 2010 01:32 PM (90bLF)

301 she blew it not only because she's a terrible person
Damn, and I thought I was down on Crazy Train. lol
Look, she's a thief. That's the kindest way to put it. She stole money from her campaign employees in the previous two cycles. She had them work for her and then refused to pay them. She's lied constantly and consistently about her past and her qualifications -- serial liar, now there's a confidence-inspiring trait in a greenhorn politician! -- and she's engaged in thuggishly cynical moves like suing a conservative thinktank for GENDER DISCRIMINATION. She uses campaign money to pay her friggin' rent.
This is a person who is disqualified by character from serving in the U.S. Senate, in my opinion, BEFORE we even get to ideological questions. (In fact, I just assume that she would be generically fine for me ideologically.)

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 01:32 PM (NjYDy)

302 254 -- Wyatt Earp: The fact is that many good people don't think political office is worth the risk.

Sigh. Yea, I can see that -- but that leaves the field to the crazies, the arrogant, the narcissists and the power hungry.

Posted by: MaureenTheTemp at November 04, 2010 01:32 PM (8kq7+)

303 Everyone here who agrees with me is brilliant. The rest of you, not so much.

Posted by: SurferDoc at November 04, 2010 01:32 PM (RKpGM)

304 Question: Does anyone think if we (the voters) had paid less attention to O'Donnell and more to Miller, Rossi, and some of the others that the outcome might have been different there? I've been pondering this and wondering whether we played into the Dems' hands here. (Not just talking Rove co. here.)

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 01:33 PM (xc0ds)

305 Bottom line - if you're of the mind that it doesn't matter who you
nominate so long as they mouth the right phrases, you're wrong.
Candidates do matter, and so do venues.

Good point, but that 's not the excuse to give us someone like Castle! That 's the lesson the establishment Rep should learn. Try to find someone like Christie (not as good), but the same type.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:33 PM (R4ub4)

306 Man, this place is gonna get messy if Palin runs.

Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at November 04, 2010 01:33 PM (WKRYJ)

307 With all Due respect... Bullshit (I said with all due respect, right?)

You either accept you are going to get a squish like Castle in a place like Delaware and take what benefit you can get from them or you consign the Republican to irrelevancy in a number of states.

Ok, so Castle was "good enough" for Conservatives?
ACU Ratings for Mike Castle Recently (5 year trend):
2005 28 - 2006 52 - 2007 20 - 2008 28 - 2009 56
Average for the past 5 years, under 40. Majority of the past 5 years under 30.

If Castle had been consistently on our side; I could have seen supporting him. If 56 was his average for the past 5 years and not the high water mark; he'd look more like a squish/RINO and less like someone who I'd oppose based on their opposition to all things Conservative.

48 Republicans isn't a winning majority for Conservatives, I get that; but 100 Castles still isn't a winning majority for Conservatives. If you get him for at most 1/3rd of the votes... how many of those can you afford to have before you can never pass any conservative legislation at all?

As for the Dem "squishes" in the Senate, how squishy are they?

average ACU rating for the past 5 years:
Ben Nelson - 43.2
Joe Lieberman - 12.2

Is the problem with Ben Nelson that he isn't Liberal enough? Is the (R) enough to justify being more liberal than Ben Nelson?

And if the "worst" Senate Democrat is in the 40's, shouldn't the "worst" Republican be in the 50's and not the 20-30's?

** Yes, I skipped counting the worst House member for the Dems; I don't know Bobby Bright (D) 2nd District of Alabama; but he did pull a 72 ACU rating for his one rated year so far (2009). I'll admit I'm not sure what's up with that; but I suspect the Dems aren't loving him or looking to get more candidates like him. And he's an anomaly, not a standard "Blue Dog".

Posted by: Gekkobear at November 04, 2010 01:33 PM (7TZuc)

308 Sigh. Yea, I can see that -- but that leaves the field to the crazies, the arrogant, the narcissists and the power hungry.


I don't like it, either, but there it is.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at November 04, 2010 01:34 PM (zgZzy)

309 273 Excellent

Posted by: dagny at November 04, 2010 01:34 PM (mDISt)

310 150
I don't think the question is why she lost but why people supported her in the first place. And I mean rabidly supported someone that was just unfit for office.
I don't recall Sharon Angle getting the same push that COD received. She took a lot of heat as well and at least had a political resume.
One if very cute. The other is fairly average.
That's pretty easy math there.
Just a thought.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 04, 2010 01:02 PM (CjjL4)
I think that looks had some part in it. However I think the bigger issue is the timing of the race. It was basically the last primary to come up and conservatives went all in for the primary, and then just felt like they had to continue on in their support through the general. If this was a primary that was decided in June or July it would have gotten the respect as a long shot race that shouldn't get major coverage like it deserved. This just adds more credence to the fact that Delaware sucks.

Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 01:34 PM (oVQFe)

311 I've been pondering this and wondering whether we played into the Dems' hands here. (Not just talking Rove co. here.)

Yup, after the primary is over, if the establishment Reps let it go, it wouldn't attract much attention. A lot of the problem did come from the bitter attack from our side.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:35 PM (R4ub4)

312 I think this post was put up to keep us busy while Ace and the under-bloggers get drunk.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 01:35 PM (LLZiU)

313 >>>>If DE wants a fucking liberal, then let it be a party liberal and let the Democrats own the consequences.

THIS. Time to disassociate from the Blue states and make them own their shit. Alinsky style.

Posted by: Blackford Oakes at November 04, 2010 01:35 PM (0IR+C)

314 OK, having had about all the petulance and pettiness I can take from a once awesome site, I'll be taking my leave of AoS HQ, permanently. It's been a fun ride over the last several years, guys, but you need to understand something very simple: you support your friends, period, even if they aren't perfect or 'electable'.

The people of NV and DE (and CO, etc.) spoke and, while you are entitled to be petty assclowns about the thing from now 'til the end of time, you also need to grasp that it was never up to you, and railing against the 'purists' (nice strawman! Frum would be proud!) is a nice way to alienate those that got behind the only candidate we had, just like we would have gotten right behind Mike Castle or Sue Lowden. Pity Ace (and especially Drew) can't seem to grasp this simple calculus).

Adios, guys!

(And feel free to flame me: I will not be here to see it, and, yes, I know: you don't care, I'm nobody, etc., don't let the door hit ya., I'm a moby (ha!) , blahblahblah, etc.)

Posted by: ECM at November 04, 2010 01:35 PM (nYKDd)

315 Quit your whining b!#ch !

Posted by: Dino Rossi at November 04, 2010 01:35 PM (EL+OC)

316 maybe now that Rush is talking about the 680 State Legislative seats we picked up, we can get a damn thread..............

Posted by: laceyunderalls sounding like a broken record, but..... at November 04, 2010 01:35 PM (CjjL4)

317 Drew, if castle was such a fucking dynamo of enthusiasm winner, why didn't he win the primary?

Posted by: Dr. Eviler at November 04, 2010 01:35 PM (yhE8r)

318 I didn't have time to read through the whole thread so forgive me if this has already been said. I'm all too happy to accept a Scott Brown squish in a Deep Blue Senate seat but frankly Castle's track record is a bridge too far for even me to swallow. Castle would almost certainly take the mantle of "most liberal GOP Senator" on Day One, making him our next (Missing) Linc Chafee in my mind, and how did that savant work out for us?

Consider also that, if this past Tuesday's results are any indication, Brown, who's voting record has been pretty darn reasonable even by my own standards, is almost certainly going down to defeat at the hands of the Massachusetts Moonbats - who just the other night decided, among other gems, to return crooks like Frank and Tierney and a dingbat like Niki T to the HOR, send a carpet-bagging, unaccomplished hack to congress in MA-10, elect a known tax-cheat the state auditor, elect as treasurer a guy who damn-near bankrupted the DNC, and of course as the cherry on top re-elect the Cadillac of Governors.

In other words, will all evidence of the epic failure that is Obamanomics clear for all to see and with a full slate of top-shelf candidates as alternatives, Moonbatistan chose to double-down on the fail.

And I have every reason to believe they'll do it again in '12 and there's almost nothing any of us can to to stop that - but we can certainly not aid and abet in this farce by making Scotty B face a primary challenge before he faces the moonbats in the general.

Just saying.

Posted by: DocJ at November 04, 2010 01:35 PM (dt6br)

319 Actually, what I remember, in MY version of history (which coincides with reality's oddly enough), is that the Maine twins stood firm in upholding the Republican filibuster against Health Care. They voted against it. DO YOU THINK A MAINE DEMOCRAT WOULD HAVE DONE THAT?If I'm not mistaken, one of the Maine twins (Snowe, I think) was the clinching vote to move the bill out of committee and thus open debate on Obamacare in the Senate. So if she had actually held firm the debate would never have opened and the bill would never have been needed to be filibustered because debate would never have opened. At least that's what I remember, could be wrong.
Also, if I'm not mistaken one or both of them votedfor clotureon the stimulus bill.
Great job, really. Thanks ladies.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at November 04, 2010 01:36 PM (JxMoP)

320 Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 01:31 PM (plsiE)



Our guiding principle when nominating candidates should be "pick the most conservative candidate that can win, or who has nice tits."

FIFY

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ( NJConservative) at November 04, 2010 01:36 PM (LH6ir)

321 Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 04, 2010 01:23 PM (CjjL4)
Lacey – an astute point that actually works in to the conversation we are having.

One of the horrible effects of the Democratic wave elections of 2006 and 2008, in addition to the horrible policies that have us in the mess we are in, is that those wave elections killed the Republican bench.

Why do you have an Angle and O’Donnell running in 2010 – because the Republicans have no bench. You don’t have state senators, representatives who have a campaign or two under their belts ready to make the jump to the next level – like Congress or state-wide office. And those candidates then become Senators.

Think I am full of crap – all right then, lets look at the last wave election (2010) and the Republican winners.

Florida – Marco Rubion, Former Speaker of the House for the State of Florida.
North Dakota – Hoevener was the sitting Governor.
Arkansas – John Boozman, Congressman
Illinois – Mark Kirk, Congressman
Pennsylvania – Pat Toonmey – former Congressman
New Hampshire – Kelly Ayyotte – State Attorney General
Missouri – Roy Blunt, Congressman
Ohio – Rob Portman, former Congressman
Indiana – Dan Coates, former Congressman and Senator

Now, Johnson won in Wisconsin. He was the exception to the rule and he ran a brilliant campaign. Angle - tried to go from state senate to Senate. Lost. Buck, Colorado – lost. Raese, West Virginia – lost.

Does this mean that prior Congressional or State wide office guarantees you win…no. But, it does help your odds.


Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 01:36 PM (OWjjx)

322 279.

I hate to disagree with a member of the Philly PD, but I'm not talking about Philly of course!

Silly!

I'm talking about those tiny, unpopulated places like Montgomery County, Chester County, Lancaster County, and Delaware County. you know, places with a SHIT-TON of Republicans who I guess aren't pure enough for any of you to really want their votes anyway.

And btw, It's Orchid not Orchard.

And hey! I didn't believe Ben at all when he said this might have happened ! I've been doing my own exit polling, cos I could just not understand how Corbett won by so much and Toomey by so little.

And, sadly, the answer is a big silly bag o' Media Ho. I was really shocked! And I pressed them! Why? I asked? no one could really answer except to make stupid jokes about masturbation.

it's all so ridiculous! See, you guys think all the time and try to use logic! You cannot use logic with most people!

Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 04, 2010 01:36 PM (SB0V2)

323 THIS. Time to disassociate from the Blue states and make them own their shit. Alinsky style.
You clearly have never read even a single word of Alinsky. Hilarious.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 01:36 PM (NjYDy)

324 306
Man, this place is gonna get messy if Palin runs.

It is going to get messy the 1st time the new House deviates from the norm as well. We all have different things we want, and they simply cannot please everybody.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 01:36 PM (xc0ds)

325 299
You anti-purity people make me sick. Barry Goldwater got crushed in
1964 ... and that was the beginning of the modern conservative movement.
He lost the election but won the ideology.





You snivelers cry about losing a contest or two and fail to see how it
was the purists -- the tea partiers, Limbaugh, Levin, me -- who pulled
hard enough on the rope to move the tug-of-war center sharply to the
right.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at November 04, 2010 01:32 PM (90bLF)
Most of the time being crushed doesn't make you Barry Goldwater, it makes you someone who got crushed and that's it.I'm hoping COD's disastrous campaign isn't the start of something big, but rather the end of something stupid. We can find better people than her.We're 300 posts into this thread and there are still ZERO reasons given by anyone why we would want this woman as one of our leaders. Her supporters can only talk about Coons and Castle.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 01:36 PM (U+goV)

326 The post has very little to do with Christine O'Donnell and more to do with 2012 *coughMittRomneyTimPawlentycough*

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater


Mccaine/Pawlenty 2012 - Second Time's a Charm!


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 04, 2010 01:36 PM (BTyMb)

327 #303 Then I agree with you. What did you say?

Posted by: Anabolic Stae at November 04, 2010 01:36 PM (t0J33)

328 I can't wait until the next presidential primaries. I will need full body armor to visit this site. At least the arguments will be more relevant since everyone can vote for a president whereas only people in DE could vote for their senator.

Posted by: Ronster at November 04, 2010 01:37 PM (9q4PA)

329 311Yup,
after the primary is over, if the establishment Reps let it go, it
wouldn't attract much attention. A lot of the problem did come from the
bitter attack from our side.

But that makes us just as guilty for falling for that trick.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 01:38 PM (xc0ds)

330 The question is, was O'Donnell worth it? Of course she was.
"Moderates" like Castle now have reason to fear their RINOism. Might
make them a little more hesitant to jump ship on key votes.



If Castle was the new Senator, he often would have been a Republican
vote for a leftist piece of legislation providing "bi-partisan" cover
for it. Will there be one piece of significant legislation in the next
two years that will be stopped because we have Coons instead?



For years, the Rove types have warned off conservatives from challenging
"moderates" in primaries because we couldn't risk the seat. Although
O'Donnell was a swing and a miss, Johnson, Rubio, Toomey, et.al. put the
lie to that theory. If a candidate is solid, they can win.

That is absolutely true. But that's the point -- O'Donnell was never a solid candidate and we knew that from the get-go. The only reason to nominate her was if you honestly thought it was worth losing a vote against ObamaCare to keep Castle from providing "bipartisan" cover to the Dems on other issues.

And if you think that's a fair trade, well, that's at least an honest opinion. I will admit it's the one consolation I get from all this.

Posted by: Caiwyn at November 04, 2010 01:38 PM (ttktr)

331 RINOS allow the Left to co-opt Republicans and tag their disastrous policies with the "bipartisan" label.
Yeah,Castle was electable in Delaware. So what? He and his ilkweaken the whole conservative cause for the whole nation.
O'Donnell was flawed, yes. But on policy she was solid, and don't underestimate the energy she created.
Come on, Karl Rove, pat yourself on the back for your correct prediction, and then get yourself to Dover or Wilmington and find us that perfect conservative for next time.

Posted by: Kortezzi at November 04, 2010 01:38 PM (zAZNI)

332 A Frum by any other name . . .

The Delaware seat didn't make the difference, so it was worth it to get rid of Castle, who's exactly the type of Republican we should be getting rid of.

I still don't buy the "unqualified" charge against O'Donnell or Angle. Take a look at the House and the Senate. Who are the least-qualified members? You're telling me O'Donnell and Angle don't rise to at least that level?

John Kerry? Bawney Fwank? Sheila Jackson Lee? Maxine Waters? Barbara Boxer? Lindsay Graham? Arlen Specter for years and years? Pelosi and Reid, who've been running the joint for the last 4 years? Add your own faves here; there are plenty to choose from.

"Qualified for Congress" isn't really a high bar to clear.

Bad enough when the Dems and the media pile on one of our candidates. It doesn't help at all when the GOP establishment and their followers do it, too.

You may be happy to know that I'm now questioning whether Palin can be elected. I was a true believer, but now I wonder if there aren't too many allegedly on "our" side who would actively work to prevent it.

PROTECT THE CASTLE, BOYS. Protect the castle.

Posted by: tsj017 at November 04, 2010 01:38 PM (4YUWF)

333 it's all so ridiculous! See, you guys think all the time and try to use logic! You cannot use logic with most people!

Again good point, that 's why many people see no difference between Reps like Castle and the Dems. They are all for raising taxes and big gov!

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:38 PM (R4ub4)

334 I can't wait until the next presidential primaries
at least we all can agree that Huckabee cannot be our candidate. It's a start.

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:38 PM (wuv1c)

335 I masturbate to C's picture.

Posted by: Palin at November 04, 2010 01:39 PM (EL+OC)

336 301

she blew it not only because she's a terrible person

Damn, and I thought I was down on Crazy Train. lol
Look,
she's a thief. That's the kindest way to put it. She stole money from
her campaign employees in the previous two cycles. She had them work
for her and then refused to pay them. She's lied constantly and
consistently about her past and her qualifications -- serial liar, now
there's a confidence-inspiring trait in a greenhorn politician! -- and
she's engaged in thuggishly cynical moves like suing a conservative
thinktank for GENDER DISCRIMINATION. She uses campaign money to pay her
friggin' rent.
This is a person who is disqualified by character
from serving in the U.S. Senate, in my opinion, BEFORE we even get to
ideological questions. (In fact, I just assume that she would be
generically fine for me ideologically.)


Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 01:32 PM (NjYDy)
Thank you.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 01:39 PM (U+goV)

337 Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 01:32 PM (NjYDy)
OK that's fine. I'm just kind of lukewarm about this topic, especially at this point. She was a poor candidate in general, but especially for a deep blue state and to no ones surprise, she lost. Lessons learned by establishment types and tea partiers both I hope.
I don't get the strident hating from her bashers or the white knighting from her most loyal supporters.
That's that. Next topic please.

Posted by: Delta Smelt at November 04, 2010 01:39 PM (AZWim)

338 It is going to get messy the 1st time the new House deviates from the norm as well. We all have different things we want, and they simply cannot please everybody. Yep.

Posted by: EZB at November 04, 2010 01:39 PM (Ty06w)

339 I, unlike this blog in the last day, am THRILLED with the outcome.

It will now be BI PARTISAN against Obama in the senate.

Manchin.. ran as a fucking conservative.. he will side with republicans.
Nelson in Nebraska... the dude cant go for pizza in his home state.

How many other democrats in the entire country (besides the idiots coasts)
are going to think twice about putting their careers on the line for Obama again?

If republicans had control of the senate the next 2 years would be those mean racist republicans saying no to dear leader. Now.. its bipartisan.

Posted by: Timbo at November 04, 2010 01:39 PM (ph9vn)

340 She did draw all the fire away from better candidates in other states.

Posted by: Admiral Ackbar at November 04, 2010 01:40 PM (9cflz)

341 While painful, the usefulness in this slugfest is that carrying anymore water for CoD is damaging, to the Tea Party, to conservatives.
We do not need her for a martyr. Not. Helpful.
So that's the point. Christine whining about losing because of a lack of support encourages this martyrdom. It's a mistake to encourage this. She needs to get off the stage and damned quickly.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at November 04, 2010 01:40 PM (Wh0W+)

342 I wanted her to win, but like Angle, she couldn't keep her damned feet out of her mouth. Sure it didn't help to have Rove, et.al. bashing her but that wasn't what did her in. She did that.
Bad thing is, is that had she been just a tiny bit more disciplined, she would have won.
She needs to grow up.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at November 04, 2010 01:41 PM (r1h5M)

343 Good point, but that 's not the excuse to give us someone like Castle!
Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:33 PM (R4ub4)


This is a core issue...I'm not in Delaware and if you aren't either there is no "us". Base voters on both sides want to nationalize every election and can to some degree. Ultimately however it's up to the voters in each state or district. You simply can't tell the liberal electorate in DE to get with the fucking program and support the people we conservatives in the rest of the country want. You have to give them a viable option. In a lot of places a base pleasing conservative isn't a viable option any more than a guy like Al Franken would be in say, Texas.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 01:41 PM (HicGG)

344 I'm an idiot, huh? I guess that makes you smarter than Leviin, Hannity, and Limbaugh.
Pretty much.
I don't blame Levin, Hannity or Rush for backing lost-cause O'Donnell after she was nominated; there wasn't much downside in doing so and likely played well for their ratings.
The stupidity and rationalizations here are getting annoying though:
"It doesn't matter if O'Donnell lost, because popular incumbent Castle would've been the only Republican incument to lose in a Republican year."
"It's better to have a Bearded Marxist in the seat who will vote with us 0% of the time than a RINO who will only vote with us 60% of the time."
"If a seat can't be won with a True Conservative, I'd rather lose."

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 01:41 PM (plsiE)

345 The more I read here, the more convinced I become that Christie and Rubio are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of whatever they're doing and run in 2012. Sorry, guys. You're fucking saving us from our own asses or you're going down with the whole fucking ship.

Posted by: arhooley, future ex-Californian at November 04, 2010 01:41 PM (OzY4y)

346 Posted by: Mallamutt
don't forget the importance of redistricting!

Posted by: laceyunderalls sounding like a broken record, but..... at November 04, 2010 01:41 PM (CjjL4)

347 I need a certain group of people here to give me ONE example of a Conservative winning a Senate seat in the following states in the past 20 years
Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Hawaii.
Please, just name one.... just one.
Please don't fall for Rush's BS that conservatism works anywhere. It doesn't There are some states that will never vote for a conservative in local elections.
Sure we might be able to get them to vote that way for a Presidential candidate, but never in state elections.

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:41 PM (wuv1c)

348 Thanks for the Delaware thread Drew. Have I told you that I hate you yet today?

Posted by: John Galt at November 04, 2010 01:42 PM (F/4zf)

349 YOUR THREAD WILL NEVER END

MUAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

Posted by: Dr. Threado at November 04, 2010 01:42 PM (KDS3E)

350 Thank you.

Sure the same can be said of Castle. He is a liar! He accepted money from Soros. Period, I cannot support a person like that. Case closed. Thank you for confirming the logic.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:42 PM (R4ub4)

351 Oh c'mon, if O'Donnell would have won you know she would have eventually masturbated on Senate floor. Would Castle have done that? And even if he would have, would you have wanted to see it? Case closed.

Posted by: booger at November 04, 2010 01:42 PM (awinc)

352 "Fresh Air" at #23 has it right: Coons or Castle, what's the freaking difference? Drew's got no balls. Over seasoned politicians are the problem. Next up, armegeddon between the Rhino's, K Street, and the tea party favorites.

Posted by: bowregard at November 04, 2010 01:42 PM (ywLUS)

353 The problem with these purity threads is that you are no more likely to talk a puritizer into being a pragmatizer nor vice versa than you are likely to talk a heterosexual into being a homosexual or vice versa.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 04, 2010 01:42 PM (xxgag)

354 317
Drew, if castle was such a fucking dynamo of enthusiasm winner, why didn't he win the primary?

---

Because of fringe right extremists of the republican party.

Posted by: donkeyhotay at November 04, 2010 01:42 PM (utVkB)

355 Whose fault is that COD won the primary. Why isn't Castle ever blamed for losing? I guess his campaign must have sucked and must have been a weak candiate?

Posted by: SCBison at November 04, 2010 01:43 PM (hJBwl)

356 ...not any crackpot who suddenly starts pandering to us.
Posted by: Chris R at November 04, 2010 12:31 PM (AO4qz)
Racist, Rino, establishmentShills!! every last on of ya!

Posted by: United Crackpot's of America at November 04, 2010 01:43 PM (pr+up)

357 I'm talking about those tiny, unpopulated places like Montgomery County, Chester County, Lancaster County, and Delaware County. you know, places with a SHIT-TON of Republicans who I guess aren't pure enough for any of you to really want their votes anyway.

I know, but MontCo had a helluva lot of blue in 2008 and did the same this year. Scumbags like Allyson Schwartz got reelected in a landslide. Bucks went red, but just barely. Some of out immediate suburbs have transplanted Philly people and more libtards. They just aren't the red heavens they used to be.
I just think they were like me. They didn't care about O'Donnell because she wasn't running here or dismissed her as a flake. Of course, I may be completely wrong on that.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at November 04, 2010 01:43 PM (zgZzy)

358 Ben,
You left out NJ for some reason. Chris Christie seems to do pretty well in a deep blue state. I doubt that he would support cap trade.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:43 PM (R4ub4)

359 Can we all agree that one can criticize ODonnell for being a mediocre candidate without being accused of being part of the Rove establishment machine? Oh, and about Rove. He helped get alot of Conservatives elected, he should have known when to keep his mouth shut though.

It was a big win, but of course there were going to be some disappointments. Let's move on and forget ODonnell, she just wasn't a strong candidate even though her heart was in the right place. Conservative's propensity for self-flagellation is limitless.

Posted by: Ken Royall at November 04, 2010 01:43 PM (9zzk+)

360 Fucking eeyores, we took the fucking House for fuck's sake, and you're going to sit here and complain that a left of center republican got beat in the primary by someone who at least mouthed the principals of Conservatism?

Maybe you fucking squish loving idiots didn't notice, this wasn't a moderate wave, it was a Conservative wave? We threw out Russ. Fucking. Feingold. Or does that not matter because he was a good buddy of your fuckin hero Juan McCain?

So COD didn't pull out the win in a monstrously blue state, that ain't the fault of the conservatives, that's the fault of the assholes living there that live and love the welfare state and voted for the god damned democrat. What part of that is so hard to figure out?

So now this blog is going to attempt to shit on some of the Morons and Moronettes that cheerleaded COD over the squish in the primaries, and then over the liberal in the general? Really?

Posted by: Unclefacts, Summoner of Meteors, Pudding Dipper Extraodinaire at November 04, 2010 01:44 PM (eCAn3)

361 Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:41 PM (wuv1c)

Well Al D"mato was a conservative in NY but that might be about 20 years ago

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 04, 2010 01:44 PM (0GFWk)

362 So that's the point. Christine whining about losing because of a lack of support encourages this martyrdom. It's a mistake to encourage this. She needs to get off the stage and damned quickly.
Amen. I don't want her as a spokesperson for conservatism.
She isn't a hill worth dying on, especially now that she got frigging creamed in the election.
If she remains the face of the tea party, get ready for the tea party to decline

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:44 PM (wuv1c)

363 Because of fringe right extremists of the republican party.

Thank God we don't have any of them on the Left, eh, Dum-Dum?

Posted by: Queef Olbermann at November 04, 2010 01:44 PM (zgZzy)

364 They just aren't the red heavens they used to be.

Thanks to all the attacks from Del Reps.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:44 PM (R4ub4)

365 Oh, hai! I'm with DrewM. He's my kind of conservative. We think exactly alike.

Posted by: Megaton McCain at November 04, 2010 01:44 PM (a3Z62)

366
You guys defending Snowe Collins are wrong. You're looking at it the wrong way.

You should be grateful to Obama the Democrats that they didn't move to pass his radical agenda incrementally in '09 and '10. Because if they did, most of the Republicans in the Senate would be going along with it.

You better hope Obama doesn't move to the center because our Republican bulwark in the House Senate will fold like a lawn chair.


Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 01:44 PM (uFokq)

367 My money is still on her popping up on MSNBC, CNN, or some other conservative-hostile network in a venue where she will be prominently displayed as "the conservative woman" like a freak show.

Posted by: Y-not at November 04, 2010 01:44 PM (UcOiF)

368 I, unlike this blog in the last day, am THRILLED with the outcome.It will now be BI PARTISAN against Obama in the senate.Manchin.. ran as a fucking conservative.. he will side with republicans.
Like all the other "conservative" Democrats who voted with Pelosi on liberal legislation whenever called upon?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 01:44 PM (plsiE)

369 >>This is a core issue...I'm not in Delaware and if you aren't either
there is no "us". Base voters on both sides want to nationalize every
election and can to some degree. Ultimately however it's up to the
voters in each state or district. You simply can't tell the liberal
electorate in DE to get with the fucking program and support the people
we conservatives in the rest of the country want.


The primary voters in Delaware spoke and it was O'Donnell, so are you trying to nationalize this debate since very few of us are in Delaware?

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 01:45 PM (LLZiU)

370 Because of fringe right extremists of the republican party.

Hey!

Posted by: Palin at November 04, 2010 01:45 PM (EL+OC)

371 This woman was unqualified, period. First of all she had no character. And you need character to be in Congress.

Posted by: Charlie Rangel at November 04, 2010 01:45 PM (KDS3E)

372 334 at least we all can agree that Huckabee cannot be our candidate. It's a start.

On Tuesday, he seemed to agree with that notion as well, though it wasn't solid commitment. Just thought it was interesting that he wouldn't say yes on The Situation Room.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 01:45 PM (xc0ds)

373 She shouldn't whine, but what might have happened if Castle endorsed her?

What if RINOs worked as hard for Tea Party candidates, rather than spending all their energy fighting conservatism in the GOP?

Do you prefer the results of Tuesday over decades of compromise under Rockefeller Republicanism?


Posted by: Valiant at November 04, 2010 01:45 PM (UKSRV)

374 Screw Castle. His refusal to acknowledge O'Donnell, followed by his refusal to support her, showed that it wasn't about ideology or ideas or principles--it was about raw, unadulterated lust for power. The sort of thing that an "independent," if true to the word, would have to stand back from. "This isn't about doing what's right. This is about staying in power."

And I'm sick of hearing about how "electable" Castle was. Hey, if all you're interested in is your guy winning, join the Democrats and vote accordingly.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at November 04, 2010 01:45 PM (bvfVF)

375 Jesus Christ on a grilled cheese sandwich........
HotAir just linked this post in their headlines.
Now it will never end.
New thread, please?

Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 04, 2010 01:45 PM (CjjL4)

376 Amen. I don't want her as a spokesperson for conservatism.

Sure, Castle would be a better spokeperson for conservatism: higher taxes and big gov! What a wonderful message.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:45 PM (R4ub4)

377 don't forget the importance of redistricting
Your right – another good point. Particularly in those states where the Republicans control the legislative branch and that state is going to lose a seat.

Sadly, I live in Illinois and if Brady goes down we are going to see Aaron Schrock shoved into John Shimkus district. Meanwhile, all the Chicago scum will be protected. Along with Jerry (The President Pinky Swore that the Healthcare Bill wouldn’t pay for abortions, so I can set aside all my phony baloney pro-life beliefs and vote for it) Costello.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 01:45 PM (OWjjx)

378 Can we all agree that one can criticize ODonnell for being a mediocre
candidate without being accused of being part of the Rove establishment
machine?
So they've gotten to you, too.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 04, 2010 01:46 PM (xxgag)

379 Posted by: nevergiveup at November 04, 2010 01:44 PM (0GFWk)

D'Amato's lifetime ACU rating was like 50-50%. He was a conservative in NY but nationally? RINO!

Considering he lost to Schumer....I miss him greatly.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 01:46 PM (HicGG)

380 Enough! This bickering is pointless. Vader, release him!

Posted by: Grand Moff Tarkin at November 04, 2010 01:46 PM (zgZzy)

381 Let's concentrate on how to expose and prosecute the continuous democratic voter fraud even if we have to fund the effort ourself. We can't afford to just look the other way this time.
Any suggestions on how to start?

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at November 04, 2010 01:46 PM (AbbQK)

382 Isn't this COD's third loss? I kind of believe in a three strikes rule for aspiring politicians.

Rossi is on thin ice with this rule as well.

Posted by: that guy that doesn't read all the comments at November 04, 2010 01:47 PM (S5YRY)

383 FWIW, I'm a Delawarean. I held my nose and voted in the primary for Castle, not out of any enthusiasm for him as a RINO, but believing Coons needed to be defeated at all costs. Similarly, I unenthusiastically voted for O'Donnell on Tuesday to defeat Coons.
However, my belief(having lived here for decades), is that many people who would have voted for Castle either did not come out or did come out and vote for Coons. This slopped over onto a number of other Republican candidates statewide who were also defeated.
Tom Kovach, a Republican incumbent lost in the state House by about 400 votes. He noted that O'Donnell lost 2-1 in his district and said, "I got killed by people who were driven out to the polls to vote for the top of the ticket".
I understand that the need to defeat the liberal (Coons in this case) is the driving force here, and I acted on it, even voting for a candidate I felt was marginally qualified at best to be a US Senator. But there is also a downside to fielding this type of Republican candidate. I cannot believe either my countryis better off with Coons in the US Senate, helping the Democrats to maintain control of the Senate; orthat my state is better off with a full slate of Democrats in control, some of whom could well have been defeated if we had been able to reconcile ourselves to castle as aRINO. It's a game of compromises with costs on both sides of the equation.

Posted by: RM at November 04, 2010 01:47 PM (1kwr2)

384 229
O'Donnell supporters: you suck at math.



Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 04, 2010 01:16 PM (OW0nw)
Um, Castle ran in the 20's for an ACU rating for 3 of the past 5 years; runs more liberal in non-election years, and has been trending liberal. I should want that in a 6-year seat?
A Solid Democrat runs an ACU rating of 10% or so just because 0 is as hard to hit as 100%.So we lost about 10% of one seat to keep Castle from sitting there for the rest of his life (because you'd defend the squish forever regardless how liberal he was, and oppose primarying him regardless what he did).Yes, I'm good with losing 10% of the vote for one seat for 6 years for a chance to avoid locking in a (based on the past 5 years and trends) 20%ish candidate for 20-30 years.
Your argument is that you'd rather have your way none of the time than only 40% of the time.

He wasn't running 40%, hell 40% looks positively extreme right-wing from where Castle has been lately. 3/5 of the past years he's under 30% and down to 20% on one of those. He used to be a 40% candidate over a decade ago; heck he used to be a 60ish candidate... but why would I think he's not going to keep trending to the left?

How liberal does he have to get before you'd give him up? Because he sure looks like he was heading there.

Posted by: Gekkobear at November 04, 2010 01:47 PM (7TZuc)

385 HotAir just linked this post in their headlines.

Great, now all the homo's will be here. Just friggn' great.

Posted by: Barbarian at November 04, 2010 01:47 PM (EL+OC)

386 Delaware Republicans (all 14 of them) trusted Palin and the TPE that she was the better candidate and got burned because if it.
Nope, sorry, I don't buy that. I think Delaware Republicans were annoyed that a choice was being crammed down their throats and that Castle was treating the primary like a coronation.

I don't buy the theory that Palin and TPE somehow hypnotized Delaware Republicans into voting for O'Donnell.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 04, 2010 01:47 PM (FkKjr)

387 HotAir just linked this post in their headlines.
Let's just hope Drudge doesn't link it in BIG BOLD FONT with a siren.

Posted by: Delta Smelt at November 04, 2010 01:47 PM (AZWim)

388 There seems to be more hate for COD than for liberals. All she did was get in a primary and won it. She probably didin't run the best campaign but she did the best she could with all was against her (Dems and own party). Attitude like Drew will eventually lead to a 3rd party...

Posted by: SCBison at November 04, 2010 01:47 PM (hJBwl)

389 If the 'moderates' in the republican party had stripped the coke head from alaska of her committee, we wouldn't be waiting to hear who the next alaska senator is.

Posted by: Dr. Eviler at November 04, 2010 01:47 PM (yhE8r)

390 240 Jeff B. you're kinda a dick.
Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 01:18 PM (LLZiU)

kinda? he's a fucking complete douche-nozzle.

Posted by: Vergeltung at November 04, 2010 01:48 PM (jttPx)

391 What if RINOs worked as hard for Tea Party candidates, rather than spending all their energy fighting conservatism in the GOP?
In some places, they do. Illinois. A lot of RINO type Illinois Republicans busted their ass for Bill Brady. Hell, the ultimate RINO, Kurt Dillard (he who endorsed Obama) didn’t demand a recount in the Republican primary even though Brady beat Dillard by 324 votes. 324 votes.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 01:48 PM (OWjjx)

392 D'Amato's lifetime ACU rating was like 50-50%. He was a conservative in NY but nationally? RINO!

Considering he lost to Schumer....I miss him greatly.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 01:46 PM (HicGG)

I don't know from ratings but every time I turned around Old Al was on my side on any issue that counted. Always on Israel. Always on Foreign Policy, Always on Defense, and always on potholes!

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 04, 2010 01:49 PM (0GFWk)

393 D'Amato's lifetime ACU rating was like 50-50%. He was a conservative in NY but nationally? RINO!

At least he was with us on some big issues. Castle, he is no D'Amato. And we live in a different time now. Don't have to time to tinker on the margins anymore. We are near the point of bankruptcy now. Don't need another type of growing the gov a little slower!

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:49 PM (R4ub4)

394 376
Amen. I don't want her as a spokesperson for conservatism.

Sure, Castle would be a better spokeperson for conservatism: higher taxes and big gov! What a wonderful message.



Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:45 PM (R4ub4)
Still can't think up anything good to say about O'Donnell when defending her. Hilarious. Is "Castle BAD!!!" the new "Bush BAD!!!!"?

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 01:49 PM (U+goV)

395 Look, if the Bill Maher tapes had surfaced during the primary, O'Donnell wouldn't have won. As long as her foibles were ticky-tack and mundane (tax problems, resume inflation) then she was still able to be an effective messenger of conservatism. Unfortunately, the tapes didn't surface 'til the general election and the media (expectedly) went nuts over them.

I don't think tea partiers were wrong to back O'Donnell in the absence of the knowledge of the Maher tapes.

Pragmatists ignore a gigantic elephant in the room about Castle --- there's no way in hell a guy with his background (2-term GOV, 10-term REP, very small state GOP) should ever have been vulnerable. Yet he was -- precisely because he WAS MAJORLY OUT OF LINE WITH THE MAJORITY OF HIS OWN PARTY IN HIS OWN STATE.

Let me say that again: Mike Castle was significantly more liberal than the average Delaware Republican.

If Christine O'Donnell hadn't had the personal problems she did, she would have blown him out by 20pts in the primary.

Further, Castle would have become a major obstacle come governing time. Castle would have been a male Olympia Snowe and would have served to be a swing vote who would have led to the emasculation of conservative legislation in the effort to court his support.

There's a huge price tag to having a guy like Castle in your senate caucus. We get one vote for McConnell from him and spend the rest of the time paying for and regretting it. That's a luxury that conservatives do not have at this point in time.

Posted by: Robert_Paulson at November 04, 2010 01:49 PM (BinkF)

396 363
Thank God we don't have any of them on the Left, eh, Dum-Dum?
---
Did I say that?

Posted by: donkeyhotay at November 04, 2010 01:49 PM (utVkB)

397 Yeah, blue States have no hope of ever electing anything resembling a real conservative. Just look at Chris Cristie in New Jersey. Oh wait...
Late to the party here, but "real conservatives" in NJ did everything possible to prevent Christie from winning the primary. Many of them refused to vote for him after he won. He ran as a fiscal conservative, but social moderate, and was excoriated for it as the king of the RINOs. Fortunately, enough dems and independents crossed over to make up for the sulkers.
Of course, now that everyone can see what he's capable of, he's become their darling, but if they'd had their way, he never would've been the Rep candidate.

Posted by: TiredWench at November 04, 2010 01:49 PM (oPceJ)

398 #325 "I'm hoping COD's disastrous campaign isn't the start of something big, but rather the end of something stupid."

Yes! A million times, yes!

And LOL, BTW.

Posted by: sauropod at November 04, 2010 01:49 PM (GPm6P)

399 People please................It's time to focus on the future.
More specifically ME and the future.
That is all............
Oh, one more thing - the next one of you fuckers that brings up the tone of my beautiful olive skin or the fact thatI got a little misty-eyed the other night will get there fucking teeth knocked out with a 9 iron via there asshole.
And can someone freshen up this drink for me for cry'n out loud?

Posted by: John "The Marlboro Man" Boehner at November 04, 2010 01:49 PM (ZWHR5)

400 I think I'm just going to keep celebrating the victories we did win and smile about this:

"Alan Grayson lost his aaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssssss!"

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 01:50 PM (xc0ds)

401 Oh dear God. Not again!

Posted by: The Chicken at November 04, 2010 01:50 PM (E0EDC)

402 If any moderate Republican or Democrat had done some of the lame brain stuff O'Donnell did there is no way conservatives would have let it go by. No way...but because she is the true conservative and Sarah Palin endorsed her...well we just have to overlook the whole tell dumb lies, don't pay the help. engage in bogus lawsuits tax troubles etc... that we saw from O'Donnell and act as if all this stuff is just part of some plot on the part of Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer.

I mean come on. Back in 2008, she lost to Biden by 30 points. This is Delaware not Oklahoma..people in a blue state are not going to vote for a conservative with all that baggage. Blaming everyone else will not change that.

Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 01:50 PM (T0tnd)

403 388
There seems to be more hate for COD than for liberals.


Posted by: SCBison at November 04, 2010 01:47 PM (hJBwl)
You really need a thread where we all go over how much we hate liberals for about the 1,000,000th time in our lives?

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 01:50 PM (U+goV)

404 Something to ponder.

There was almost 309,000 votes cast for senator of which 30% were Republican. COD lost 16% of Rs compared to 9% of Ds for Coons. If she had held that to the same rate as Coons, and it really should have even been better considering the climate this year, she would have lost 54-42 instead of 56-40. No big deal here as she loses anyway. BUT, the same sort of thing happened to Buck, Angle and McMahon. Apply that to those races and Angle and Buck win easily. I wonder how many House races were affected too?




Posted by: Rocks at November 04, 2010 01:51 PM (Q1lie)

405 RINO! RINO! RINO! RINO!

Posted by: The Dude at November 04, 2010 01:51 PM (Ig1Wo)

406 /cold-angry golfclap for the Thread That Should Not Be

Bravo.

I can now no longer tell the difference between 'purists', 'pragmatists', and liberals by how they argue.

Well. Done. You should all be flogged.

Eight-year-olds behave better than this.

Posted by: DarkLordOfTheIntarWebs at November 04, 2010 01:51 PM (GBXon)

407 Aren't you still banned dum-dum, you retarded parrot.

Posted by: toby928™ at November 04, 2010 01:51 PM (S5YRY)

408 You left out NJ for some reason. Chris Christie seems to do pretty well
in a deep blue state. I doubt that he would support cap trade.

Yet he is open to gun control and amnesty... OMG throw him out!!!

Folks... the message is fine. No one is ideologically pure in politics. If they were, Manchin wouldn't have had his sudden conversion against Obamacare, CT to win. Coons wouldn't have said he'd be open to extending the tax rate. And every Dem would've been running on the greatness of the health care bill now that we "have seen what's in it". Winning matters to these people more than ideological purity. The odds of this happening to the Tea party folks that won is pretty high too, unless we actually hold their feet to the fire.

O'Donnell was/is/always will be a dud. Forget her and move on. There's more important things to do.

Posted by: Doc at November 04, 2010 01:51 PM (AG6vT)

409 Posted by: nevergiveup at November 04, 2010 01:44 PM (0GFWk)D'Amato's lifetime ACU rating was like 50-50%. He was a conservative in NY but nationally? RINO!Considering he lost to Schumer....I miss him greatly.
That's my point. The best we can hope for in New York in the senate is a Giuliani or Pataki, or the Snow and the other one in Maine, or Brown in Mass.
We need to settle for moderate/liberal republicans in extremely liberal democratic states.
More importantly we cannot settle for moderates or liberals in conservative republican states.

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:52 PM (wuv1c)

410 Still can't think up anything good to say about O'Donnell when defending
her. Hilarious. Is "Castle BAD!!!" the new "Bush BAD!!!!"?
Sorry I have to live in the real world. CO is less bad than Castle. That 's the only choice I have in this election. And that 's good enough.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:52 PM (R4ub4)

411
You're a candidate in a blue state. Who would you rather have as your campaign manager?

a) Rush Limbaugh
b) Jeff B
c) Wicket
d) b and c

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 01:52 PM (uFokq)

412 I don't think Republican disunity helped her any but she seemed really unready for the campaign. I was hoping voters were willing to look past that, since it was time for a change and let's be honest, Biden is a complete idiot and he's been their Senator since 1972. So Delaware has a pretty high tolerance for stupidity in their politicians, but apparently they're still too leftist to vote for anything remotely conservative.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 04, 2010 01:52 PM (61b7k)

413 I think Drew hit on a solid point. Take a lok at another Senate race that no one here is talking about: McMahon v. Blumenthal.

On one side, you've got a sucessful woman candidiate, with instant name recognition, and a resume as long as your arm. Solid conservative credentials and views.
On the otherside: an AG who lied about his service in Vietnam, who pissed off about a thousand small businesses with his lawsuits, and who looked like a fool in the debate.
The winner? Blumenthal. By landslide.

Every election is different. There is no one formula for getting our guys elected.

Posted by: SQM at November 04, 2010 01:52 PM (ig0MT)

414 Whose fault is that COD won the primary. Why isn't Castle ever blamed for losing? I guess his campaign must have sucked and must have been a weak candiate?
Who's fault was it? Primarily Palin and the Tea Party Express. He was winning until they showed up with high profile support and money to back it up. Delaware Republicans trusted them without really knowing how weak a candidate whe was.
Had Palin and the Tea Party Express not reacted in such a knee-jerk manner, Castle would've easily won the primary and general. It was amistake we shouldn't want to see repeated, hence the discussion.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 01:52 PM (plsiE)

415
Like all the other "conservative" Democrats who voted with Pelosi on liberal legislation whenever called upon?


Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 01:44 PM (plsiE)
You think that will happen again in the next 2 years after what happened on Tuesday?Really?

Posted by: Timbo at November 04, 2010 01:53 PM (ph9vn)

416 Posted by: Dr. Eviler at November 04, 2010 01:35 PM (yhE8r)

The fact that Castle was deeply unpopular with the small but motivated segment of the GOP base that voted in the primary was not a secret.

His biggest appeal was to get indy and Dem votes, which are key in DE. Look at his '08 exit poll numbers.

He got 38% of the Dems, 90% of Republicans and 64% of Indys.

This year O'Donnell got 9 D, 81 R,, 45 I

Winning the Republican primary in a state where it's basically a rump party isn't a good indicator of your ability to perform in the general. There was simply no math for O'Donnell or a candidate like her to win.



Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 01:53 PM (HicGG)

417 All this talk about her muff, is there some pics of her I need to see?
We have been fighting this for awhile now. I liked COD. Her interviews with Greta were good and she came off as being pretty smart on the issues. She lost because DE preferred a Communist, so its the electorate's fault, not hers.

Posted by: Schwalbe at November 04, 2010 01:53 PM (UU0OF)

418 Blog meet dead horse, dead horse meet blog...

Posted by: dananjcon at November 04, 2010 01:53 PM (pr+up)

419 407
Aren't you still banned dum-dum, you retarded parrot.

---

You sound like a broken parrot yourself.

As to your inquiry, yes, my home account is banned...hence my ip is different. I'm posting from my internship. Which is why you guys only get the pleasure of my presence from 9am to 5pm

I unfortunately cannot post from home because damn Ace banned that IP.

Posted by: donkeyhotay at November 04, 2010 01:53 PM (utVkB)

420 We need to settle for moderate/liberal republicans in extremely liberal democratic states.

Yes like Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chaffee. We need to judge them case by case. These general rules of thumb have bitten us a few times already!


Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:53 PM (R4ub4)

421 Let's just hope Drudge doesn't link it in BIG BOLD FONT with a siren.
I’m a whore….they have to pay for the BIG BOLD FONTS!

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 01:53 PM (OWjjx)

422 Fish, and comment threads, begin to stink at 400 minutes and 400 comments respectively. Especially if said thread is about a subject that's been argued about and rehashed for the past several months.

DE got the Senator they deserve. Move on.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 04, 2010 01:54 PM (9hSKh)

423 400 In an effort to not rehash this shit, I am re-listening to Glenn Beck's skit from yesterday. Happy days. Trying to figure out how to get it on my ipod

Posted by: dagny at November 04, 2010 01:54 PM (mDISt)

424 Great, now all the homo's will be here. Just friggn' great.

Christ, I'm gonna get it from all sides, now. HotAir commenters - the dumbest of the dumb. You know what AoSHQ's comment section needs? A little more HondaV65!

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 01:54 PM (NjYDy)

425 Posted by: donkeyhotay at November 04, 2010 01:42 PM (utVkB)

Welcome back! You finally spat your dad's dick out of your mouth!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ( NJConservative) at November 04, 2010 01:54 PM (LH6ir)

426 We had a chance to get a moderate-liberal Republican and passed on it. To me, that was tactically stupid.

You lost me there. Putting a liberal like Castle in our caucus who would give bipartisan cover for DISCLOSE, Cap and Trade, and who at best, was hedging his bets on repealing Obamacare is both tactically and strategically stupid.

And if Castle was such a great candidate, why couldn't he even win his primary over a crackpot?

Posted by: thirteen28 at November 04, 2010 01:54 PM (s8N54)

427 There seems to be more hate for COD than for liberals.
Posted by: SCBison at November 04, 2010 01:47 PM (hJBwl)
You really need a thread where we all go over how much we hate liberals for about the 1,000,000th time in our lives?
that's not true, don't say that.
Everyone here dislike liberals more tha COD, but its fair to have this discussion, and lets keep it a discussion and not a fight, especially considering what is coming up in 2012.
We need to decide if there are certain states where we will accept a moderate/liberal republican or not. If not, we need to understand based on our experience with COD, if we are willing to have a democrat take that seat or the compromise lib/mod republican.
Because based on reality, in many states those are the only two options.
We can't base of strategy on "what if a liberal democratic state decides to vote conservative in this one election despite a clear history of them never ever doing so in the past."

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:55 PM (wuv1c)

428 DE got the Senator they deserve. Move on.


Well played, Kratos.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at November 04, 2010 01:55 PM (zgZzy)

429 After viewing that clip I'm hungry for a sammich.

Posted by: Fritz at November 04, 2010 01:55 PM (GwPRU)

430 Ok enough self-flagellation. GLOAT THREAD!

We need a BIG Kahuna Ewok for the Statehouse sweeps!

Posted by: Iblis at November 04, 2010 01:55 PM (9221z)

431 BTW the opposite was not true. candidates like Kirk and Coates did as well or better with their own party. Tea partiers and conservatives not only showed up but they voted for the R.



Posted by: Rocks at November 04, 2010 01:55 PM (Q1lie)

432 Why beat up on her? It's not like she had Axelturf & Co. helping/cheating the vote.

Seriously: Her or Obama? (And Castle gets pushed over the cliff...)

But really, say something nice about our side and something nasty about theirs, that's what we "do".

Posted by: Simon at November 04, 2010 01:56 PM (IUKnC)

433 Palin/Bachmann 2012
Right now goddammit!
Finish taking the country back and jam the socialist shit up the progressives asses.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at November 04, 2010 01:56 PM (r1h5M)

434 ...and yet, thanks to a call from history, we have ObamaCare.

Listen, jackwagon, I didn't personally attack you in my post. I simply pointed out that strategically, (you like that shit right?) it's better to have your enemies in front of your guns, not at your back. I'm looking for a silver lining here. I fully supported Scott Brown and would donate to his campaign (again) in a heartbeat.

Castle is not a friend of conservatives or republicans, nor is he a safe vote against the Ogabe agenda. He's a liberal, not a moderate, not a republican, a liberal first. They are not to be trusted. Ogabe said that reps drove the car in the ditch and as far as reps like castle go, I'm hard pressed to disagree. Esp. when he supports things like cap'n'economic crotch punch.

Posted by: AlexC at November 04, 2010 01:56 PM (ybnTQ)

435 The liberal media is driving the post election narrative to the GOP losses. Let's talk about why Russ Feingold lost, or Charlie Crist. The GOP won 80% of everything they wanted to.

Posted by: Mike S at November 04, 2010 01:56 PM (/4imY)

436 I agree, it's was Palin's and the Tea Party's fault we don't have Mike castle as a US Senator. I would like to say : Thank You!

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 01:56 PM (LLZiU)

437 I, for one, am waiting to see Rove punished, in some measure, for what he did. I'd like to stop seeing him being asked his opinion. That would be good enough. After all, Rove and his buddies are the ones who arrived with full control of Washington - Executive, House and Senate - and left with no control of anything and the party reviled in the public discourse. Now, they want to dictate to the people who are going against them and have revived the GOP and the conservative argument and provided the biggest swing in power in over 50 years. Enough of that shit.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at November 04, 2010 01:56 PM (G/MYk)

438 I think it's a wash really. Establishment types were put on notice not to get beltway fever if they want to get reelected, and I hope the tea party understands that certain candidates can't and will never win in deep blue states like Delaware.
Posted by: Delta Smelt at November 04, 2010 12:48 PM (AZWim)
Well you see, that's the thing: they don't. NO lessons will be learned from this, going by what I've read here. I could give a shit about O'D. She'll slink back to her condo withhowever much of the millions of dollars she has left. I don't even give a shit about the DE seat because we won't have a majority anyways. What I give a shit about, a huge shit, is that this was not the end. We're going to keep letting the purity brigade slander moderates during the next elections, and piss away more winnable seats. And then we're going to let them piss away the presidency.

Posted by: Paul at November 04, 2010 01:56 PM (DsHk0)

439 I'm posting from my internship.

Is that what we're calling it these days?

Posted by: Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital at November 04, 2010 01:56 PM (KDS3E)

440
Summer of 2012: Conservatism vs Electability

I'm telling you right now, electability will lose.

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 01:57 PM (uFokq)

441 All I'm going to say, is for the sake of this thread, I'm glad we didn'tget to 50seats in the Senate.
Boy would it be even uglier. Heh.

Posted by: Delta Smelt at November 04, 2010 01:57 PM (AZWim)

442 397
Yeah, blue States have no hope of ever electing anything resembling a real conservative. Just look at Chris Cristie in New Jersey. Oh wait...

Late to the party here, but "real conservatives" in NJ did everything possible to prevent Christie from winning the primary. Many of them refused to vote for him after he won. He ran as a fiscal conservative, but social moderate, and was excoriated for it as the king of the RINOs. Fortunately, enough dems and independents crossed over to make up for the sulkers.

Of course, now that everyone can see what he's capable of, he's become their darling, but if they'd had their way, he never would've been the Rep candidate.



Posted by: TiredWench at November 04, 2010 01:49 PM (oPceJ)

________________________________________________
I was trying to make that point earlier. You just did it much better than me.

Posted by: JAFKIAC at November 04, 2010 01:57 PM (/eZwY)

443 You're a candidate in a blue state. Who would you rather have as your campaign manager?a) Rush Limbaughb) Jeff Bc) Wicketd) b and c

I've got news for you, asshole. I've helped Republican candidates get elected in Blue states and districts before. Several times. Guess what? I know what fuck I'm talking about. I know how the messaging works. I know what it takes, what will and will not fly.

You, on the other hand...why do I get the sense that YOU'VE never been with 100 miles of the mid-Atlantic seaboard?

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 01:57 PM (NjYDy)

444 Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:52 PM (wuv1c)

Hey D"Amato almost single handedly made the Swiss cough up the Nazi Money they stole from the Jews. He's OK in my book and will always be.

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 04, 2010 01:57 PM (0GFWk)

445 And if Castle was such a great candidate, why couldn't he even win his primary over a crackpot?
Again, no one is saying Castle is great, or good, or awesome. We are simply saying he is better than Chris Coons, becaused as evidenced by that election, COD wasn't even a viable option.
So based on the facts on the ground, if I have to choose between Castle and Coons, I choose Castle. That's does mean I love him or think he's great.

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:57 PM (wuv1c)

446 COD is a big dummy and a loser who has to live with her parents because she's a filthy parasite and can't get a job despite being a lawyer and likes to fellate her girlfriend and is afraid of foreigners stealing her feet and tonsils while running a child sex slavery ring.

Posted by: donkeyhotay at November 04, 2010 01:57 PM (VmtE9)

447
HotAir just linked this post in their headlines.



Ooh! Let me powder my nose.

Posted by: arhooley, future ex-Californian at November 04, 2010 01:57 PM (OzY4y)

448 423 400 In an effort to not rehash this shit, I am re-listening to Glenn
Beck's skit from yesterday. Happy days. Trying to figure out how to get
it on my ipod

It feels like one of the few times I've been allowed to celebrate this victory, so it's made me smile several times despite the fact that Pat Gray's singing should have attracted the neighborhood dogs outside the studio.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 01:58 PM (xc0ds)

449 I still don't buy the "unqualified" charge against O'Donnell or Angle. Take a look at the House and the Senate. Who are the least-qualified members? You're telling me O'Donnell and Angle don't rise to at least that level?
Unqualified is probably not the correct word. How about this…Angle and O’Donnell were bad campaigners.

Angle could not stay on message. She had a great message to sell (lower taxes, less debt, create jobs) but kept wondering off the reservation with off-the cuff remarks. The only reason those comments really did not bite her in the ass was that her opponent seemed to be in a race to make just as many, if not more, bad off-the cuff remarks.

And again, O’Donnell never developed a rational for her election after the primary. It may have to do with the fact that Mahr surprised her and kept her on defense.

Unqualified – no. Ran a bad campaign….yea, I would say they did. They were not the only candidates (Kirk did not run a particularly great campaign) but it is what it is.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 01:58 PM (OWjjx)

450 Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:52 PM (wuv1c) Hey D"Amato almost single handedly made the Swiss cough up the Nazi Money they stole from the Jews. He's OK in my book and will always be.
I agree!!!
That's my point. We have to accept Moderate/Liberal Republicans in overwhelmingly Liberal Democratic states.
We have to conform to the political realities on the ground.

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 01:58 PM (wuv1c)

451 422

DE got the Senator they deserve. Move on.


Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 04, 2010 01:54 PM (9hSKh)
Yeah, except the Senator from DE votes on federal legislation that affects all of us. So maybe it is worth talking about.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 01:58 PM (U+goV)

452 He ran as a fiscal conservative, but social moderate, and was excoriated for it as the king of the RINOs. Fortunately, enough dems and independents crossed over to make up for the sulkers.
For me, that's a winable position in a blue state. The problem is, Snowe, Castle etc are social AND fiscal moderates as well as being politcal schizophrenics. They're over the tipping point.

Posted by: EZB at November 04, 2010 01:58 PM (Ty06w)

453 Winning the Republican primary in a state where it's
basically a rump party isn't a good indicator of your ability to
perform in the general. There was simply no math for O'Donnell or a
candidate like her to win.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 01:53 PM (HicGG)
What you always ignore though Drew is that you still need to win your primary. Castle didn't.If the party primary system calls for a guy named Olaf to say he approves of your candidacy, then guess what? You better make sure Olaf likes you.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 04, 2010 01:59 PM (FkKjr)

454 You, on the other hand...why do I get the sense that YOU'VE never been with 100 miles of the mid-Atlantic seaboard?

I hope you help elect Chris Christie. Lincohn Chaffee or Mike Castle is someone we should "die" for in this cycle as demonstrated on this thread?

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 01:59 PM (R4ub4)

455 BTW the opposite was not true. candidates like Kirk and Coates did as
well or better with their own party. Tea partiers and conservatives not
only showed up but they voted for the R.

Speaking of Mark Kirk...why do you think it is, exactly, that Mark Kirk won the IL-SEN race while the more conservative downstate nominee Bill Brady somehow managed to lose? Hmmm.....let's see if the Purity Squad is smart enough to figure this out. Hint: it's a blue-state thing, I suspect you wouldn't get it.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 01:59 PM (NjYDy)

456 I still think it possible for Conservatives to win in Blue States. Just not Conservatives like COD.

Posted by: Holger at November 04, 2010 01:59 PM (V9Q+f)

457 You really need a thread where we all go over how much we hate liberals for about the 1,000,000th time in our lives?

Is this a trick question?

Posted by: The Mega Independent at November 04, 2010 01:59 PM (KDS3E)

458 Eight-year-olds behave better than this.

That's why we come here. Duh!

Posted by: fluffy surges bitterly at November 04, 2010 02:00 PM (4Kl5M)

459
...why do I get the sense that YOU'VE never been with 100 miles of the mid-Atlantic seaboard?

You're instincts are uncanny!


Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:00 PM (uFokq)

460 Jeff B, did you used to comment under a different name?

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 02:00 PM (LLZiU)

461 personally i think worrying about delaware, new york, mass., california, and their ilk is a waste of time. if they want to rot in liberalism, good riddance. when states who are traditionally blue have a chance of seeing red like michigan, jersey, PA (the schizo state) etc. those are the races to perk the ol' antenna. most republicans have ignored michigan for years and theyre beginning to turn, we should do the same with other lost causes.

i say wave to em on the island, let em know theyre on their own. sucks but...oh well.


Posted by: skr8 outta at November 04, 2010 02:00 PM (icVev)

462 I think this fight needs to be had before 2012 rolls around.

This is the 2012 fight. The anti-conservatives are going to try to thrust Romney or some other piece of shit retread on us like they did with McCain.

And no, this thread didn't have to happen, despite my jokes yesterday. But some people won't let it go. They won't let it go because they are going to use it to.......

.....thrust Romney or some other piece of shit retread on us like they did with McCain.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 02:00 PM (5aa4z)

463 #332 You get it.

This thread is about 2012.

Good to know where this blog, and everyone here stands.

Frum explains this in his latest war screed......"Tea Party Backlash". (If you can take more sniveling after reading this thread)

The Republican Party wants nothing to do with the icky, rube, Tea Party types.

So be it....let their buds in the DNC and the MSM fund them, vet them, run them, and the NOT vote for them.

Republicans cannot make a move without MSM approval, they can't make a speech, a decision on policy or a candidate without them being vetted and approved by the MSM.

The Republican GOP has gone BMP....the Beta Male Party.

And certainly not worthy of the Conservative vote.





Posted by: pam at November 04, 2010 02:01 PM (h8R9p)

464
Posted by: donkeyhotay at November 04, 2010 01:57 PM (VmtE9)A bit too much rambling in your blather. Try to be more coherent -- that's what we pay you trolls for!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ( NJConservative) at November 04, 2010 02:01 PM (LH6ir)

465 How did that all out assault on Michelle Bachman?

Posted by: dagny at November 04, 2010 02:01 PM (mDISt)

466 If the party primary system calls for a guy named Olaf to say he
approves of your candidacy, then guess what? You better make sure Olaf
likes you.
That 's the point. We had the primary. I was neutral and didn't mind the attacks (even though I didn't like them) during the primary. That 's what it is for. BTW, Chris Christie is a perfect example of a conservative winning in a deep blue state.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 02:01 PM (R4ub4)

467
Hint: it's a blue-state thing, I suspect you wouldn't get it.

You need to get acquainted with another blue-stater named Ron Johnson.

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:01 PM (uFokq)

468 Dum Dum is here….great.

Hey Dum Dum…we really missed you. We missed you so much we started a new pool as to when you will go off, say something racist and get banned again.

But, before your second banning comes around, can you regale us with your Captain America is Obama thoughts.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 02:01 PM (OWjjx)

469 Interesting convenience store robbery technique.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 04, 2010 02:01 PM (xxgag)

470 Posted by: skr8 outta at November 04, 2010 02:00 PM (icVev)

Those states are starting to export Liberalism into Red States. People flee those failed states and bring with them their failed Liberalism and vote their failed liberalism.

Posted by: Holger at November 04, 2010 02:01 PM (V9Q+f)

471 If Castle had done his fucking job and won the primary we wouldn't have this thread. Damn you to Hell, Mike Castle!

Posted by: SurferDoc at November 04, 2010 02:02 PM (RKpGM)

472 Ben, I haven't read all the intervening comments, but in response to your #347 I would offer up Sununu the younger in NH.

Posted by: SteveN at November 04, 2010 02:02 PM (7EV/g)

473 False choice.
Our guiding principle when nominating candidates should be "pick the most conservative candidate that can win."


It's not about winning seats with people with "R"s its actually getting legislation moving our way. You act as if winning a seat with a RINO is all plus and no minus. Well their are serious minuses. Including emboldening liberal behavior in our caucus. Giving up votes on critical issues like Stimulus (Arlen) and having people willing to support govt takeover of medicine if the costs are OK (History calls right Olympia) and since it is your caucus guess what, it's "Tory Party Approved" and off we go to more socialism. Your strategy of "Pick the most conservative candidate that can win" while a good simple strategy does fall apart at the edges, kind of like getting ahead in points and material while playing chess. Every time a piece comes up snag it? Well simply, it often puts you in a better position, but if you do it recklessly a queens gambit will end your day. As such, simple strategies have limits. Endlessly and blindly rubber stamping establishment liberal Republicans because they are the "most conservative that can win" has earned us seats, and cost us much more in position over time.



So yes there is a negative cost in nominating and winning with RINO's, which goes up the more liberal they are. Right now, Cap N Trade is a deal breaker for me on any national election. You have an R, you support that mess, than I cannot support you for nomination, no matter how winnable you may be. Period.
You're the one forcing false choices. By stipulating that ANY demand for SOME ideological purity = permanent minority.

Yes losing with OD cost us that Senate seat, not a majority, not the filibuster, just a seat, but, we now have a House majority which knows what's waiting for them if they get too far away from the tea pot. And that right now is very important. And at least arguably more important than that single seat.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 04, 2010 02:02 PM (0q2P7)

474 COD was a weak candidate with personal issues. Versus, Mike Castle giving Democrats some needed 'bipartisan' cover for their crazy ideas. It's a tough call without reboot and get new candidates.
For the first time I can recall in my life, Florida gave us two real standout candidates in Rubio and West. Candidates matter. Howyou frame the issues and expressconservative valuesmakes abig difference. Rubio and West come off with a lot more gravitas than most.
Also, Republicans need to avoid falling into the trap being laid by the Democrats. They aregoing to make Republicans propose all the spending cuts, after the Ds runningup a few trillion in extra debt over the lasttwo years. It's critical to argue the NECESSITY of budget cutsto keep the US from going Weimar. But it's not necessary to say everyone getting a government checkis a freeloaderand that none of the checks are constitutional anyway.We have to chipaway at anedifice builtsteadily over a hundred years. It's likedealing with addiction, people will have to beweaned off gradually.
Somehow the Republicans must avoid being the only ones proposingany spending cuts while the Democrats dotheir usual shrieking aboutevil stingy Republicans.This is why nothing is ever actually cut and we're monetizing the debt, facing upping the debt ceiling again,with gold setting record highs.

Posted by: Beagle at November 04, 2010 02:02 PM (sOtz/)

475 How come there is no talk about the ESTABLISHMENT PEOPLE THAT LOST MISERABLY after spending far more money than Christine did?

Whitman spent 140 million dollars to lose by 10 while being backed by the same people who trashed O'Donnell.

GOP spent 8 million at least in CA and lost big. Why did they not spend that money in CO. They would have surely won CO if they had.

Why are they not being called to account for their failures by the establishment? Oh thats right, nevermind, the establishment ALWAYS blames the base when they lose.

Posted by: Dan at November 04, 2010 02:03 PM (1jzSs)

476 You really need a thread where we all go over how much we hate liberals for about the 1,000,000th time in our lives?
I like the attention. Besides, you don't say anything near as bad about me as my mommy and daddy do.

Posted by: donkeyhotay at November 04, 2010 02:03 PM (VmtE9)

477 Palin/Christie 2012

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ( NJConservative) at November 04, 2010 02:03 PM (LH6ir)

478 373
She shouldn't whine, but what might have happened if Castle endorsed her?

What
if RINOs worked as hard for Tea Party candidates, rather than
spending all their energy fighting conservatism in the GOP?

Do you prefer the results of Tuesday over decades of compromise under Rockefeller Republicanism?




Posted by: Valiant at November 04, 2010 01:45 PM (UKSRV)

I don't think she lost moderates because she was a Tea Party candidate so much as because they thought she was an unqualified unethical loon. I am not trying to be cute, I really think that is true. I think some conservatives think the moderate Republicans did not like her because they thought she was too far right, I don't think that was it. I think they had seen her around Delaware politics for the last few years and they did not trust the woman. I think her politics were only part of it.

Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 02:03 PM (T0tnd)

479 I may have missed this in one of the 11 billion threads over the past few days, but does donkeyhotay = dumdum??

Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 04, 2010 02:04 PM (CjjL4)

480 Good post and comments
But when the Maine sisters or crazy Arlen vote with the dems on some liberal shit, I'll be sure to link right back to this page as soon as I read "vote their rino asses out"

Posted by: Ncj on the iphone4 saying you're fired biatch!!!!! at November 04, 2010 02:04 PM (HeXWG)

481 This is the 2012 fight. The anti-conservatives are going to try to thrust Romney or some other piece of shit retread on us like they did with McCain.And no, this thread didn't have to happen, despite my jokes yesterday. But some people won't let it go. They won't let it go because they are going to use it to............thrust Romney or some other piece of shit retread on us like they did with McCain.
Oh hell no. Some vapid cottage cheese in a sock candidate? Not again.

Posted by: EZB at November 04, 2010 02:04 PM (Ty06w)

482 Feel good link of the day.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 04, 2010 02:04 PM (xxgag)

483 Hey Dum Dum, is your ass still sore from Tuesday?

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 02:05 PM (LLZiU)

484
.....thrust Romney or some other piece of shit retread on us like they did with McCain.

You wanna hear something funny?

I like Mitt Romney and I think he'd make an excellent president. Not ashamed to admit it, either.

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:05 PM (uFokq)

485 Isn't the big prize the White House in 2012? Why give O'Dumbass the GOP House and Senate to blame for two years?

We didn't want, or need, to win the Senate, it does us NO GOOD.

Posted by: Tom at November 04, 2010 02:05 PM (wj+Hw)

486 think this fight needs to be had before 2012 rolls around.This is the 2012 fight. The anti-conservatives are going to try to thrust Romney or some other piece of shit retread on us like they did with McCain.And no, this thread didn't have to happen, despite my jokes yesterday. But some people won't let it go. They won't let it go because they are going to use it to............thrust Romney or some other piece of shit retread on us like they did with McCain.
Actually, if i may point out, no one thrust McCain, Romney or Huckabee on us. If I remember correctly, Rush and the other talk show people didn't even endorse anyone until it became clear that McCain would win and then they all back Romney.
I don't remember ace or any co bloggers making endorsements at the outset.
It was the people who showed up to vote that gave us McCain.

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 02:05 PM (wuv1c)

487 I still don't buy the "unqualified" charge against O'Donnell or
Angle. Take a look at the House and the Senate. Who are the
least-qualified members?

Heck, what the hell are the qualifications a Senator needs? LOL. It's a joke of a job. The only real skills in it have to do with procuring money that's been authorized by someone else and being able to stop an asswipe president from totally destroying the nation by Executive nomination or foreign treaties that don't serve America's interests. O'Donnell was well qualified for the latter. In fact, that was the point of her campaign.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at November 04, 2010 02:05 PM (G/MYk)

488 Nope, sorry, I don't buy that. I think Delaware Republicans were annoyed that a choice was being crammed down their throats and that Castle was treating the primary like a coronation.
I don't buy the theory that Palin and TPE somehow hypnotized Delaware Republicans into voting for O'Donnell.
Sorry, but you're mistaken. Castle was well ahead in the primary polling at 60%till Palin and the TPE came in late with very high profile support.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 02:05 PM (plsiE)

489 Oh so it is!!
Looks like we found his girlfriend!

Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 04, 2010 02:06 PM (CjjL4)

490 http://tiny.cc/mz7tx
Sarah Palin piece on NRO.

Posted by: dagny at November 04, 2010 02:06 PM (mDISt)

491 I may have missed this in one of the 11 billion threads over the past few days, but does donkeyhotay = dumdum??
Yes. Yes…donkey is none other than Dum Dum, aka Captain America.

On the otherhand, I get to unretire my “Painful Stool the Axelrod Tool” sock.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 02:06 PM (OWjjx)

492 Hey Drew,
If you want your favorite RINO to run against the socialist in the General Election, you are going to have to beat a tea partier or a Con, an Angle or an ODonnel--every time. There will be no gimmes, no free passes, for Rove approved RINOs going forward. Every one of them gets primaried.
And if you want your favorite RINO to get tea party and Con support in the general after prevailing in the primary, should you be so lucky, you are going to have to eat each and every one of your Sore Loser crybaby posts about ODonnell.
Until then, everyday is RINO season. Although I would have preferred a win in DE by ODonnell, I am consoled by Mike Castle's scalp, and look forward to taking many more.

Posted by: louis tully at November 04, 2010 02:06 PM (K/USr)

493 Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:05 PM (uFokq)

I question his ideological purity. And doesn't he worship the devil?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ( NJConservative) at November 04, 2010 02:06 PM (LH6ir)

494 I like Mitt Romney and I think he'd make an excellent president.

That's fine, but I not a lack of the word "conservative" anywhere in there, because he's not. And the last fucking thing we need is GWBs third term in 2013.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 02:06 PM (5aa4z)

495 I think we can all agree that Herr Morgenholz is a giant pussy.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 04, 2010 02:06 PM (bpP/w)

496 Oh goody, this thread's still up.

Posted by: arhooley, future ex-Californian at November 04, 2010 02:07 PM (OzY4y)

497 this thread has now officially become counter-productive.

Posted by: Vergeltung at November 04, 2010 02:07 PM (jttPx)

498 You sound like a broken parrot yourself.As to your inquiry, yes, my home account is banned...hence my ip is different. I'm posting from my internship. Which is why you guys only get the pleasure of my presence from 9am to 5pm I unfortunately cannot post from home because damn Ace banned that IP.
Posted by: donkeyhotay at November 04, 2010 01:53 PM (utVkB)
I think we need to have this rectified. And your "employer" should like it since you are spending your time on a website. great resume builder shit for brains. "while interning I spent the majority of my time trolling the internet."

Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 02:07 PM (oVQFe)

499 I don't remember ace or any co bloggers making endorsements at the outset.

Hello, Fred Thompson.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 02:07 PM (LLZiU)

500
I really hope this is a dead issue and never brought up again.

I think both (of our) sides can learn something from not just this race in DE, but all races.


Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:07 PM (uFokq)

501 Hey Dum Dum…we really
missed you. We missed you so much we started a new pool as to when you
will go off, say something racist and get banned again.

But, before your second banning comes around, can you regale us with your Captain America is Obama thoughts.
---
I got banned for making use of a racist term in a joke. I won't do that again, sorry to disappoint.
As for Obama still being comparable to Captain America...well, if you followed the Civil War storyline, Captain America was made to be a villain to the country. He was hounded, his reputation soiled, and eventually he was assassinated.
That sounds similar to what is happening to Obama...he is being labeled unpatriotic, not an American, and even opponent pols (Sharon Angle) have called for perhaps indirectly his death (second-amendment solution!).

Now, in the following Heroic Age...Captain America comes back, in full force. That may represent the eventual 2012 battle in which Obama once again reclaims the mantle. It will be an exciting battle!

Posted by: donkeyhotay at November 04, 2010 02:08 PM (utVkB)

502 Sorry, but you're mistaken. Castle was well ahead in the primary polling at 60%till Palin and the TPE came in late with very high profile support.Again, people chose who to vote for.

Posted by: EZB at November 04, 2010 02:08 PM (Ty06w)

503 HotAir just linked this post in their headlines.
Oh goody. DrewM will be famous.

Posted by: Ronster at November 04, 2010 02:08 PM (9q4PA)

504 485
Isn't the big prize the White House in 2012? Why give O'Dumbass the GOP House and Senate to blame for two years?

We didn't want, or need, to win the Senate, it does us NO GOOD.


Posted by: Tom at November 04, 2010 02:05 PM (wj+Hw)
Agreed! Have the dem's turn on Obama....
Much better.My goal is to get that ass out of office in 2 years.

Posted by: Timbo at November 04, 2010 02:08 PM (ph9vn)

505 Republicans cannot make a move without MSM approval, they can't make a
speech, a decision on policy or a candidate without them being vetted
and approved by the MSM.

Unfortunately, we can (in part) thank John McCain for that.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at November 04, 2010 02:08 PM (vbh31)

506 We have a lot of things to do between here and 2012. Looking backwards and wringing our hands over Christine O'Donnell isn't going to help us accomplish those. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and that's the way it is. The voters in DE rejected her the same way that some people in other states rejected conservative candidates. We can't change that.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 02:08 PM (xc0ds)

507 It was the people who showed up to vote that gave us McCain.

True enough. The establishment Republicans. They DO NOT like conservatives. Ask Jim DeMint.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 02:08 PM (5aa4z)

508 424 - Jeff B. HotAir commenters - the dumbest of the dumb.

We deeply resent being overlooked.

Posted by: Free Republic Commenters at November 04, 2010 02:08 PM (8kq7+)

509 >>>Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 01:59 PM (NjYDy)

It's because Kirk was running against a marginally-experienced mob banker, while Brady was up against the incumbent governor with deeper ties to the Daley machine.

Had nothing to do with ideology.

Posted by: Robert_Paulson at November 04, 2010 02:08 PM (BinkF)

510 "Those states are starting to export Liberalism into Red States. People
flee those failed states and bring with them their failed Liberalism and
vote their failed liberalism."

you're only half right. most liberals stay in their oddball cocoon states. whereas most people who are conservative move out. my home state of PA is but one example. the out-migration trends from the pittsburgh area are staggering and we all chucked it down south. and the south-eastern states are normally blood-red with no change in sight. same can be said of other metro-areas etc. a small example sure, but it's there.


Posted by: skr8 outta at November 04, 2010 02:09 PM (icVev)

511 For those of you knocking Angle for her quality and ability to campaign please explain why she lost so many of her OWN PARTY?

If she won as much of her own party as Reid did of his she WINS. Not a single more Independent or Dem, just REPUBLICANS.



Posted by: Rocks at November 04, 2010 02:09 PM (Q1lie)

512 Karl Rove and the NRSC had nothing to do with O'Donnell's defeat.
I would add, ^ this has to be the single dumbest sentence of many that you have posed on this topic. But do regale us more with your sore loserism.

Posted by: louis tully at November 04, 2010 02:09 PM (K/USr)

513 My goal is to get that ass out of office in 2 years.

That is the prize. Keep your eye on the prize.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at November 04, 2010 02:09 PM (vbh31)

514 I think we can all agree that Herr Morgenholz is a giant pussy.
That's a given. It's in the HQ's Charter

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 02:09 PM (wuv1c)

515 I think we can all agree that Herr Morgenholz is a giant pussy.
Concur.

Hey wait!

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 02:09 PM (5aa4z)

516 DrewM can lick the sweat from my uneducated, naive, Tea Party-supporting balls.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at November 04, 2010 02:09 PM (G5qLy)

517 Actually, if i may point out, no one thrust McCain, Romney or Huckabee on us. If I remember correctly, Rush and the other talk show people didn't even endorse anyone until it became clear that McCain would win and then they all back Romney.
I don't remember ace or any co bloggers making endorsements at the outset.
It was the people who showed up to vote that gave us McCain.
Hey…….lets not start using facts to kill the great “the Establishment shoved McCain down our throats….they dirty rotten RINO” myth.

Considering that 90% of the establishment had written McCain off in August of 2007 when he was broke and flying coach to New Hampshire.
But, since you mentioned voting….we can now start the “Open Primaries” gave us McCain myth. Despite the fact that McCain won the vast majority of Closed Primary states on Super Tuesday and the Closed Primary of Florida. And that Democratic primary voters outnumbered Republican primary voters in Open Primary states by 2 to 1.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 02:10 PM (OWjjx)

518 "We're 300 posts into this thread and there are still ZERO reasons given by anyone why we would want this woman as one of our leaders. Her supporters can only talk about Coons and Castle." Posted by: robviously

You must not be reading the thread then. But I'll spare you the work and tell you the number one reason why we would want O'Donnell in the Senate over Crybaby Castle:

She would vote conservative. Period. Always. Socially, fiscally. Castle, not so much. He'd vote with us 25% of the time ... per his ratings. Then he'd go cry like lost kitten.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at November 04, 2010 02:10 PM (90bLF)

519 I don't understand how Dum Dum can support a "president" born in another country. That, by definition, is un-American.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 02:10 PM (LLZiU)

520 this thread has now officially become counter-productive.
Has become? It always was.

Posted by: Ronster at November 04, 2010 02:10 PM (9q4PA)

521 Karl Rove and the NRSC had nothing to do with O'Donnell's defeat.
I would add, ^ this has to be the single dumbest sentence of many that you have posed on this topic. But do regale us more with your sore loserism

dude, she lost by 16% points. Nothing the NRSC or Rover could have done would have made that much of a difference. 16% is a thrashing.

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 02:11 PM (wuv1c)

522
Mitt was my gov for four years and did not govern as a lib, which was hard to do in MA.

This staunch conservative would indeed characterize Mitt as a conservative. A lot of Mitt's negaitves come from 'widely-held beliefs' and repeated mis-truths. He has his faults, but he ain't some liberal.

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:11 PM (uFokq)

523 This DrewM guy is the most pretentious jackass "conservative" short of David Frum and David Brooks. It's time he got over O'Donnel beating the hell out of Castle. It's smarmy as hell to assert that Castle winning would mean anything, that guy was Obama's bucket boy on all the big issues.

Posted by: Matt X at November 04, 2010 02:11 PM (g+4m8)

524 483
Hey Dum Dum, is your ass still sore from Tuesday?

His ass is always sore IYKWIMAITYD. He has female/male anatomy confused.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 04, 2010 02:11 PM (9hSKh)

525 Yeah, and can we put this "no con is gonna win in a blue state to rest". In NY at least 5 and hopefully 6 got elected, with a massive drag at the top of the ticket. They were good smart candidates.
If the NY Republican and Conservative parties actually gave a shit, they could've won more.

Posted by: Iblis at November 04, 2010 02:11 PM (9221z)

526 I like Mitt Romney and I think he'd make an excellent president. Not ashamed to admit it, either.



Posted by: Soothsayer



Obama/Romney 2012:

Show unity in the face of adversity, the American people before party, blah blah, wah wah...

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 04, 2010 02:11 PM (BTyMb)

527 514
That is the prize. Keep your eye on the prize.

Exactly!

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 02:12 PM (xc0ds)

528 Sorry, but you're mistaken. Castle was well ahead in the primary
polling at 60%till Palin and the TPE came in late with very high
profile support.

The polls were wildly off. I don't think any predicted that O'Donnell would win by 6 even a few days earlier. The highest she ever got was +2 in one poll.

When Palin and TPE threw in their support, we had already had several 1000+ flamewars over O'Donnell and Castle. The word was out.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 04, 2010 02:12 PM (FkKjr)

529 oh boy, War......!

Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 04, 2010 02:12 PM (CjjL4)

530 We're 300 posts into this thread and there are still ZERO reasons given
by anyone why we would want this woman as one of our leaders.

You want a leader? Join a marching fucking band. What we need are people making the laws that aren't out to steal our fucking lunch money at every turn.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 02:12 PM (5aa4z)

531 523
dude, she lost by 16% points. Nothing the NRSC or Rover could have
done would have made that much of a difference. 16% is a thrashing.

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 02:11 PM (wuv1c)
The people who think Karl Rove cost COD the election are the same people who spent the last days before the election posting about how she was closing the gap and might still pull this thing out. So you know they're astonishingly intelligent.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 02:12 PM (U+goV)

532 Mallamutt.
Exactly, we have no one to blame but Republican voters for McCain.
Well Republican voters and also the huge pool of diverse candidates which split the conservative vote.
If the primaries were McCain, Romney and Huckabee from the outset, Huckabee or Romney would have won. However since the Fred, Ron Paul, Hunter and Giuliuni help split the various conservative votes between them, we ended up with McCain.

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 02:14 PM (wuv1c)

533 532
We're 300 posts into this thread and there are still ZERO reasons given
by anyone why we would want this woman as one of our leaders.

You
want a leader? Join a marching fucking band. What we need are people
making the laws that aren't out to steal our fucking lunch money at
every turn.


Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 02:12 PM (5aa4z)
OK, so now we're 532+ posts into the thread without any reasons why we'd want Christine O'Donnell as one of our leaders. Thanks for reminding me.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 02:14 PM (U+goV)

534 A lot of Mitt's negaitves come from 'widely-held beliefs' and repeated mis-truths.

A--Romney Care
B--I was pro-choice before I voted against it

That's all I need. He's a fucking opportunistic mook in funny underwear. And he looks too much like George Hamilton to ever be taken seriously.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 02:14 PM (5aa4z)

535 Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 04, 2010 02:06 PM (CjjL4)

(Snicker.)

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 04, 2010 02:14 PM (xxgag)

536
Romney/Guilliani/Wicket

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:14 PM (uFokq)

537 I got banned for making use of a racist term in a joke. I won't do that again, sorry to disappoint.
You deserved to be banned for a lot more than your shitty racist jokes you dick-licking worthless son of bitch. Come on why don't you insult more people about their miscarriages.
And for claiming you won't do that again is hilarious since yesterday you were posting about "ragheads andAfrican babies" in a derogatory way werent you you loser fluffer for your daddy's porn job.

Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 02:15 PM (oVQFe)

538 DrewM, now that the election is over it's an excellent post. I agree with a lot of it. She did run a poor campaign. Rush Limbaugh was right when he said she should have wiggled her nose at the end of the 'I'm not a witch' ad. Had fun with it. It also seemed like some of her campaign staff were clueless.

The state was also very blue. The other GOP candidate lost his/her race as well. I'm not sure how you lose by 16 points without a huge gaffe moment. Despite what has been said she didn't come off as stupid or terrible to most people I talked to.

Was she the perfect candidate. Certainly not, but again I agree her loss had little to do with her. I think Castle would have lost and even if he did win in this gridlocked Senate he most certainly would be a huge liability in terms of flipping to Democrat.

I still disagree with you and believe that people on the right being negative had no effect. When someone as high profile as Karl Rove gets on Fox News the night of the primary election and trashes O'Donnell it will suppress the vote. When sites like this put up negative or navel gazing posts during the election it weakens the GOTV efforts that same site is pushing. Was it the ultimate factor or even a huge one? Of course not, but still unwarranted and unwise.

Whether I'm right or not it's time to put away the knives. Celebrate our crushing of Pelosi. Then roll up our sleeves for 2012.

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at November 04, 2010 02:15 PM (WZFkG)

539 Oh great, War's here, I guess Tattoo won't be far behind.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 02:15 PM (LLZiU)

540 It's because Kirk was running against a marginally-experienced mob banker, while Brady was up against the incumbent governor with deeper ties to the Daley machine. Had nothing to do with ideology
As someone in Illinois, I think this statement is well, wrong.

Quinn is not necessarily a favorite of the machine. He started out as a reformer who took on the machine. They are not exactly buddies. Ali G. may have been a mob banker, but, Quinn campaigned on the fact that he was going to raise your taxes. I call that a draw in negative.

The real difference was that Kirk pulled more votes out the collar counties than Brady. And this may have everything to do with ideology, as the collar counties tend to be more moderate leaning.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 02:15 PM (OWjjx)

541 You keep using this word "leader".

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 02:15 PM (5aa4z)

542 How did those moderate Republicans do out in California? I doubt the Republican that ran in Oregon was a firebrand conservative, and he lost big. Those that want to play the demographic analysis always seem to leave out the moderates that lose. Moderate Republiacn presidents that lost: McCain, Dole, Bush Sr. It was Dubya's support of liberal agenda like amnesty and more spending that helpedset up Obama fpr victory.
So enough of the lectures about demograhpics until moderates show they can win. If Castle was the man, he should have been able to beat the "awful" candidate O'Donnel.

Posted by: Matt X at November 04, 2010 02:15 PM (g+4m8)

543 Did Christine come close to winning or was it that wave thing pushing her "serf" board? Her loss was worth tempering that smarmy arsed Rove. If he were so good, how is it that Obama took the nation over? Karl, for better or for worse, it's still our country.

Posted by: Don L at November 04, 2010 02:15 PM (8BgYr)

544 Mitt is a handsome man.

Which is not a bad thing.

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:16 PM (uFokq)

545 Oh goody. Dum Dum and O'Donnell. This is what Ace's site must be like in hell.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at November 04, 2010 02:16 PM (KDS3E)

546 I like Mitt Romney and I think he'd make an excellent president.

I like Mitt Romney and I think he'd make a lousy president.

Posted by: arhooley, future ex-Californian at November 04, 2010 02:16 PM (OzY4y)

547 Drew:
Why is it OK for so-called establishment "moderate" RINO's to screw over the conservative, even after the primary? What's thedamn point of it then?
Yes, she probably still would have lost, but don't tell me Rove et al didn't take several percentage points away from her.
As for the hope the Castle stays in line once elected in a close Senate, I have two words for you: Jim Jeffords.

Posted by: Francase at November 04, 2010 02:16 PM (tf9Ne)

548 Come on, you knew this post was coming. It's been a decent interval but let us get it over with and move on.
This was posted to do nothing more than stir up shit. This is one of the first sites I come to in my day, and all this does is stir animosity. Why? What is the point? We had a hell of a win Tuesday, and instead of allowing the good feelings to thrive, at least for a while, you had to shit in the sandbox.
It's disgusting, hateful juvenile. It's like a bully on the playground who can't get his jollys unless he's beating up a younger, smaller kid.
Fuck you, DaveM. You're a sniveling, little brat.

Posted by: Steph at November 04, 2010 02:17 PM (ZfkPl)

549 this thread has now officially become counter-productive.

Says you and what army?

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 04, 2010 02:17 PM (xxgag)

550 How did those moderate Republicans do out in California? I doubt the Republican that ran in Oregon was a firebrand conservative, and he lost big. Those that want to play the demographic analysis always seem to leave out the moderates that lose. Moderate Republiacn presidents that lost: McCain, Dole, Bush Sr. It was Dubya's support of liberal agenda like amnesty and more spending that helpedset up Obama fpr victory.
Name me the last real conservative Senator from California please?

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 02:17 PM (wuv1c)

551 *obviously I meant "had an effect" not "had no effect".

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at November 04, 2010 02:17 PM (WZFkG)

552
One more thing, speaking of handsome guvners...

All you Texans who complain about Rick Perry: I would give my left nut to have him as my gov.

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:17 PM (uFokq)

553
dude, she lost by 16% points. Nothing the NRSC or Rover could have
done would have made that much of a difference. 16% is a thrashing.

Posted by: Ben



Which is about the same margin by which moderate Fiorina lost to Boxer in blue California.

So, if Republican conservatives can't win in a blue state, and Republican liberal/moderates can't win in a blue state, what's option C?

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 04, 2010 02:18 PM (BTyMb)

554 As for why support O'Donnell? Because she was neither Chris Coons nor Mike Castle, who are essentially indistinguishable.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 02:18 PM (5aa4z)

555 Mitt is a handsome man. Which is not a bad thing.
Dude, what's going on? Are you one of Romney's kids of something.
I kinda like him to, albeit as not in my top 5 choices, but jeez.

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 02:18 PM (wuv1c)

556 You need to get acquainted with another blue-stater named Ron Johnson.

I've lived in Wisconsin for the past year and worked on the ground a bit in Madison (a blue stronghold), and I have seen firsthand how demographics and attitudes in that state have shifted positively towards the GOP as part of a long-running natural trend. Remember, Bush came agonizingly close to winning WI twice -- by a couple thousand votes in 2004! -- and Feingold had heretofore been fortunate in his reelection campaigns (in fact nearly losing in 1998 to Mark Neumann in a bad year for the GOP...Neumann might have won in if the impeachment push hadn't spooked the national electorate out of its normal behavior).

The Democrats have had control of the statehouse for eight years at this point, and owned both chambers of the legislature due to the wipeout years of '06 and '08. But Gov. "Diamond" Jim Doyle was now SO unpopular that he stood down and the party cajoled Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett to be the sacrificial lamb. He never had a chance against a guy with the profile of Scott Walker, who stunned the state back in 2002 by winning a snap election to become a reformist Republican Milwaukee County Executive (imagine an arrangement like where a blue state grows to appreciate having a red governor in order to keep things from getting out of hand). Walker's campaign was even more successful than Johnson's, which tells you something.

Anyway, I'm just saying...I know a little something about the voting history of these states. I don't need to be educated by you.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 02:18 PM (NjYDy)

557 COD perpetuated some of the worst stereotypes about Conservatism.

Posted by: Holger at November 04, 2010 02:18 PM (V9Q+f)

558 158
I 100% blame the RNC. Why is our choice between a complete RINO and an
unprepared conservative in the first place. If they did their jobs and
tried to recruit candidates who were both polished and moderately
conservative, we wouldn't be put in this dilemma in the first place


Posted by: Rhode Island and Providence Plantations at November 04, 2010 01:04 PM (8s9tr)

THIS!The Tea party needs to be recruiting and grooming* candidates starting NOW.The Tea Party started late - as a reaction to Obama's policies and an out-of-control congress. In 2012, we will not have had the excuse "We didn't have enough time or expertise to get together a really strong slate (an inaccurate and inadequate excuse anyway - we didn't do badly at all, really).
We have two years to get a slate of candidates ready at the local, state and national levels. If we don't have good candidates ready then, it will be OUR fault, and no one else's.* Not coopting them, just teaching them rhetoric, extemporaneous speaking, how to deal with the media, wardrobe selection and things like that.P.S. I didn't mention the GOP because I don't think letting those assholes pick our candidates is anything but a formula for failure.

Posted by: Josef K. at November 04, 2010 02:18 PM (7+pP9)

559 HotAir just linked this post in their headlines.
**adjusts junk**
**checks for nose hairs in mirror**
**checks breath in palm of hands**

Posted by: dananjcon at November 04, 2010 02:18 PM (pr+up)

560 >OK, so now we're 532+ posts into the thread without any reasons why we'd
want Christine O'Donnell as one of our leaders. Thanks for reminding
me.


I thought she was cute.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 02:19 PM (LLZiU)

561 Joe Biden's average victory margin since 1978 was 22 points. O'Donnell lost by 16.

She beat the spread.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at November 04, 2010 02:19 PM (90bLF)

562 Name me the last real conservative Senator from California please?

B-1 Bob.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 02:19 PM (5aa4z)

563 Which is about the same margin by which moderate Fiorina lost to Boxer in blue California.So, if Republican conservatives can't win in a blue state, and Republican liberal/moderates can't win in a blue state, what's option C?Fiorina ran as pro-like pro gun if i am not mistaken, that doesn't strike me as liberal or even moderate

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 02:19 PM (wuv1c)

564 "So, if Republican conservatives can't win in a blue state, and
Republican liberal/moderates can't win in a blue state, what's option C?"


--- there isnt one, give em an obligatory hand-shake and say "good luck man".

it's all you can do. mass. kept barney frank in for god's sakes.

Posted by: skr8 outta at November 04, 2010 02:19 PM (icVev)

565 Drew, I'll agree with your central point...time for COD so ease into the background and do what she can locally to advance conservative principles.

As the the underlying point, it's as if your sister is getting beat up by your neighborhood friends and you not only don't defend her, you get a couple of shots in yourself because at some point in the past she gave you a wedgie and ratted out your crush on your 6th grade teacher.

And to anyone who claims to be a conservative but says they would have or at least considered voting for Coons...we already have Frumsie, KPark, CBuck, and CPowell...the RINO bus is full, so go ahead and take the blue pill.

Posted by: The Hammer at November 04, 2010 02:19 PM (32ubA)

566 *obviously I meant "had an effect" not "had no effect".

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at November 04, 2010 02:17 PM (WZFkG)
But you wrote "had no effect". It was semi-beautiful, man.

Posted by: Shake at November 04, 2010 02:19 PM (G/MYk)

567 I'm not wading through the last 200 or so comments since I last posted (Christ, don't any of you have jobs??), so if this has already be hashed out I apologize. Dr Eviler asked "If Castle was so dynamic, why couldn't he win the primary?" Allow me to suggest that a small sliver (primary voters) of a small sliver (Delaware Republicans) might not be the best sample for who stands a good chance to win a statewide election. If you want to argue that you'd rather Coons win than vote for Castle, then OK. I'd disagree, but your position is coherent. Claiming that O'Donnell was the better candidate because she won a Republican primary in a heavily Dem state, though, makes no sense.

Posted by: radar at November 04, 2010 02:19 PM (sWEaY)

568 The Republican GOP has gone BMP....the Beta Male Party.And certainly not worthy of the Conservative vote.

Well, I did endorse John McCain. How bout that?


Posted by: Palin at November 04, 2010 02:20 PM (EL+OC)

569
he was a rep

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:20 PM (uFokq)

570 I got banned for making use of a racist term in a joke. I won't do that again, sorry to disappoint.

Yes you were banned not your IP. Now we have your work IP.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 04, 2010 02:20 PM (0q2P7)

571 556
As for why support O'Donnell? Because she was neither Chris Coons nor Mike Castle, who are essentially indistinguishable.


Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 02:18 PM (5aa4z)
Well, that was pretty much her whole campaign message this year and it really helped her.....get her ass kicked in the election.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 02:20 PM (U+goV)

572 I 100% blame the RNC. Why is our choice between a complete RINO and an unprepared conservative in the first place
Because he was the only proven republican winner in Delware

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 02:20 PM (wuv1c)

573 O'Donnell was a lousy candidate. She had a sketchy personal story, no
record of achievement before coming to the race and no real ability to
further the conservative message.



Before I continue off-track with the rest; I do agree with this.



"We're 300 posts into this thread and there are still ZERO reasons given
by anyone why we would want this woman as one of our leaders. Her
supporters can only talk about Coons and Castle." Posted by: robviously

Now, your position is we should want Castle as one of our leaders? How many posts do we have showing why Castle is a brilliant leader who we need as a Republican Senator? That a squish trending liberal shooting for an ACU rating average in the 30's or lower is good?

O'Donnell was not a good candidate and her current whining is non-productive... I'll grant you that. She wouldn't make a good leader for the Republicans, I'll grant that too.

But Castle? Jeez give me a choice I can tolerate.

Posted by: Gekkobear at November 04, 2010 02:20 PM (7TZuc)

574 The media used COD to perpetuated some of the worst stereotypes about Conservatism.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 02:20 PM (5aa4z)

575 4. Organization. From afar (my vantage point)
O'Donnell never seemed to make the transistion from insurgent
campaigner to serious candidate. Campaign organizations that start off
as insurgent just run differently, they are allowed to be more of a
firebrander........because they lack money and need to motivate the
troops to pull off the upset. Once she became the nominee, however, she
needed to transistion from insurgent campaign to something different,
with more discipline and cohesion. One of the problems for O'Donnell
(and Angle) was that neither could really stay on message for extended
period of time. Ron Johnson's campaign in Wisconsin is the model all
insurgent campaigns should use. Johnson went from outside nobody to
Senator elect by developing campaign discipline and staying on message.
Once it became clear to Johnson that he was going to be the Republican
nominee, he tightened up the organization, developed a clear message
and stayed on message.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 12:48 PM (OWjjx)

This..This more than anything is why.And the Karl Rove thing didn't help either.

Posted by: Dave C at November 04, 2010 02:20 PM (poJjg)

576 Oh Great, was it betamale beckpalinjesus hatin' allah who linked or the other guy?

Posted by: dagny at November 04, 2010 02:21 PM (mDISt)

577 564
Name me the last real conservative Senator from California please?

George Murphy?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 02:21 PM (xc0ds)

578 I still disagree with you and believe that people on the right being negative had no effect. When someone as high profile as Karl Rove gets on Fox News the night of the primary election and trashes O'Donnell it will suppress the vote. When sites like this put up negative or navel gazing posts during the election it weakens the GOTV efforts that same site is pushing. Was it the ultimate factor or even a huge one? Of course not, but still unwarranted and unwise.
It's demoralizing.... even when it's not your state or your candidate....the bratty cruelty makes you take two steps back and look hard at the powers that be. There is a good reason people would rather say they're independents, conservatives, Tea Partiers instead of Republicans or GOPers.Rove's and like behaviors are one reason why.

Posted by: EZB at November 04, 2010 02:21 PM (Ty06w)

579
I got banned for making use of a racist term in a joke. I won't do that again, sorry to disappoint.

Sorry, you will. Why do you think we call you Dum-Dum?

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 02:21 PM (OWjjx)

580 here's what I wonder ......
what do you think the % breakdown is of readers here at the HQ that are male vs. female?
now, what is the breakdown % of men vs. woman that revel in these sort of 'you suck!' 'no, YOU suck!' chaotic purity threads.
men, let's move the fuck on already.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 04, 2010 02:21 PM (CjjL4)

581 I think we can all agree that Herr Morgenholz is a giant pussy.
Concur.

Hey wait!


Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 02:09 PM (5aa4z)
I suggest you check the link at 489 before you go making wild allegations like that.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 04, 2010 02:21 PM (xxgag)

582 Well, that was pretty much her whole campaign message this year and it really helped her.....get her ass kicked in the election.

And Mike Castle's message of...well...he didn't have one, really carried him in the primary.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 04, 2010 02:22 PM (FkKjr)

583 523dude, she lost by 16% points. Nothing the NRSC or Rover could have done would have made that much of a difference.
Dude, the party elders attack on ODonnell signalled to mods and indes that it was OK to pass on the COD-Coons race, or to vote for Coons. It signalled to sore loser Castle that it was ok TO withhold an endorsement, and it signalled to establishment donors to take their money elsewhere. In short, they killed her nomination in the cradle. No one, not even RINO superestar Mike Castle, could have won that race had Rove and company did the same to him. That 16 point loss ison the sore losers who went out of their way to make sure that she lost.
Payback, as always, will be a bitch.

Posted by: louis tully at November 04, 2010 02:22 PM (K/USr)

584 Only 580 comments? You're all disappointments. Your mom and I are embarrassed.

*Shakes head. Steps out*

Posted by: Editor at November 04, 2010 02:22 PM (pUfK9)

585 DrewM can lick the sweat from my uneducated, naive, Tea Party-supporting balls.
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at November 04, 2010 02:09 PM (G5qLy)

Hey genius...how do you explain my early support for Rubio? My cheerleading for Ron Johnson? My beating the crap out of Lisa MurCOKESKI on behalf of Joe Miller? The 6 or 7 profile pieces I did promoting grassroots, tea party House candidates?

I didn't swollow the Christine O'Donnell Kool-Aid and that's all that matters?

Good fucking luck if you think that unimpressive idiot with no accomplishments should be the model for conservatism moving forward.

This blind loyalty and unquestioning support for an idiot is something we laughed at Democrats for with Obama. It's not any more attractive or intelligent coming from the right.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 02:22 PM (HicGG)

586
Karl Rove and the NRSC had nothing to do with O'Donnell's defeat.

I would add, ^ this has to be the single dumbest sentence of many
that you have posed on this topic. But do regale us more with your sore
loserism.
How magnificent a bastard do you think he is?

Posted by: arhooley, future ex-Californian at November 04, 2010 02:22 PM (OzY4y)

587 You know this DrewM guy can't make a logical conservative case for Castle so he resorts to sneering at the rest of us, accusing of us of thinking he's a RINO. He seems a bit defensive, and that's precisely because he knows he has no argument that holds up. Your conservative credentials are up for debate if you think Castle being elected would have big win for us.

Posted by: Matt X at November 04, 2010 02:22 PM (g+4m8)

588
COD perpetuated some of the worst stereotypes about Conservatism.


Posted by: Holger at November 04, 2010 02:18 PM (V9Q+f)

For shit she said as a teenager?

Posted by: Timbo at November 04, 2010 02:22 PM (ph9vn)

589 On planet Chulak, we start new threads in a timely manner.

Posted by: Teal'c at November 04, 2010 02:23 PM (wLq9E)

590 Why do you think we call you Dum-Dum?

--

Because you guys mindlessly follow ace's commands?

Posted by: donkeyhotay at November 04, 2010 02:23 PM (utVkB)

591 Dammit with this "leader" thing!

They're fucking employees!! Treat them that way, you snivelling shits!! Act like free fucking men!

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 02:23 PM (5aa4z)

592 All you Texans who complain about Rick Perry: I would give my left nut to have him as my gov.


Give me your nut and move to TX.

Posted by: Lance Armstrong at November 04, 2010 02:23 PM (Ncv/n)

593 aw, Sparky Anderson has passed. God speed, Spark.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 04, 2010 02:23 PM (CjjL4)

594 This..
This more than anything is why.
And the Karl Rove thing didn't help either.
See point 2. I think the Rove thing just gave those who had a negative view of O’Donnell an excuse to reinforce that view without really examining it.

“Oh, Karl Rove thinks she is too extreme, and I think Karl Rove is too extreme, therefore, she must be too extreme and I am not going to listen to her or what she has to say.”

Rove did not beat her single handily…but he did not help.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 02:23 PM (OWjjx)

595 Drew's penance for this shoud be to give us a GLOAT THREAD. And/or Shave the Ewok.

Posted by: Iblis at November 04, 2010 02:24 PM (9221z)

596 Hey, arhooley. When I saw the story about the Qantas A380 engine explosion I immediately thought of you.

Posted by: Editor at November 04, 2010 02:24 PM (pUfK9)

597 Rove, the GOP establishment, and their followers say that Delaware primary voters acted stupidly.

Posted by: tsj017 at November 04, 2010 02:24 PM (4YUWF)

598 Add in no endorsementfrom her
primary opponent
Posted by: polynikes at November 04, 2010 02:21 PM (m2CN7)
Castle went all the way up to the line of openly contemplating a write-in candidacy.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at November 04, 2010 02:24 PM (G/MYk)

599 Just think, if women weren't able to vote we wouldn't have threads such as this.

Posted by: Barbarian at November 04, 2010 02:24 PM (EL+OC)

600 Because you guys mindlessly follow ace's commands?
I really missed your feeble attempts at humor.


Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 02:25 PM (OWjjx)

601
Always get him confused with Sparky Lyle.

Is Sparky Lyle dead?

I know Lyle Alzado is dead.

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:25 PM (uFokq)

602 BTW I voted for Romney in the primary and still like him as a potential candidate. I thought he could beat Obama and had a much more electable personage than McCain. He was conservative enough if we had held the legislature.

Castle, OTOH, not so much. But hey, that's just my 23 year old opinion as one who would rather not have a debt that will be not be paid off by my great grandchildren.

I know what'll give me credibility! Tattoos and gay friends!

Posted by: AlexC at November 04, 2010 02:25 PM (ybnTQ)

603 Christine O'Donnell as a leader?
I don't need any fucking leader. I don't need any followers either. I need legislators who stay the fuck out of my way.
Need a leader? Join a cult.

Posted by: maddogg at November 04, 2010 02:25 PM (OlN4e)

604
if you had twin boys, would you name them Kyle Lyle?

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:25 PM (uFokq)

605 602
Just think, if women weren't able to vote we wouldn't have threads such as this.

or hold office.

Posted by: Barbarian at November 04, 2010 02:25 PM (EL+OC)

606 DrewM.,

I think you're a fake conservative in tea party's clothing. You're a fraud. Your support for Rubio hardly garners you any points because his opponent was Crist. Your bashing of Christine O Donnell exposes your true RINOness within.


Posted by: donkeyhotay at November 04, 2010 02:25 PM (utVkB)

607 Posted by: Barbarian

HELP STAMP OUT WOMEN'S SUFFERAGE!
Can you real suffer women to suffer?

Posted by: Iblis at November 04, 2010 02:26 PM (9221z)

608 aw, Sparky Anderson has passed. God speed, Spark.
Too bad. Prays and thought for his family.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 02:26 PM (OWjjx)

609 AOSHQ, and others, did a lot to hurt O'Donnell.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale

Calling bullshit. Ace from the start said she was weak. We all knew it. If you thought she could will you were delusional.

I am not saying she shouldn't have run but, she should know better than to start playing the victim. Victimology doesn't mesh with the movement.

Besides, if you want to win in a blue start, you are going to have to start playing by their rules: rigging the voting machines, having trunk loads of lost ballots, etc, etc.

Posted by: sTevo at November 04, 2010 02:26 PM (ETZtF)

610 The real motive behind Drew's post is that he and Ace supported Castle and were blindsided by O'Donnell. Rather than man up, they have not been able to let it go. Drew especially is pathetic.

Me, I support the Repub once he gets the nod. And I believe that's what Ace said when he said vote straight ticket.

I guess you support the Repub if he was your choice in the primary.

You're a worse crybaby than Castle because at least after his first caterwaul has shut up and sucked his thumb.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at November 04, 2010 02:26 PM (90bLF)

611 The main reason that Allahpundit and Ace of Spades and DrewM hate O'Donnel is that she questions evolution. Thou shalt not question Darwinism. That's a big issue to them, and the retarded voters in DE, even when the economy is in the toilet.

Posted by: Matt X at November 04, 2010 02:26 PM (g+4m8)

612 581
The people who think Karl Rove cost COD the
election are the same people who spent the last days before the election
posting about how she was closing the gap and might still pull this
thing out. So you know they're astonishingly intelligent.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 02:12 PM (U+goV)
Karl Rove was just part of the effort to discredit
COD. Add in Krauthaummer anda number of conservative blogs. Add in no
endorsementfrom her primary opponent or real help from the state GOP.
If Castle was the candidate and got the same treatment, he would have
been crushed.


Posted by: polynikes at November 04, 2010 02:21 PM (m2CN7)
So you're pretty confident that Rove managed to derail her campaign with his one interview the night she won the primary? Or that Mike Castle's endorsement would have closed a 16 point gap? Wow, those guys must be awfully persuasive.Also, I wouldn't list how she *would have voted* as a reason to believe in her. She can say whatever she wants but her list of accomplishments is still blank.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 02:26 PM (U+goV)

613 I'm fairly sure the average Delaware voter couldn't give two shits about anything Karl Rove says or does. The blog world does, but I think people let that delude them into thinking that the blog world has a lot more influence on random people than it actually does.

Posted by: radar at November 04, 2010 02:27 PM (sWEaY)

614 It's not about winning seats with people with "R"s its actually getting legislation moving our way. You act as if winning a seat with a RINO is all plus and no minus. Well their are serious minuses. Including emboldening liberal behavior in our caucus.
Demand 100% purity from those in blue districts and they'll be replaced by Dems, resulting in a very pure permanent minority.
That doesn't mean they shouldn't be expected to vote as conservative as they can get away with- especiallywhen we need their vote the most. Castle probably could've gotten re-elected even if he voted against Cap and Tax. Still, it's very much a case of "lesser of two evils", and Coons is by far the bigger devil compared to Castle.
We simply can't gain and maintain a Senate majority with only 100% conservative candidates- there are simply too many blue states for that to happen.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 02:27 PM (plsiE)

615 Just think, if women weren't able to vote we wouldn't have threads such as this.or hold office.
you're a one trick pony asshole.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 04, 2010 02:27 PM (CjjL4)

616 "really" not "real"

Posted by: Iblis at November 04, 2010 02:27 PM (9221z)

617 I'm a Romney supporter, he's been my Governor, and he's by far the most competent and qualified of the "likely-to-runs". He's pro-Life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-States rights, anti-Amnesty, and pretty much every other "Conservative" box you could check.
The difference between him and most of his likely competitors is that he's never had a job in Washington and has created tens of thousands of real private sector jobs. While he sadly has no Military experience, he's a relative hawk on Defense matters.
(Not to mention that he's lived amidst the hostile Northeast press for decades and they've yet to catch him in a scandal, so hopefully there won't be any "October surprises".)
I know he's not everyone's cup of tea, but he's no Liberal. I think that a lot of the name-calling/attempted marginalization comes from people realizing that if he gets going, then their candidate is probably toast.

Posted by: Lincolntf at November 04, 2010 02:27 PM (V/C0X)

618 I'd much rather have a few hard souls fighting my fight in the senate than a bunch of squishy ones who WON'T fight my fight when the time comes.

From now on, I have NO CHEESE for the usual RINO dupes/suckers or chameleons. THIS way we stand of chance of scaring some of the squishy types who remain straight.

As it is we have a fairly effective blocking force deployed in the senate. Don't get greedy for more, just use what you need so you have a record of opposition to leftist horseshit to run on in 2012 to encourage EVEN MORE pickups in the senate.

Posted by: cackfinger at November 04, 2010 02:27 PM (Elbt6)

619 517
DrewM can lick the sweat from my uneducated, naive, Tea Party-supporting balls.

More of this too.

Posted by: Dave C at November 04, 2010 02:27 PM (poJjg)

620 In 2012, Delaware's other seat, occupied by Tom Carper, comes up for election.
On the Dem side, two things could happen, I think: (1) Carper elects to run for another term or (2) Carper elects to retire, and Joe Biden's son, Beau, runs in his stead. Both Dem candidates are strong vote-getters here, like it or not.
On the GOP side, there is no candidate, much less candidates, who has won a state-wide race except Castle. Would he try another race for the Senate? Hard to say. In addition to the Senate seat, the House seat won by Carney will be up for election again, and the Governor and Lt. Governor offices will be contested, also.
I wouldn't be surprised to see O'Donnell run for the Senate here in 2012, win the nomination
more or less by default, and get beaten again in the general election.

Posted by: ya2daup at November 04, 2010 02:27 PM (UzjcV)

621 As far as I'm concerned the chief lesson the R leadership should learn from these last 3 elections is that when Conservatives don't like the candidate they stay home but when the elite don't like a candidate they vote for the Dem. Despite that in 2006 and 2008 we lost big but in 2010 we won large.

Imagine what it would look like if the elites actually practiced what they incessantly preach and support the winner of their own damn primary?




Posted by: Rocks at November 04, 2010 02:28 PM (Q1lie)

622 Everyone stop criticizing me for losing the primary to CD. I shouldn't have had to run for the nomination. I'm fucking Mike Castle!!! It was my turn to be Senator, I'd been a Congressman long enough. I don't know what happened, maybe I should have campaigned, or not been such a douche.

Posted by: Mike Castle at November 04, 2010 02:28 PM (LLZiU)

623 Now, your position is we should want Castle as one of our leaders? How many posts do we have showing why Castle is a brilliant leader who we need as a Republican Senator? That a squish trending liberal shooting for an ACU rating average in the 30's or lower is good?
Sorry but pointing out that O'Donnell is flawed and not a good choice for standard bearer is not the same as saying you want Castle as it instead. This is a false choice people are attempting to place in. Its not an A or B option. It may have been in the Primary but in the real world who you want leading you is not limited to an either or choice. gw

Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 02:28 PM (oVQFe)

624 I think you're a fake conservative in tea party's clothing.

You also think living off your parents means you're "self-sufficient".

Posted by: Waterhouse at November 04, 2010 02:28 PM (8P1HU)

625 now, what is the breakdown % of men vs. woman that revel in these sort of 'you suck!' 'no, YOU suck!' chaotic purity threads.

The concept that this argument can even be settled, let alone in a comment thread on a blog, is ridiculous.

I said it before, I'm saying it again: airlift Blue Hen out and nuke Delaware from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Posted by: Ian S. at November 04, 2010 02:28 PM (p05LM)

626 Drew, will you be working for Castle and Murkcokehead next election cycle?

Stay classy!

Posted by: 13times at November 04, 2010 02:29 PM (h6XiD)

627 In case you people haven't realized, Ace himself is not 'out of it' at all...his commentary on Twitter agrees with my POV 100% and is TEN TIMES AS HARSH. Check it out.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 04, 2010 02:29 PM (NjYDy)

628 you're a one trick pony asshole.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 04, 2010 02:27 PM (CjjL4)

Better than just a trick I would say.

Posted by: Barbarian at November 04, 2010 02:29 PM (EL+OC)

629
men, let's move the fuck on already.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 04, 2010 02:21 PM (CjjL4)

OK!Seriously, though ... I think its time to file an after action report and try to quit repeating the same mistakes in 2012.We really need a thread about what people - whether as the Tea Party or not - can do to get better candidates next time, and better prepare them to run effective campaigns. Ace has admitted he has no administrative skills, but other morons might. How can those of us who get up before noon help get a better slate of candidates selected and prepared for 2012?

Posted by: Josef K. at November 04, 2010 02:29 PM (7+pP9)

630 So, if Republican conservatives can't win in a blue state, and
Republican liberal/moderates can't win in a blue state, what's option C?

Someone with the ideas of Fiorina/Whitman and the charisma of Schwarzenegger. Our candidates were soggy sandwiches.

Posted by: arhooley, future ex-Californian at November 04, 2010 02:29 PM (OzY4y)

631 The most glaringly stupid thing about her making the disunity excuse is that she ran as a write-in candidate two years ago after losing the primary. I really don't want to hear about a lack of unity from a person who demands it but never gets around to giving it.
Let's straighten it out right now. She ran in 2006 as a write-in after losing the primary. The Republican nominee at that time was a super-liberal Mike Castle protege who wound up supporting Obama only two years later and got kicked out of the DE Republican party. Perhaps she had the foresight to see that conservatives weren't going to be served in any fashion by that guy. In which case, why support him.
She ran in 2008 against Biden.
It appears to me that the DE Republican party is a really screwed up institution and probably only served as a Mike Castle campaign extension.

Posted by: Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz at November 04, 2010 02:30 PM (4JpPD)

632 Want me to hold her down so you can kick her some more?
Whew, she really bothers you guys.

Posted by: Jaynie59 at November 04, 2010 02:30 PM (YjQWV)

633 Can explain the benefit of the next Senate being led by the GOP?

Posted by: Tom at November 04, 2010 02:30 PM (wj+Hw)

634 Christine O'D did one thing, she got Castle. Win.

And before you put up the straw man Purity crap, I've been trimming here in CA for a hella long time. If you can come up with ONE way Castle is even tolerable as a Republican, you get a cookie.

Stabbed Party in back on important votes in House - strike one
Refused to support party on repealing Obamacare and Card Check - strike two
A total zero otherwise in his zillion years in Congress - strike three.

This guy isn't a Rubio, or a Rudy Guiliani. He's a fossil that is worthless except for counting coup with other analysts. If COD is such a bad candidate, why did she beat him like a drum?

Posted by: Oldcat at November 04, 2010 02:30 PM (z1N6a)

635 I'm fucking Mike Castle!!!

I'm DOCTOR AMY FUCKING BISHOP. I feel your pain.

Posted by: DR Amy Fuckin Bishop at November 04, 2010 02:30 PM (9221z)

636 Go ahead a vote for someone that will vote against your interest over 50% of the time on big issues.
Posted by: polynikes at November 04, 2010 02:28 PM (m2CN7)


Which part of, "I can't vote in Delaware and neither can 99.9% of base conservatives in America" do you have trouble with.

You have to deal with the actual electorate as it exists not as you wish it did in some fantasy world. Why do you insist that we should push candidates that can't win with actual voters? What exactly does that prove?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 02:30 PM (HicGG)

637 An aside - I'll never get people who randomly capitalize entire words for no apparent reason.

Posted by: radar at November 04, 2010 02:30 PM (sWEaY)

638 Do we have any MMs who are in DE who can tell us the whys--wherefores as to people voting for Coons over O'Donnell? I'm more interested in the opinions of the people who are actually there than media speculation.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 02:30 PM (xc0ds)

639 I'd like to see republicans support republicans against democrats. I'm funny that way.

Posted by: dagny at November 04, 2010 02:31 PM (mDISt)

640 For shit she said as a teenager?


Posted by: Timbo at November 04, 2010 02:22 PM (ph9vn)
Yep. Them are the rules. Social Conservatives have to practice what they preach, they even have to practice it well before they started to preach it. They can never fail. In fact, their children can never fail (see Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol).

Posted by: Holger at November 04, 2010 02:31 PM (V9Q+f)

641 So what if Castle had won the Primary..

Then won the general election?

Where would that put the Republicans?

They would still be in the minority but he would be one more person in the Senate to "Get things done". The same way the Maine sisters, McCain and Graham get things done.

Well played, Drew.

Posted by: Dave C at November 04, 2010 02:31 PM (poJjg)

642 Better than just a trick I would say.
Why bite the hands that feeds? I hear for $10 more you can get a really special one that will take out her teeth.
Because you're a winner like that!

Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 04, 2010 02:31 PM (CjjL4)

643 Your mom and I are embarrassed. *Shakes head. Steps out*Posted by: Editor at November 04, 2010 02:22 PM (pUfK9)
Wow, it's just like being at home....

Posted by: donkeyhotay at November 04, 2010 02:31 PM (VmtE9)

644
I would hope that SOME on here would learn a lesson from the O'Donnell
and Angle disasters. We need to support good candidates, not any
crackpot who suddenly starts pandering to us.


Posted by: Chris R

Hope for yourself to learn the lesson that Angle in the Senate would certainly not be a disaster for constitutional conservatives, only for the Obamarx.

Pandering? That doesn't stick to Angle who certainly didn't pander to get votes. As if being honest meant she wasn't ready for prime time, the other smear from progressives.

You call her a crackpot for speaking her mind. THE SAME CRITIQUE APPLIES TO RUSH. And he's been on prime time for decades, yet by your definition doesn't qualify as ready. So why does Rush Limbaugh keep expressing his thoughts on air in such juvenile and offensive manners? Why choose his own arbitrary limit to 4 words or less, "I hope Obama fails," when to be on point the phrase wasn't complete without the conclusion. "I hope Obama fails to achieve Marxist governance." So Obama's spent the last two years whining when his own words poorly expressed get thrown back in his face. Hell, even Michael Savage granted the newly elected Potus Obama some grace, wishing him well.

Posted by: maverick muse at November 04, 2010 02:32 PM (H+LJc)

645 631
In case you people haven't realized,
Ace himself is not 'out of it' at all...his commentary on Twitter agrees
with my POV 100% and is TEN TIMES AS HARSH. Check it out.

Uh, dude, its the fucking Internet. Everyone has a point of view. They also have assholes. Who cares. Make with TEH FUNNY.

Posted by: DR Amy Fuckin Bishop at November 04, 2010 02:32 PM (9221z)

646 When I saw the story about the Qantas A380 engine explosion I immediately thought of you.

Posted by: Editor

Yikes! But don't worry, I'll be u-hauling.

Posted by: arhooley, future ex-Californian at November 04, 2010 02:32 PM (OzY4y)

647 And if Mike Castle supported and campaigned for O'Donnell perhaps the vote would have been closer.

Posted by: Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz at November 04, 2010 02:32 PM (4JpPD)

648 I guess when it comes down to it.
If my choice was COD getting crushed or Mike Castle potentailly winning, I would have taken Castle.
He's old, he'd only serve on term anyway.

Posted by: Ben at November 04, 2010 02:33 PM (wuv1c)

649 Blah, frikkin' blah, blah blah. Screw this noise. I'm not even a Conservative, but I still think the R's are better off without people like Castle. Those who call for going with Castle types in deep blue areas are promoting a Party, and not a cause. Until this ship is righted, the cause is far more important. So just be prepared to be told to get out of the way. A lot.

The "O'Donnel is a loon" bandwagon was jumped on heavily by many of you and then you had to start backtracking to "well, she didn't run a great campaign."

We've seen this play before: When Palin's presidency is long over, you people will be just like those poor, weepy bzstards at Reagan's funeral who just couldn't believe their personal hero (who they called a dunce in 1981) was gone.

Get used to it. If Palin runs, people who want to look all Frummity Frum brilliant, and tell us how "unserious" or "lacking in gravitas" or whatever, will just be elbowed aside. Not being snarky; it's just gonna happen. This quit being about "Republicans" a long time ago.

A quick and light review (and naturally, a thorough and deep review) of all past presidents shows that few were considered smart enough for the job by a large number of people, but most did quite well. The most "blindingly brilliant" of all (John Quincy Adams, Woodrow Wilson, Bill Clinton, Barak Obama) were less likely to be considered Mt. Rushmore material than some of the least educated.

You know this about history, and you know that we know you know it.

Posted by: K~Bob at November 04, 2010 02:33 PM (AJ9HO)

650 ...Obamarush

Posted by: maverick muse at November 04, 2010 02:33 PM (H+LJc)

651 People, people! Stop! Christine O'Donnell was a bad candidate unlike Mike Castle who, 1) believed in masturbation and proved it after he lost, 2) was not a dickless witch, 3) believed in evolution, citing Alan Grayson as proof, and 4) showed that crying like kitten on a tree limb is manly and shows senatorial qualfications.

Posted by: Karl Rove AKA Drew at November 04, 2010 02:33 PM (90bLF)

652 She should now STFU and go away and get a real job.

Ha, not a chance. And now, for the great -- GREAT GREAT! -- American panel!

Posted by: Sean Hannity at November 04, 2010 02:34 PM (OzY4y)

653 Sorry but pointing out that O'Donnell is flawed
and not a good choice for standard bearer is not the same as saying you
want Castle as it instead.
Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 02:28 PM (oVQFe)
The false choice starts with calling O'Donnell a "standard-bearer" or leader in any way. She was just one candidate to a position in a group that is composed, primarily, of non-leaders.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at November 04, 2010 02:34 PM (G/MYk)

654 And Drew, if you don't think the Dems had some dirt to drop on Castle if he'd won the primary, and they decided they needed that pickup, you are delusional. Good Old Boys in blue states are always vulnerable to the dirt coming out. Remember Packwood?

Posted by: Oldcat at November 04, 2010 02:34 PM (z1N6a)

655 582

I got banned for making use of a racist term in a joke. I won't do that again, sorry to disappoint.

Sorry, you will. Why do you think we call you Dum-Dum?
Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 02:21 PM (OWjjx)
He already did yesterday. I referenced it in comment 539.

Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 02:34 PM (oVQFe)

656 DrewM just wants to gloat over O'Donnel losing.Why else post this? He wants to annoy the "wingnuts" as he sees conservatives who are not "strategic thinkers" that focus on demographics. The election is over, and primaries in DE are not decided by DrewM.

Posted by: Matt X at November 04, 2010 02:34 PM (g+4m8)

657 I'll never get people who randomly capitalize entire words for no apparent reason.
I do it whenever I feel a THRILL run up my leg.

Posted by: Little Chrissy Manshoes at November 04, 2010 02:34 PM (xxgag)

658 625
As far as I'm concerned the chief lesson the R leadership should learn
from these last 3 elections is that when Conservatives don't like the
candidate they stay home but when the elite don't like a candidate they
vote for the Dem. Despite that in 2006 and 2008 we lost big but in 2010
we won large.

But someone could come along and say that the flip side of that is that people staying home gets us Obama, Nan, and Reid.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 02:34 PM (xc0ds)

659 I thought the prevailing theory was that you had the voters of your own party, you just had to win over the independents. She carried the independents but not her own party. Very bizarre.

Posted by: J at November 04, 2010 02:34 PM (T3/qP)

660 94
AOSHQ, and others, did a lot to hurt O'Donnell. Posted by: MCPO Airdale at November 04, 2010 12:52 PM (G5qLy)

I hate to burst our bubble, but well over 99% of the voters here in Delaware pay no attention - none - to blogs, so it is pointless to attribute any blame to any blog for O'Donnell's outcome, win or lose.
The voters do watch television, however, and unfortunately Christine had left enough calling cards scattered within the vaults of that medium that were brought out and spun based on the wishes of whoever created an ad, pro or con.

Posted by: ya2daup at November 04, 2010 02:35 PM (UzjcV)

661 Someone get up and change the channel.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at November 04, 2010 02:35 PM (KDS3E)

662 She wasn't a great candidate, but it is a deeply blue state where the local party has to make inroads and to develop candidates at the grass roots to make a long term difference (same with California and Maryland and a pretty long list of other states). It certainly didn't help that the Republican establishment tried to screw her from the beginning, but that wasn't the only reason for the loss.

Is this outcome better than a possible Castle win? I think so. Castle would have pushed for compromises in the Senate that would have undermined the energy and direct will of the majority of our voters (didn't we learn anything in '04?). Better to wait two years and to swing Webb, Nelson, Nelson and others to our side so we can have actual rock-solid support rather than half measures.

Posted by: Buanadha at November 04, 2010 02:35 PM (DoTGp)

663 Also you're pretty dense or obtuse. ODonnell would have votied against cap and trade, voted to REPEALObamacare and voted againt Card Check.
She also would've voted to legalize the hunting of flying pigs and the penguins in Hell.
Tospeculate how she would have voted had she won implies she had a chance. She didn't,and that was apparent even before she won the primary.
Well, to those of us who aren't batshit crazy it was.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 02:36 PM (plsiE)

664 That this argument persists scares me for our chances of nominating a good candidate in 2012. You can't nominate a candidate who can easily be demonized by the press. Isn't this obvious by now? The press can no longer prop Obama up, but they sure as hell can and will destroy any Republican with personal baggage. COD was a terrible candidate. Let's move on.

Posted by: Spike at November 04, 2010 02:36 PM (WLxeI)

665 Posted by: Oldcat at November 04, 2010 02:34 PM (z1N6a)

He's held statewide office for 30 years in Delaware, you don't think something would have come out by now?

Or are you just hinting at that disgusting smear the O'Donnell camp used against him in the primary?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 02:36 PM (HicGG)

666
btw, I just want to remind everyone of a couple of cocksuckers.

Allen West's primary opponent, David Brady, and the mayor of Palm Beach, Jack McDonald both endorsed Klein.

How they feeling now?


Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:36 PM (uFokq)

667 You have to deal with the actual electorate as it exists not as you wish
it did in some fantasy world. Why do you insist that we should push
candidates that can't win with actual voters? What exactly does that
prove?

Dude, if you put Mike Castle in the senate, suddenly half the people who took House seats away from Democrats earlier this week will suddenly be "Candidates that can't win with actual voters" because the voters in the non-crackhead states will look at the leaders of the Republican Party in the Senate and see NO difference between them and the Republicans. And you'll wind up with a lot of people staying home or some guys trying a third party run a la Ross Perot.

It's not like we can actually trust the Mike Castles, and "My Friend" types to actually be conservative during a crunch, the way the democrats could count on the Blue Dogs to be liberal when the crunch hits.

Posted by: Abdominal Snowman at November 04, 2010 02:37 PM (1Bu4F)

668 This blind loyalty and unquestioning support for an idiot is something
we laughed at Democrats for with Obama. It's not any more attractive or
intelligent coming from the right.

And your sneering, "You should have shut up and done what the experts told you." smells of dKos-level elitism. So, fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at November 04, 2010 02:37 PM (G5qLy)

Posted by: radar at November 04, 2010 02:37 PM (sWEaY)

670 The lesson to take from this entire general election is to begin NOW to promote the next 2012 election PLATFORM upon which all of the constitutional conservative candidates will stand.

Doing that requires cleaning out the GOP establishment, which won't happen overnight. So while working towards constitutional governance, quit whining when everything isn't perfect in the works. You want to criticize the likes of Sharon Angle? The YOU run against Harry Reid. Either put up or shut up.


Posted by: maverick muse at November 04, 2010 02:37 PM (H+LJc)

671 In an 18-year House career, Castle, this notorious poison pill of the GOP who was no different than any Democrat, was never spoken of in conservative circles at all.

Why do you suppose this is?


Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2010 02:33 PM (/AxgK)
Because he was one of the about three hundred drones that live in the House of Representatives, like mice or cockroaches and make no splash at all.And he didn't torpedo us on critical bills.

Posted by: Oldcat at November 04, 2010 02:37 PM (z1N6a)

672 I've gotta agree with MikeTheMoose, don't take primaries for granted and the base won't nominate CODs.

I supported Castle during the primary, at least as much as a non-Delawarian who isn't donating time or money could. But he fucked up. He assumed he could waltz on in and get a Senate seat.

COD was a lousy candidate, no doubt about it, but who was worse the fools who voted for her in the primary or the fools who were beaten by her.

For all the vitriol spewed about strawmen purists the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the people who voted for COD in the primary merely wanted somebody who seemed to have principles.

You can argue all you want about the sincerity of her rhetoric but at the time she seemed a whole lot more sincere than Castle. Had he shown even a modicum of principled conservative behavior during the primary he would likely be senator now.

For all the bitching and moaning about evil "purists" I think the real lesson here is that you can't take the base for granted. Simply proclaiming a candidate electable is not enough (it brought us Crist and Specter). If you want to avoid this again stop whining about purists and start identifying and supporting good candidates who are actually principled.



And on a side note for all those claiming that COD hurt Toomey, that is absolute bullshit.

I live in SE PA (Berks county; which supported Toomey with 55% of the vote) and outside of rehashing some late night jokes not a single person gave a damn about COD. She was a non-issue.

It was close because Philly votes overwhelmingly for Dems., regardless of the year or candidate, and they dominate the state electorally. The percentage of the vote the Dems. received there is not unusual.

Posted by: johnny at November 04, 2010 02:37 PM (mdigJ)

673
Schwarzengger endorsed Crist.

Arnold was a worse governor than Granholm. Wow.

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:37 PM (uFokq)

674 NEWS FLASH:

ALAN GRAYSON STILL DEFEATED!!!!

In related news

TED KENNEDY STILL SOBER!!!

Posted by: Iblis at November 04, 2010 02:37 PM (9221z)

675 Rockefeller Republicanism is alive and well.

Posted by: tsj017 at November 04, 2010 02:37 PM (4YUWF)

676 So, if Republican conservatives can't win in a blue state, and Republican liberal/moderates can't win in a blue state, what's option C?
Cut our losses and cut those bitches loose to drift on their own. Conservatives in those states: Sorry, but you need to pack your shit and bug out. States with some sanity left, make your giveaway programs so sparse and thin that the leeches starve out and flee to blue states, maximizing the body counts there when it goes tits up in the water.IF we had time. Which we don't, since we're going to resemble Zimbabwe currency wise here in a short while.So, buy a water filtration system, some heirloom seeds and plenty of ammo. Get those Long Pork recipes ready.

Posted by: Todd Bridges, first to go bad, last to go down at November 04, 2010 02:38 PM (qL20/)

677 Geez, the COD supporters around here. DrewM takes the time to write a lengthy post instead of just telling them straight up to FOAD like Ace did, and they still complain. You would think they would be saying thank you.

Posted by: Barack Obama at November 04, 2010 02:38 PM (VmtE9)

678 Just think, if women weren't able to vote we wouldn't have threads such as this.

or hold office.

Because this thread hasn't got enough pointless, suicidal acrimony already.

Posted by: Little Chrissy Manshoes at November 04, 2010 02:38 PM (xxgag)

679 This thread is so old, it makes Helen Thomas look like Miley Cyrus

Posted by: Radioactive Satellite Of LOVE at November 04, 2010 02:38 PM (LdYLm)

680 Too late Herr......"free fucking men" are few and far between these days.

The sniveling shits rule!

Posted by: pam at November 04, 2010 02:38 PM (h8R9p)

681 I'd just like to say that, much as I hated Castle's response after losing, I'd have not only voted for him but campaigned for him had he won the primary.

You see, Drew, it's about supporting our side.

Posted by: Karl Rove AKA Drew at November 04, 2010 02:39 PM (90bLF)

682 Almost 700 posts already? Ha, ha, ha!
She was a shitty candidate and she lost, get over it.
Yes, Rove and Krauthammer were dicks to her and it didn't help her one fucking bit, but she was a shitty candidate. It's over.

Posted by: Log Cabin at November 04, 2010 02:39 PM (OF0tv)

683 Which part of, "I can't vote in Delaware and neither can 99.9% of base conservatives in America" do you have trouble with.You
have to deal with the actual electorate as it exists not as you wish it
did in some fantasy world. Why do you insist that we should push
candidates that can't win with actual voters? What exactly does that
prove?



This. And, unfortunately, the primary voters in DE spoke. I was against allowing them to speak but I was overruled by the Constitution or something. But thanks for your support and for attacking her after she was nominated. Viva la revolucion!

Posted by: Mike Castle at November 04, 2010 02:39 PM (LLZiU)

684 Yikes! But don't worry, I'll be u-hauling.

Posted by: arhooley, future ex-Californian at November 04, 2010 02:32 PM (OzY4y)
Huh? It was because of the conversation we had regarding the Jumbo jets when we saw you.

Posted by: Editor at November 04, 2010 02:39 PM (pUfK9)

685 666
94 blame to
I hate to burst our bubble, but well over 99% of the voters here in Delaware pay no attention - none - to blogs, so it is pointless to attribute anyany blog for O'Donnell's outcome, win or lose. The
voters do watch television, however, and unfortunately Christine had
left enough calling cards scattered within the vaults of that medium
that were brought out and spun based on the wishes of whoever created
an ad, pro or con.

So what you saw on the ground is more that it was her record and past that was against her?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 02:39 PM (xc0ds)

686 cobloggers, you're going to be on double.secret.probation if you don't post a new thread -- stat!

Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 04, 2010 02:39 PM (CjjL4)

687 Castle being gone is a win in my book. 'Tis better to face a bearded socialist/communist in front of you than have a long-time, proven sabotuer at your flank.

Posted by: Count de Monet at November 04, 2010 02:40 PM (2g2ex)

688 I know what'll give me credibility! Tattoos and gay friends!
Don't forget the Prius. That's very important.

Posted by: A Hipster at November 04, 2010 02:40 PM (vbh31)

689 Today, my girlfriend expected me to strip for her at her place. It was going to be her first time seeing me naked. When I got to the private part of stripping, she giggled and said I was a funny guy. She then broke up with me.

Posted by: Sockpuppet Ace at November 04, 2010 02:40 PM (LdYLm)

690 Well, at least we can dispense with the idea that she alone was going to cost us the Senate.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 04, 2010 12:39 PM (fLHQe)
Nominating Christine O'Donnell in DE had a net negative effect on all other candidates running nationwide. Making her the face of the tea party suddenly made the tea party label a liability for candidates who had been introducing themselves to the electorate with these credentials. For someone like Rubio, it wasn't going to make a difference, because he speaks like a pragmatist. But for Angle in NV, suddenly Reid's efforts to paint her as an extremist began to pay off... that and cheating. You have to win outside the margin of cheating. I still absolutely believe O'Donnell cost Republicans the Senate.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 04, 2010 02:40 PM (mHQ7T)

691 Set phasers to sock off.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 04, 2010 02:40 PM (xxgag)

692 693
cobloggers, you're going to be on double.secret.probation if you don't post a new thread -- stat!

Yeah this +1

Posted by: Iblis at November 04, 2010 02:40 PM (9221z)

693 O'Donnell meant more than Delaware. She clearly wasn't my cup of tea, a bit of a flakethough I cut her some slack for being a dirty stay-out in college. Her importance lies as part of a greater whole. The O'Donnells of this election cycle kicked open the Republican Clubhouse door and said, " Fuck you, we ain't starting a new Tea Party. We are conservative republicans and we deserve to be on line one or line two at the ballot box. " That was an ice water enema to RINOs. The clubhouse was closed. They did operate with impunity. Think back five or ten years. Did anyone give a rat's wet ass about the republicans in office? This cycle the RINOs were put on notice. The Tea Party types told them in no uncertain terms that they WILL come intoTHEIRclubhouse and beat the Rinos like baby harp seals unless they toe the line. This election was about moderates getting their clocks cleaned. That will have an impact.We owe the O'Donnells some thanks for that. and for being a dirty stay-out in college.

Posted by: mac at November 04, 2010 02:41 PM (0J18b)

694 In related newsTED KENNEDY STILL SOBER!!!
Posted by: Iblis at November 04, 2010 02:37 PM (9221z)
You sure about that? Is alcohol used in the embalming process?

Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 02:41 PM (oVQFe)

695 Schwarzengger endorsed Crist.
That figures. Turds of a feather.

Posted by: maddogg at November 04, 2010 02:41 PM (OlN4e)

696 Someone get up and change the channel.

This is getting old, now that you mention it.

Posted by: Christine O'Donnell's most dedicated stalker at November 04, 2010 02:41 PM (4Kl5M)

697 He's held statewide office for 30 years in Delaware, you don't think something would have come out by now?Or are you just hinting at that disgusting smear the O'Donnell camp used against him in the primary?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 02:36 PM (HicGG)
Remember Packwood? They held 25 years of sexual harrassment as a hole card for when they needed it. Its how they operate.I have no information about the primary race because I care nothing about it - not then or now. I just question that Castle was a sure thing, or worth having if he had won. My main beef is with all those who treated the primary winner like a heretic for reasons that remain unclear.

Posted by: Oldcat at November 04, 2010 02:41 PM (z1N6a)

698 I haven't read all the comments but did it anyone actually take a swing at explaining why O'Donnell is entitled to the unquestioning support of the party when she wins even though she failed to give it when she lost?



Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 02:42 PM (HicGG)

699 I think most conservatives want to move on. We had a big win on Tuesday and for some reason DrewM wants to sneer at conservatives for not backing OBama's boy Castle. You can't wipe away where Castle was on the issues....he is a liberal. Own it. You preferred a liberal to O'Donnel. If you don't like being called a RINO, stop promoting RINOs and whining when they lose.

Posted by: Matt X at November 04, 2010 02:42 PM (g+4m8)

700 Today, a girl I like came over to my house because I'd promised to help her prepare for a maths test. My mom thought it would be funny to put a stack of porn magazines and handcuffs on the table in my room when I went to open the door.

Posted by: Sockpuppet Ace at November 04, 2010 02:42 PM (LdYLm)

701 Sarah Palin = An African Grey
Christine O'Donnel = A Quaker

Posted by: Pet Shop Owner at November 04, 2010 02:42 PM (NuEHe)

702 Ace, now would be a great time to "accidentally" link some lesbian pr0n.

Posted by: Andy at November 04, 2010 02:42 PM (5Rurq)

703 I still absolutely believe O'Donnell cost Republicans the Senate.

And now Tattoo, for a little fantasy of my own...

Posted by: Mister Roarke at November 04, 2010 02:42 PM (qL20/)

704 DrewM just wants to gloat over O'Donnel losing.Why else post this? He wants to annoy the "wingnuts" as he sees conservatives who are not "strategic thinkers" that focus on demographics. The election is over, and primaries in DE are not decided by DrewM.
Go back to the kiddy table where you belong, Matt X. Leave the discussion to those of us with an IQ higher than room temperature.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 02:42 PM (plsiE)

705 To say Christine O'Donnell was a fair candidate is to overstate her qualifications. The best you are going to do in Delaware is someone like Castle, who from Delaware is perfectly acceptable, not acceptable in Utah or Alaska. The damage that O'Donnell did reverberated far beyond Delaware though. Dems did a good job of tying her to Angle, who had herown issues, and to Buck who had his. The three of them, rather than someone like Johnson in Wisconsin became the face of the Tea Party thanks to the MSM. Once the MSM realized that Rubio was going to win, you can count the number of articles on one hand that mentioned him as a Tea Party person because that would boost credibility.
The three of them acted as a drag on Fiorina, maybe it mattered, as well as some of the other candidates around.
We need to do a better job of vetting candidates. If as Levin says, he would rather lose with an O'Donnell than win with Castle, fine. If a majority in a state feels that way, not much we can do. In some states, such as Alaska, that is appropriate. However, we can have good candidates that won't win and won't harm others around the country rather than ones who are too easily painted as flakes.
I would rather keep the Snowe/Collins seat with a good conservative, but if that person is unelectable, it is more important to keep the seat. RINOs may be a pain on policy issues, but they can generally be counted on for Supreme Court Justices and that matters. They also hand gavels to more conservative members and that matters.
Personally, I like Christine O'Donnell she is good on the issues, smart, telegenic and a suprisingly good debater. However, her conservatism made her quest, at best, quixotic, and her negatives (some of which were her fault -paranoia, theft of funds; some of which were not) would likely have kept her from being elected in a purple state. Her negatives reverberated around the country too. We can't have that in 2012.

Posted by: Andy T at November 04, 2010 02:42 PM (y5bPZ)

706 701
In related news

TED KENNEDY STILL SOBER!!!

Posted by: Iblis at November 04, 2010 02:37 PM (9221z)

You sure about that? Is alcohol used in the embalming process?



They're supposed to use Formaldehyde, but they probably figured he was pickeled already.

Posted by: Iblis at November 04, 2010 02:42 PM (9221z)

707 oh joy!
think now we'll be spending $4 billion on this upcoming trip?

Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 04, 2010 02:42 PM (CjjL4)

708 Face facts, O'Donnell lost in large part because she let her campaign become the subject of ridicule over the "I'm not a witch" ad, that ran too long (if it ever should have run at all).

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at November 04, 2010 02:43 PM (tE8FB)

709 699
693
cobloggers, you're going to be on double.secret.probation if you don't post a new thread -- stat!

Yeah this +1

Agreed. Part of this interests me, but the thread keeps circling the drain.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 02:43 PM (xc0ds)

710 Some people loathe COD, message received. Let's remove O'Donnell from the equation and substitute a Generic
Non-Establishment Candidate to remove this rabid Pavlovian response. Delaware has its primary. Generic Candidate, who up till now had gotten no attention because Castle was just going to win, okay? wins instead. Much consternation in GOP Establishment quarters. Their options at this point are very limited. They can a) go through the motions of supporting Generic Candidate but without enthusiasm, b) say nothing at great length as only career politicians can, neither supporting nor denigrating, or c) actively disparage Generic Candidate. Which is more likely to result in an R being elected?

The real screwup happened well before the primary and the GOP leadership in Delaware needs to take responsibility. They should have known Castle wasn't popular and either picked a viable candidate their own selves, or boosted Castle somehow. Castle lost the primary on his merits. That's where the problem is. The Delaware GOP didn't put up a candidate Delaware Republicans wanted so they got blindsided by the Candidate Who Must Not Be Named.

Posted by: bad cat robot at November 04, 2010 02:43 PM (65lpa)

711 Looking forward to 2012, when Drew M wheels out the same lame RINO bs in support of Oly Snowe, Lindsey Graham and Mitt Romneycare.

Posted by: les grossman at November 04, 2010 02:43 PM (K/USr)

712 I was laying in bed with the covers over me, when I got an itch on my leg. It felt really good to scratch it so I got really into it. At that very moment my mom walked in, saw me doing a back and forth motion under the covers, gave me a look of disgust, and walked out

Posted by: Sockpuppet Ace at November 04, 2010 02:43 PM (LdYLm)

713
This is great.

Two years from 2012 and we're already spinning our wheels.

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:44 PM (uFokq)

714 I'd rather have a division of Coonseses in front of me than a division of Castles behind me.

Posted by: George S. at November 04, 2010 02:44 PM (G/MYk)

715 Posted by: MCPO Airdale at November 04, 2010 02:37 PM (G5qLy)

So you're going to ignore the substance of what I've written in support of insurgent, grassroots candidates and just stick with your theory that I'm an elitist, RINO,, country club Republican?

In short, facts don't matter to you?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 02:44 PM (HicGG)

716 Bob dole thinks it would be courteous to put up at least an open blog.........but that's just Bob Dole.

Posted by: Bob Dole at November 04, 2010 02:44 PM (ZWHR5)

717 706
I haven't read all the comments but did it anyone actually take a swing
at explaining why O'Donnell is entitled to the unquestioning support of
the party when she wins even though she failed to give it when she lost?

---

Drew, give her a damn break. She just lost the race after putting her all (physically/emotionally) into it and after being attacked by all sides, I think she's entitled to a little bit of self-pity, wouldn't you agree?

Posted by: donkeyhotay at November 04, 2010 02:44 PM (utVkB)

718
You see, the Republicans drove the GOP car in the ditch.

While the Tea Party was pulling it out, you guys were up there, standing around, eating McRibs.

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:45 PM (uFokq)

719 Facts are facts. We could've picked up even more seats but the GOP didn't support candidates like O'Donnell because they were pissy about her beating the Republican counterpart. Why didn't they help her? Because of her portrayal by the liberal Media? OMG she thinks Masturbation is a sin! It's called a personal belief people, did you really think she was gonna form a Masturbation police force? gimme a freaking break.

Posted by: vin at November 04, 2010 02:45 PM (dFldE)

720 Let O'Donnell do her after election commentary and the Republican idiots do their bitching and then let it go.

My big friggin complaint in this race is this....
that little fat fart Karl Rove shit on Christine AFTER the primary. So fu*k Karl. Just because he backed that dolt Castle and even connived to torpedo Christine earlier with the Tea Party people, that did not allow him the right to go on FOX for a whole friggin week and sh*t on her. And Castle was such a little friggin pussy that he refused to endorse her.
So who was the as*hole in this... not Christine that is for sure... the Republican Party was happy as hell to have her run as their candidate twice against Biden when they didn't give a sh*t, when it was a losing battle for sure.... they screwed her when they thought they could get on the gravy train with a win with that slime ball Castle. Poor Rove.... little fat pussy. Poor Delaware Republican Establishment... screw them. I hope O'Donnell takes all those supporters and builds a grass roots Republican Party in Delaware and then takes out Coons in 2012.

And that is the last I am going to say about Delaware. As for Rove, I will keep that little check mark nest to his name in my black book list of jerk offs in the Republican Establishment, with the notation next to it of .... "cries like a little girl"

Posted by: PhilipJames at November 04, 2010 02:45 PM (X/9bv)

721 No more Specters. EVER. The establishment, including Bush, supported Specter in the 2004 primary when Toomey would have been running in a better atmosphere for Republicans because they wanted to make sure they kept their majority.
How did that work out.
O'Donnell's primary win, despite her flaws as a candidate,sent a message to the establishmentthat they don't get to pick our candidates (see Scozzafava, DeDe).We want actual conservatives representing Republicans and we are not interested in just changing who holds the gavel in the Congress. See Peggy Noonan's "yardstick" column if you want a better explanation of what we want.

Posted by: Dennis OConnor at November 04, 2010 02:45 PM (R+57i)

722 I wanna snark but I don't wanna snark about this.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 04, 2010 02:46 PM (xxgag)

723 In short, facts don't matter to you?
Facts? We don’t need no stinkin facts!

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 02:46 PM (OWjjx)

724 Can we have a new fucking thread for people whose goal for the day isn't gutting someone else who is within reach of themselves ideologically?

Posted by: Al at November 04, 2010 02:46 PM (MzQOZ)

725 Matt Damon?

Posted by: Matt Damon at November 04, 2010 02:46 PM (LdYLm)

726 Yeah, the "I'm not a witch" ad is pretty much one of the most self-destructive imaginable. Nothing like getting the opposition's message out front and center for them. Hey, maybe foolish campaign moves like that are why she lost??......naah, on second thought it must have been Karl Rove.

Posted by: radar at November 04, 2010 02:46 PM (sWEaY)

727 I think DrewM is throwing up a strawman...the conservatives that did not support her did not do so because she did or did not support somebody that beat her. They chose not to support her because they were bitter that a liberal Republican "winner", in their mindless view", got beat.

Posted by: Matt X at November 04, 2010 02:47 PM (g+4m8)

728 Who's your preferred candidate, Grossman?

Posted by: Lincolntf at November 04, 2010 02:47 PM (V/C0X)

729 727 The reason we didn't pick-up more seats is because our ground game still isn't as good as the Dems. They also left a bunch of hanging curve balls and we just let them go past us. It's not all about O'Donnell and conservative + libertarian vs Republican.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 02:47 PM (xc0ds)

730 Face if Jeff B. You big tent /"keep it civil" loons and douchebags really blew it both in 2006 and 2008. So kindly STFU about Delaware you ridiculous goddamn armchair quarterbacking, worker in a fail-factory.

We don't need any more Arlen Spectors mutating into would be aisle crossing gods in the Senate.

It is far better to lose on our true positions that it is to put an ambitious shifty-eyed ferret who'll vote with Obama when he thinks the coast is clear or when the pressure is on him from the MSM.

That's the REAL position we are in now. We need reliable effective representation not easily distracted seat warmers who like to go to parties off the hill more than touching base at a town hall.

If you don't like that fact and can't face it then go sit in Chris Buckley's lap until his "sophisticated forward looking" cooing (imagine a chablis dulled Jim Baccus voice) calms you down.

Posted by: cackfinger at November 04, 2010 02:48 PM (Elbt6)

731 Huh? It was because of the conversation we had regarding the Jumbo jets when we saw you.


Posted by: Editor

Ha! Oh. I thought it was because of my new, improved handle. Implies travel and all. Uh. Never mind. Reference-challenged today.

Posted by: arhooley, future ex-Californian at November 04, 2010 02:48 PM (OzY4y)

732 MCPO Airdale

Take your own advice.

Blind loyalty, supporting the likes of O'Donnell vs. either Castle or Coons?! That wasn't BLIND LOYALTY by any means. Voting McCain for Potus was blind loyalty in the primaries. But in the '08 general election, voting the McCain ticket made the point of eliminating the worst choice of Obama in the '08 general election.

Despite his decades as Senator, McCain made MONUMENTAL GAFFS on the GOP POTUS ticket, MONSTROUSLY GARGANTUAN BLARING MISTAKES. And I'm not even referring to his horribly liberally progressive record in Congress. Suspending his campaign to pass TARP that misdirected all of the tax funds to pay off foreign banks angered with Bush/Paulson's economic mortgage investment fraud. Hell, Bush/Paulson's global fraud made Fanny/Freddy fraud look like Sunday School. Don't tell us that Bush didn't know what Paulson was up to all along. Why else his executive order making the Treasury Secretary AUTONOMOUS.

You want to talk about blind loyalty while supporting the crooks in the Republican establishment. Pfff

Posted by: maverick muse at November 04, 2010 02:48 PM (H+LJc)

733 Haha. I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere here, but here is the actual headline as reported on Seattle Times (and I'm sure elsewhere, too):

Stock surge day after stimulus plan announced.

Stuck on rehtarded.

Posted by: Editor at November 04, 2010 02:48 PM (pUfK9)

734 Posted by: les grossman at November 04, 2010 02:43 PM (K/USr)

Sorry to disappoint you..

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 02:48 PM (HicGG)

735 732
Can we have a
new fucking thread for people whose goal for the day isn't gutting
someone else who is within reach of themselves ideologically?


Posted by: Al at November 04, 2010 02:46 PM (MzQOZ)
If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!

http://tinyurl.com/yhcmbtg

Posted by: Radioactive Satellite Of LOVE at November 04, 2010 02:48 PM (LdYLm)

736 1. ...2. ...3. ...4. ...Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 12:48 PM (OWjjx)--


The most cognizant analysis heretofore. Of COURSE it's Mallamutt!

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 04, 2010 02:49 PM (/G5LI)

737
I haven't read all the comments but did it anyone actually take a swing
at explaining why O'Donnell is entitled to the unquestioning support of
the party when she wins even though she failed to give it when she lost?---Drew,
give her a damn break. She just lost the race after putting her all
(physically/emotionally) into it and after being attacked by all sides, I
think she's entitled to a little bit of self-pity, wouldn't you agree?

Posted by: donkeyhotay at November 04, 2010 02:44 PM (utVkB)
She was the chosen nominee of the Republican Primary voters and deserves to be supported just like Castle would have been. Its not about getting even with COD or getting revenge for Castle, but respecting the voters. If you have doubts, best to put them aside until later.
After all, they are supposed to be the ones in charge. Otherwise we are trading one elite for another.

Posted by: Oldcat at November 04, 2010 02:49 PM (z1N6a)

738 These lemming threads must be good for advertisers. That's all I can figure.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at November 04, 2010 02:49 PM (r1h5M)

739 "But for Angle in NV, suddenly Reid's efforts to paint her as an extremist began to pay off... that and cheating"
Tattoo, use some logic and look at the exit polls. There is one reason that Angle lost.
Harry Reid got about 10 to 15 percent of the voters that voted for a REPUBLICAN governor. Why? Do you think that when harry's union thugs were fixing ballots that they "forgot" about fixing for his son, too?
The %15 that split from GOP governor to Reid for senate were Latinos, dude. They wanted aLatino in the statehouse, but were scared of Angle (he adds did not help). That's it. Not cheating, not fraud.You can be against illegal immigration, but you can'tvillify a whole group. They willgo for the dem every time. Angle was stupid.

Posted by: Log Cabin at November 04, 2010 02:49 PM (OF0tv)

740 Good to see there aren't any newer posts.

Posted by: Truman North at November 04, 2010 02:50 PM (G5JPI)

741 "O'Donnell's primary win, despite her flaws as a candidate,sent a
message to the establishmentthat they don't get to pick our candidates"


Yeah, that totally works. Dammit, no one else tells us what loser candidate we'll put forward! We get to pick the punching bag of our choice!

How many counties is Christine going to claim she won this time?

Posted by: radar at November 04, 2010 02:50 PM (sWEaY)

742 So, what did the POSs who write for this site do to HELP O'Donnell?? All you did was piss all over her, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Posted by: Bender at November 04, 2010 02:50 PM (pLTLS)

743 But someone could come along and say that the flip
side of that is that people staying home gets us Obama, Nan, and Reid.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 02:34 PM (xc0ds)

That is no flip side. That is the front side. The point is republicans in deep blue states, and deep blue areas of Red and Purple states, have far to much say and influence in the R party. Despite being a pathetic weak stump that not only don't support the winners in their own primaries to the same amount as the Dems do, they vote WITH the Dems if they don't like them. Go with their ideas and WE LOSE everywhere. Their ideas are that we are Dem lite and nobody wants Dem lite. Dem lite isn't being "moderate" it's being moderately liberal. They not only have bad ideas they will back stab you if you don't go with those bad ideas. At least going with conservatives we win most places.

As far as I am concerned we might as well write these areas off. They are hotbeds of voter fraud anyway and even that the liberal Rs won't really do a damn thing about.
The republican party should be about an ideology and not about how to find a way for liberal republicans to be in office in liberal areas instead of liberal Dems.

Posted by: Rocks at November 04, 2010 02:50 PM (Q1lie)

744
We left a lot on the table.
--Pelosi's trip to Italy
-- Rangle Waters
-- Aunt Zetuni (which is funny because it should've defeated Deval Patrick in MA, but in CA Meg Whitman was framed and it caused a 'scandal.')

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:50 PM (uFokq)

745 #473 638 :Yes, precisely. It's nothing short of wishful thinking that an obvious liberal Republican would bite the bullet and vote along the party lines the way blue dogs do. Even the Conservative Wave isn't going to convince them to change their tactics. They'll just keep on truckin' with what they're doing right this ver minute: blame the base/Tea Partiers/Purity voters/etc.. Me, I'm pretty cynical about that after one too many "calls from history". If you're going to have someone voting along the party lines of the Democrats, it's far better to have an actual Democrat to trace the resulting mess back to.

As for the people whipping the Purity stawman again: where is the ideological event horizon? At what point does someone with (R) after their name become unelectable? And if an (R) is by default better than a (D) because of the assumption that (R) will vote with the rest of the party on the key issues, how do you square that hope with all the evidence to the contrary?

Posted by: Palefire at November 04, 2010 02:50 PM (AifAV)

746 Drew, give her a damn break. She just lost the race after putting her all (physically/emotionally) into it and after being attacked by all sides, I think she's entitled to a little bit of self-pity, wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: donkeyhotay at November 04, 2010 02:44 PM (utVkB)
You would know about self-pitty you unemployable racist piece of shit.

Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 02:50 PM (oVQFe)

747
On Tuesday night Karl “Tokyo” Rove the man whom Hannity irritatingly insists upon calling the “Architect” gloated about the defeat of Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. How much wrong can you cram into one head?

It’s a long established axiom that when an unknown candidate has not run before, the first impressions voters get is very important if not crucial. Upon hearing that O’Donnell had captured the GOP nomination many “experts” and “leaders” of the Republican Party including Rove savaged her. They immediately said she could not win.

The fact that she did not win is totally irrelevant. Exit polls clearly tell us Rove’s preferred candidate RINO Mike Castle would have lost as well. The line from “White men can’t jump”: “You’d rather look good, but miss the shot, than make it looking bad” comes to mind.

Until it was just months away, very few believed the First Soviet Union would crumble. Fewer believed the 40 year reign of the Democrats in the House would end in 1994, even days before that Election Night.

Now that we have kicked their butts and scared the Democrats and the establishment Republicans, we must turn our backs on the opinions of people like Rove and others (including the breathtakingly stupid comment from Ann Coulter who called Linda McMahon “a wrestler.”)

Now we hear that Rove claimed it was Obama that gave us this victory, not the TEA party. That’s pretty addled brained stuff for an “Architect.” Rove is the architect of the back to back 2004 and 2006 Republican massacres. The “Architect” stupidly thought HE THE GREAT ARCHITECT could make Americans vote for Republicans by erasing our borders and giving away citizenship to illegal aliens. Rove’s talk is cheap, but what about the opinion of someone who has something to lose?

The real lesson is that inside-the-beltway Republicans have clawed their way up the ladder and clung to power so tightly that they will stop at nothing to maintain their hold. The Tea Party was supposed to be the new Christian Coalition – a well-meaning organization of principled people the GOP could cow into supporting Republicans hostile to their concerns. This election proves when conservatives show up at the polls, Republicans benefit all over the ticket.
This has not kept the insiders from resorting to Republican cannibalism.
Christine O’Donnell is far from the only target. Senators Kit Bond, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Lamar Alexander among others have blasted Sen. Jim DeMint for supporting Tea Party primary challengers. (He also supported the Republicans who defeated them.) Most recently, Republican Party operatives have joined forces to stop Sarah Palin at all costs from becoming the party’s presidential nominee in 2012. An anonymous GOP insider described their furtive meetings as “a determined, focused Establishment effort…to find a candidate we can coalesce around who can beat Sarah Palin.”

Before conservatives take back America, we will have to contend with our own party.

Posted by: sickinmass at November 04, 2010 02:50 PM (1rflU)

748 Let's take the inverse of Drew M's argumenet. DId Karl Rove and other conservatives sneering at O'Donnel help her prospects? Did that promote conservative unity? She probably still loses, but to suggest she has no point about a lack of conservative unity is to lie. Castle did not endorse her. They saiid Castle could have won , so iif Castle gets over himself and endorses O'Donnel, does that hurt O'Donnel?

Posted by: Matt X at November 04, 2010 02:51 PM (g+4m8)

749 In an 18-year House career, Castle, this notorious poison pill of the GOP who was no different than any Democrat, was never spoken of in conservative circles at all.Why do you suppose this is?
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2010 02:33 PM (/AxgK)
Wasn't it the Cap Tax vote that did it? That's my memory of the trigger, but I was drunk at the time...

Posted by: SteveN at November 04, 2010 02:51 PM (7EV/g)

750 So the beatings will continue until morale improves?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 02:51 PM (xc0ds)

751
Remember Obama's stimulus website with all the phony job numbers?

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:51 PM (uFokq)

752 "So, what did the POSs who write for this site do to HELP O'Donnell??
All you did was piss all over her, thereby giving aid and comfort to the
enemy."

Why did she need help? She was such a super-awesome candidate!

Posted by: radar at November 04, 2010 02:51 PM (sWEaY)

753 738 727 The reason we didn't pick-up more seats is because our ground game still isn't as good as the Dems. They also left a bunch of hanging curve balls and we just let them go past us. It's not all about O'Donnell and conservative + libertarian vs Republican.Exactly! Dems live, breath and exist to win elections. We see it as a necessary evil, they see it as all that matters in life.

Posted by: EZB at November 04, 2010 02:52 PM (Ty06w)

754
So the beatings will continue until morale improves?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 02:51 PM (xc0ds)
No. Even IF morale improves.

Posted by: Editor at November 04, 2010 02:52 PM (pUfK9)

755 Drew: Master & Commander of the circular firing squad.

Posted by: Kerry's iPhone at November 04, 2010 02:52 PM (+secL)

756 What do you call a bunch of white guys sitting on a bench?

The NBA

Posted by: Radioactive Satellite Of LOVE at November 04, 2010 02:53 PM (LdYLm)

757 "It’s a long established axiom that when an unknown candidate has not run
before, the first impressions voters get is very important if not
crucial."

Ummmmm....yeah, this wasn't Christine O'Donnell's first crack at the Senate. She'd already been crushed before. You do know that, right?

Posted by: radar at November 04, 2010 02:53 PM (sWEaY)

758
736 Matt X at November 04, 2010 02:47 PM

So the whining progressive Republicans play the counterpart to Hillary's aging feminists, cougars still against Obama because he has a penis.

Posted by: maverick muse at November 04, 2010 02:53 PM (H+LJc)

759 I am convinced a Conservative candidate can win in Bluestates. Just not the sort of Conservative we are used to. Cali, New York et al, are the very heart of the beast. You are not preaching to the choir there but to the Gentile. You can't throw out conservative platitudes and expect the Spirit of Reagan to do the Converting.

A Conservative candidate in these states much have complete control of the facts, lots of knowledge about the two competing Philosophies and tread very carefully. They must destroy Liberalism and the Liberal Candidate in the debates and not give the Liberal an overabundance of ammunition to use in Ad Hominem attacks. COD was never this candidate...

Posted by: Holger at November 04, 2010 02:53 PM (V9Q+f)

760 Good fucking luck if you think that unimpressive idiot with no accomplishments should be the model for conservatism moving forward.This blind loyalty and unquestioning support for an idiot is something we laughed at Democrats for with Obama.
Come on. Tell us how you really feel. Maybe you could call her a whore and a c***. That would make you look really smart.

Posted by: Ronster at November 04, 2010 02:53 PM (9q4PA)

761 732
Can we have a
new fucking thread for people whose goal for the day isn't gutting
someone else who is within reach of themselves ideologically?

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!


Luckily, I can buy my own pudding. But I can't buy my own thread.

Posted by: Al at November 04, 2010 02:53 PM (MzQOZ)

762 I see the "purity" meme has surfaced again. Also the "loyalty" one. Yeah, let's not look at it objectively. Let's just throw bullshit past each other.

Also that old canard about "vetting" candidates. I always like that one. Lil' sekrit folks: that's what primaries do. You don't get to tell me I can't run for office, and if you are smart enough to operate the Internets, you won't let me tell you you can't run for office. So the only "vetting" happens in the booth at a polling place.

Posted by: K~Bob at November 04, 2010 02:54 PM (AJ9HO)

763 Why didn't they help her? Because of her portrayal by the liberal Media? OMG she thinks Masturbation is a sin! It's called a personal belief people, did you really think she was gonna form a Masturbation police force? gimme a freaking break.
Posted by: vin at November 04, 2010 02:45 PM (dFldE)

How about a Main Masturbation Force Patrol?
BTW, I agree w/ you.

Posted by: Count de Monet at November 04, 2010 02:54 PM (2g2ex)

764 653You are obtuse. I said Rove and others contributed to the fact that she did not get all of the Republican voted she could have.
By the way, based on your logic we had no reason to
support MIller because how he 'would have voted' is not a basisfor
support because hedoesn't have a voting record.

Posted by: polynikes at November 04, 2010 02:33 PM (m2CN7)
I don't necessarily need a voting record, but I do want someone who has accomplished something in their life. Miller graduated from West Point and Yale Law School. He didn't make a name for himself as Bill Maher's token loony "conservative" on TV.And, no, Rove (and mysterious "others") are not why she lost. But keep crying about Karl Rove not telling people to do what you want them to do.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 02:54 PM (U+goV)

765 Blind faith would mean re-electing O'Donnell in the next primary election, given time to find and promote better candidates now.

Posted by: maverick muse at November 04, 2010 02:55 PM (H+LJc)

766 739
Face if Jeff B. You big tent /"keep it civil" loons and douchebags
really blew it both in 2006 and 2008. So kindly STFU about Delaware you
ridiculous goddamn armchair quarterbacking, worker in a fail-factory.

We don't need any more Arlen Spectors mutating into would be aisle crossing gods in the Senate.

It
is far better to lose on our true positions that it is to put an
ambitious shifty-eyed ferret who'll vote with Obama when he thinks the
coast is clear or when the pressure is on him from the MSM.

That's
the REAL position we are in now. We need reliable effective
representation not easily distracted seat warmers who like to go to
parties off the hill more than touching base at a town hall.

If
you don't like that fact and can't face it then go sit in Chris
Buckley's lap until his "sophisticated forward looking" cooing (imagine a
chablis dulled Jim Baccus voice) calms you down.

The person who is doing the arm chair quarter backing right now is Christine O'Donnell herself and the subject is why she lost...which I guess is everyone else's fault. I think people need to vote their principles too, but the problem is a lot of people think she is not the kind of person who best promotes those principles, especially in a state like Delaware. The job of a Senator is to represent their constituents. I just do not think O'Donnell could do that.

Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 02:55 PM (bNnwW)

767 642
Do we have any MMs who are in DE who can tell us the
whys--wherefores as to people voting for Coons over O'Donnell? I'm
more interested in the opinions of the people who are actually there
than media speculation.Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 02:30 PM (xc0ds)

Those with whom I spoke - and it is a small sample of six conservatives / independents - were (1) put off by the "Castle is gay" accusation in the primary election, (2) put off by the "crazy" and "witch" labels that were attached to her in the general election, or (3) the questions about her 2006 campaign finances and (4) her lack of experience in elected office of any sort.
Some of these voters didn't vote in the Senate race at all and some voted for Coons. Two of those who voted for Coons did so because of his campaign pledge that former Senators would be banned for life from serving as lobbyists in DC; this despite my pointing out that such a proposal was DOA and would never come to a vote in either house of Congress.
In New Castle County, the most heavily populated in the state, Dems win / have won nearly every county-wide office here. I think there are two or three GOP members of the County Board of Supervisors, the remaining dozen or so are Dems. Sussex County, in the bottom of the state, once reliably put GOP candidates into office. However, with a growing population of retirees settling there -- some from New Castle County and many form Maryland and DC, more and more Dems are winning elections there.

Posted by: ya2daup at November 04, 2010 02:55 PM (UzjcV)

768 766
"It’s a long established axiom that when an unknown candidate has not run
before, the first impressions voters get is very important if not
crucial."

Ummmmm....yeah, this wasn't Christine O'Donnell's first
crack at the Senate. She'd already been crushed before. You do know
that, right?


Posted by: radar at November 04, 2010 02:53 PM (sWEaY)
Also wasn't our "first impression" of her. She spent years embarrassing herself on Bill Maher's stupid TV show and was happy to do it.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 02:56 PM (U+goV)

769 I haven't read all the comments but did it anyone actually take a swing at explaining why O'Donnell is entitled to the unquestioning support of the party when she wins even though she failed to give it when she lost?
I did, you missed it:
#636
Let's straighten it out right now. She ran in 2006 as a write-in after losing the primary. The Republican nominee at that time was a super-liberal Mike Castle protege who wound up supporting Obama only two years later and got kicked out of the DE Republican party. Perhaps she had the foresight to see that conservatives weren't going to be served in any fashion by that guy. In which case, why support him.
She ran in 2008 against Biden.
It appears to me that the DE Republican party is a really screwed up institution and probably only served as a Mike Castle campaign extension.

Posted by: Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz at November 04, 2010 02:56 PM (4JpPD)

770 Face it, the ruling elites in the Republican party are all squishy RINOs. Now the buzz is they are going after DeMint.

If they make a serious stab at that they can write off the Republican Party because it will be dead in 5 years.


Posted by: Vic at November 04, 2010 12:55 PM (/jbAw)
Not after all the redistricting gains made on Tuesday with state legislatures. Republicans hold the trifecta in 16 states including South Carolina. DeMint instigated a putsch against his own colleagues and gave the national GOP some truly rotten candidates in Miller and O'Donnell. If either of these two candidates had been staunch conservatives with clean records, the national GOP and moderates like myself would have supported them. After all, Rove and other Republicans put their full resources behind Angle, who might have lacked polish, but her heart was in the right place. Miller and O'Donnell are shameless opportunists who can not be relied on by the party to follow leadership. Demint, by virtue of his endorsements, is looking to share those negative traits. Look how he recently threatened to leave the party. Many voters value loyalty and have no use for pride. It demonstrates a certain humility which is admirable in public servants.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 04, 2010 02:56 PM (mHQ7T)

771 I don't understand why the voters of Delaware are somehow uninvolved in the recriminations here.

My understanding is that they had something to do with it.

Posted by: Oldcat at November 04, 2010 02:57 PM (z1N6a)

772 The VENGEANCE written over the main header is taking on a whole new meaning.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 04, 2010 02:57 PM (tf9Ne)

773 Remember Obama's stimulus website with all the phony job numbers?

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:51 PM (uFokq)
I think they even had some jobs numbers to a precision of tenths! LOL.

Posted by: George S. at November 04, 2010 02:57 PM (G/MYk)

774 "I don't necessarily need a voting record, but I do want someone who has
accomplished something in their life. Miller graduated from West Point
and Yale Law School. He didn't make a name for himself as Bill Maher's
token loony "conservative" on TV."

BING! Thank you. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? I'm not looking for career politicians, I'd like to see some new faces who have a background of achievement in whatever fields who also have conservative beliefs. Joe Miller was a risk worth taking, because of his impressive background and the fact that Alaska isn't a Dem cesspool like Delaware. Very simple equation.

Posted by: radar at November 04, 2010 02:58 PM (sWEaY)

775 "FUCK ALL YOU FUCKERS, YEEEEAAARGH!!!"
There. You can skip the 700 comments above this one.

Posted by: Cuffy Meigs at November 04, 2010 02:58 PM (lEB0t)

776 100% purity my ass.
You're argument works in a hypothetical reality that does not exist. I was around for 2002-2006, you know.
Vote for the moderate squish liberal because he'll caucus with conservatives and give them more authority in DC. Bullshit. For that to be plausible, conservatives would have to run the party. Then a moderate caucusing with them would give them more influence, even if he didn't agree on every issue.
As it sits we've more squishes than non-squishes. The way it actually works is, electing conservatives just gives more authority to the socialist-lite types that set the agenda.
If we had 35 senators in the mold of Jim DeMint, we could benefit from a Castle.
We don't, we have 35 senators in the mold of Castle and 6 of DeMint.
To my end - infiltrating and fundementally changing your little political party here, turning into the libertarian party under another name essentially, hostile takeover style- if we can't have O'Donnell, we're better off with Coons.
I care not a wit for helping the people currently well represented by the Republican party (say... Archer Daniels Midlands employees maybe) win anything.
The immediate goal here is to hijack your party.
And the first unavoidable obstacle to that end that must be removed are the people who currently hold it and wish to keep it- Mike Castle types.

Posted by: Entropy at November 04, 2010 02:58 PM (IsLT6)

777
I haven't read all the comments but did it anyone actually take a swing
at explaining why O'Donnell is entitled to the unquestioning support of
the party when she wins even though she failed to give it when she lost?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 02:42 PM (HicGG)

Do you mean her write in in 2006? What people fail to mention is there was another R in that primary who also ran as a write in against the primary winner. The winner won the primary by a few thousand votes and a plurality in a 3 way race. All three candidates ran in the general and the 2 write-ins each received more votes than the primary winner. There was some massive disarray that year and until you can explain it you can't really knock the write-ins. I'm thinking she didn't support the primary winner because nobody else did, not even the party. If they had she wouldn't have gotten slaughtered by two write-ins from her own party in the general election.

Posted by: Rocks at November 04, 2010 02:58 PM (Q1lie)

778 ***turns head asides, spits, and wipes blood from lip***

That all you got, boys?

You hit like a bunch of bitches.

Posted by: This Dead Horse at November 04, 2010 02:58 PM (5pIHA)

779 752That
is no flip side. That is the front side. The point is republicans in
deep blue states, and deep blue areas of Red and Purple states, have
far to much say and influence in the R party...The republican party should be about an ideology and not about how to
find a way for liberal republicans to be in office in liberal areas
instead of liberal Dems.

We do pay too much attention to them, though we have a problem in that they exist and apply a lot of pressure, especially in the Senate. Let's hope that's different this time. As for the bit about liberal Republicans, it goes back to purity vs. winning and where you find that compromise.

It's still true, however, that we wouldn't be in this entire mess to begin with if people didn't decide to send a message with their feet. You know what would have been more productive? More people putting themselves forward in '04 and '06. We always seem to be complaining about not getting our way, but it took us 6yrs before ordinary average Americans actually decided to run for office. Why did it take us so long before we decided to actually do something instead of just complain about it?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 02:59 PM (xc0ds)

780 Would we still be stuck in this farkin' stupid thread if Marco Rubio had been the Delaware candidate?

Posted by: Al at November 04, 2010 02:59 PM (MzQOZ)

781 " if we can't have O'Donnell, we're better off with Coons."

Bullfuckingshit. I hope that sentence echoes through your head the next time a Supreme Court slot opens up.

Posted by: radar at November 04, 2010 03:00 PM (sWEaY)

782 I don't understand why the voters of Delaware are somehow uninvolved in the recriminations here. My understanding is that they had something to do with it.
Posted by: Oldcat at November 04, 2010 02:57 PM (z1N6a)

Now that's just crazy talk....

Posted by: Windmill of Death at November 04, 2010 03:00 PM (VmtE9)

783 Construct the perfect blue state senator... How far to the right can he/she be and be electable? It seems to me that if we ever able to tackle the entitlement monster, we must have limited government types across the nation. So...social conservatives in the South, libertarians in the North east. Is there any other possibility of putting together a WINNING coalition? If a NE'er isn't a true believer in limited government, then screw him, he's worthless. But if he's a liberal on social issues, who gives a crap as long as he votes the right way on entitlements?

Posted by: Spike at November 04, 2010 03:01 PM (WLxeI)

784 Two years from 2012 and we're already spinning our wheels.

Posted by: Soothsayer

To the rescue!

Posted by: Newt & Romney's Truck 'n' Tow at November 04, 2010 03:01 PM (OzY4y)

785 I'm not a wookie f*ucker, I'm you.

Posted by: Wicket at November 04, 2010 03:02 PM (GwPRU)

786 Ehhhhh.....I'm just glad I had Rubio to vote for.

Posted by: radar at November 04, 2010 03:02 PM (sWEaY)

787 Facts are facts. We could've picked up even more seats but the GOP didn't support candidates like O'Donnell because they were pissy about her beating the Republican counterpart. Why didn't they help her? Because of her portrayal by the liberal Media? OMG she thinks Masturbation is a sin! It's called a personal belief people, did you really think she was gonna form a Masturbation police force? gimme a freaking break.
O'Donnell was unelectable in DE. No amount of GOP support would've changed that.
How many more seats would we have won if not for weak candidates like O'Donnell, Angle and Miller? And what about the harm done to the Tea Party and Republican party by making O'Donnell the face of the movement?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 03:02 PM (plsiE)

788 And if Castle was such a great candidate, why couldn't he even win his primary over a crackpot?
Posted by: thirteen28 at November 04, 2010 01:54 PM (s8N54)
+10

Posted by: RushBabe at November 04, 2010 03:02 PM (a3Z62)

789 700 This cycle the RINOs were put on notice. The Tea Party types told them in no uncertain terms that they WILL come intoTHEIRclubhouse and beat the Rinos like baby harp seals unless they toe the line. This election was about moderates getting their clocks cleaned.
This.^ Every dam one of them gets primaried in '12. Every one. And if one of them is lucky enough to slipby the primary challenge, they get the Rove treatment in the general.

Posted by: les grossman at November 04, 2010 03:03 PM (K/USr)

790 Karl Rove called it.

Posted by: o.u. at November 04, 2010 03:03 PM (Y0Gx0)

791 So what I've noticed is that Hollowpoint wants to tell people he disagrees with to go to the kiddie table so the High IQ types can discuss this, and yet he also shits out really stupid inane crap like:

" She also would've voted to legalize the hunting of flying pigs and
the penguins in Hell.

Tospeculate how she would have voted had she won implies she had a
chance. She didn't,and that was apparent even before she won the
primary.

Well, to those of us who aren't batshit crazy it was."
C'mon, how is that any different than the usual hyperbolic unfunny ' Palin can see Russia from her house' bullshit?

Why not just be honest with yourself and go suck Bill Mahr and Joy Behar's cocks in your mountain of upscale stupid power?


Posted by: cackfinger at November 04, 2010 03:03 PM (Elbt6)

792 It appears to me that the DE Republican party is a really screwed up
institution and probably only served as a Mike Castle campaign
extension.

Go figure. He was elected governor twice and served in the House for decades. There would be no DE Republican party if not for Mike Castle. Maybe O'Donnell shouldn't have attacked his family and gotten personal, and his supporters might have warmed up to her.

She probably ran her 2006 primary campaign the same way. Then when she lost, she refused to endorse the winner. For someone who had worked with the party and won, you can't blame Ting for being furious. Certainly not for repaying the favor in 2008 and telling the party who couldn't rope in a nut like O'Donnell to enjoy their impending irrelevance.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 04, 2010 03:03 PM (mHQ7T)

793 And what about the harm done to the Tea Party and Republican party by making O'Donnell the face of the movement?


Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 03:02 PM (plsiE)
That damage can be repaired via Marco Rubio.

Posted by: Holger at November 04, 2010 03:03 PM (V9Q+f)

794 The people who think Karl Rove
cost COD the election are the same people who spent the last days
before the election posting about how she was closing the gap and might
still pull this thing out. So you know they're astonishingly
intelligent.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 02:12 PM (U+goV)
Karl Rove was just part of the effort to discredit
COD. Add in Krauthaummer anda number of conservative blogs. Add in no
endorsementfrom her primary opponent or real help from the state GOP.
If Castle was the candidate and got the same treatment, he would have
been crushed.
Also you're pretty dense or obtuse. ODonnell would
have votied against cap and trade, voted to REPEALObamacare and voted
againt Card Check.

Posted by: polynikes at November 04, 2010 02:21 PM (m2CN7)

You don't know how O'Donnell would have voted. The thing that bothers me the most is that the strongest of O'Donnell's supporters act as if the fact that she lied is of no importance at all. So what they say. Castle voted against Obamacare and co sponsored the bill to repeal it. He also the Stimulus and he was actually representative of the state of Delaware. He fit the state, much the same way a guy like Rand Paul can fit a state like Kentucky. The thing about O'Donnell is that you do not really know how she would vote..you know what she says, but a lot of people did not really have much faith in her integrity. So maybe they thought she would vote whatever way benefited her most. I think that this is something a lot of her supporters completely overlook.
Karl Rove got out there and gave his honest assessment of the candidate and so did Krauthammer and they have been criticized for stating their opinions. Juan Williams was fired for doing that and people on the right by and large condemned that firing. Well, we might not be firing Rove and Krauthammer, but a lot of people seem to think they should be punished or blamed for doing nothing more than saying what they thought.

Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 03:04 PM (bNnwW)

795 Unless you've been down in the GOP trenches slugging it out, you will never really appreciate what damage that GOP undermining did in this race. As a consultant, I've seen it first hand in more than one race.
What amazes me are all the guilt ridden "it was her own fault" stories about her losing and the "see we told ya" stories. What I don't see are any "it was their own fault" or "see we told ya" stories about Whitman or Carly both RINOs with all the support and money they needed, blowing it against two candidates who they should have defeated.

Posted by: D. at November 04, 2010 03:04 PM (plSrP)

796 did anyone actually take a swing at explaining
why O'Donnell is entitled to the unquestioning support of the party when
she wins even though she failed to give it when she lost?


Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 02:42 PM (HicGG)

You loaded that question with a bit of hostility with the word "unquestioning" so there is no use debating it, literally. However, I will take a crack at answering the question in the spirit in which I am sure it was intended.Christine ODonnell didn't demand to become a national figure. Her surprise primary win turned her from a pebble into a shiny marble. How she then got turned into a nerf football is disgusting to me, because the entire Tea Party thing has managed to nudge the Republican Party to the right, and she participated in that goal bravely. Her message of "I am You" may not have resonated in her state, but it did nationwide. She deserves, if not "unquestioning support", then at the very least, a "Thank you for your service, God Speed."

Posted by: Mongerel at November 04, 2010 03:04 PM (YqWfw)

797 Praise the Maker - new thread!!!!

Posted by: Windmill of Death at November 04, 2010 03:04 PM (VmtE9)

798 How many more seats would we have won if not for weak candidates like
O'Donnell, Angle and Miller? And what about the harm done to the Tea
Party and Republican party by making O'Donnell the face of the movement?

Whoa whoa whoa...are you including Miller in there? Do you think it was wrong to primary Lisa Murkowski?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 04, 2010 03:04 PM (FkKjr)

799 792 " if we can't have O'Donnell, we're better off with Coons."Bullfuckingshit. I hope that sentence echoes through your head the next time a Supreme Court slot opens up.
Posted by: radar at November 04, 2010 03:00 PM (sWEaY)
So the only thing keeping Alan Grayson off the SCOTUS when the next slot open up would have been Senator Castle in DE? Dude, we picked up 6 other Senate positions.

Posted by: Count de Monet at November 04, 2010 03:05 PM (2g2ex)

800 When it finally did, in
the late summer of 2010, very few grassroots conservatives could
identify Mike Castle. Nobody here, beyond the hardcore election
junkies, was familiar with him.

What got Castle on my radar was a short article in the American Spectator pointing out that here was a guy who voted for Cap n' Tax and wasn't running a primary campaign in spite of having a more conservative (if flawed) challenger. The radio guys picked it up from there and the blogs from the radio guys, is roughly how I recall it going.

Posted by: Ian S. at November 04, 2010 03:05 PM (p05LM)

801
The good news is the midterms produced up-and-coming stars intent on moving the conservative vision forward. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has entered the race for GOP Conference Chair, a party leadership position, and may host weekly classes on the U.S. Constitution for House members.

Senator-elect Rand Paul needs no such classes. He brought “a message from the Tea Party” in his acceptance speech, saying, “We’ve come to take our government back.” His main priority is to “get back to what the Constitution meant and what it intended in the beginning.” Paul, who is not a clone of his father, will be a leader for cutting taxes and lowering spending by limiting the size, scope, and role of government.

That is precisely what Americans want but do not know how to ask for, because no candidate for office in a generation has articulated the message. Instead, they elected as many Republicans as possible in the knowledge many of those who understand these principles are to be found in the party’s ranks. The old GOP leadership, which wants to take the party “to the center,” believes the two-year tidal wave is simply an anti-Obama vote, and voters are pining for the good old days of 2005. Neither they nor the liberal media understand the boiling discontent began before Obama ever came to office.

Florida’s Marco Rubio got the message loud and clear. In his much-praised acceptance speech, he said, “We make a great mistake if we believe that tonight these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party. What they are is a second chance, a second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be not so long ago.” If the House leadership slips into a moderate, go-along-to-get-along mentality instead of a constitutional militancy, Republicans are doomed.

The message of this election was not merely a repudiation of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, but of big government in all its guises. The American voters have spoken a stinging rebuke against a decade of fiscal irresponsibility and government self-aggrandizement. No more Obamacare, Government Motors, or multi-billion dollar stimulus programs. But also no more prescription drug benefit expansions, “No Child Left Behind” bills, or pork-laden budget busters. No more kicking the can on Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. But also no more nation-building or . No reparations payments to Democratic constituencies and no federal bailouts for Republican governors who overspent during the 1990s. No special treatment for ungrateful illegal alien aunts who live on public welfare, and no more crony appointments like Harriet Miers or Alberto Gonzales. No more empty talk of “cutting spending” or “shrinking government,” followed by bloating and business-as-usual. And no to Greek-style debt, uncontrolled borders, and de facto amnesty – from either party.

These are the new rules, and the Republican Party will live, or die, by them.

Posted by: sickinmass at November 04, 2010 03:06 PM (1rflU)

802 Here…let me see if I can summarize this 800 plus train wreck in easily followed bullet point style:

Christine O’Donnell 2010 Senate Campaign – Not a good campaign.

Karl Rove – Stupid for bad mouthing O’Donnell

Mike Castle – RINO

Delaware – Boned

Dum Dum – Still Dum Dum

Questions?

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 03:06 PM (OWjjx)

803 If they make a serious stab at that they can write off the Republican Party because it will be dead in 5 years.


Posted by: Vic at November 04, 2010 12:55 PM (/jbAw)



DeMint was the one who turned-down a leadership role in the Senate. This is what he's said:



“Hell no,’’ DeMint, of Greenville, said when asked if would challenge Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell for the Senate minority leader's post. “I’m going to work with Mitch well. I think we’ve got a good leadership team.”DeMint
said he wants to continue as chairman of the Senate Republican Steering
Committee, which formulates policies on a range of issues.“I
want to be part of a team that’s moving our country in the right
direction,” he said. “I don’t want power, I don’t want a title. I just
want to move our country away from what I think is imminent financial
disaster. We’ve got to stop the spending and get control of the debt.”

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 03:06 PM (xc0ds)

804 Posted by: Rocks at November 04, 2010 02:58 PM (Q1lie)

I appreciate the response and that gives it some context.

Still, just two years ago O'Donnell was in the position to be a team player and she decided not to be one. She's really has no grounds to demand others do for her what she herself was unwilling to.

That's not exactly principled leadership, is it?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 03:06 PM (HicGG)

805 And what about the harm done to the Tea Party and Republican party by making O'Donnell the face of the movement?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 03:02 PM (plsiE)
That is the stupidest fucking thing ever to drizzle from your lips. "Made her the face of the movement?". Clue for ya: The "face of the movement" is whoever the MFM decides to focus on today. It's been COD, Palin, Rubio, Angle, Scott Brown, Rand Paul, the guy who didn't spit on a Congressman, the lefty in Tea party clothes with the Hitler sign, etc. I don't know where th fuck you came up with that.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 03:06 PM (5aa4z)

806 Tattoo, DeMint did not fucking threaten to leave the party.
You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. If you disagree, cite the source please.
Jeez, save me from these moderate fuckers making shit up.

Posted by: Log Cabin at November 04, 2010 03:06 PM (OF0tv)

807 Bullfuckingshit. I hope that sentence echoes through your head the next time a Supreme Court slot opens up.


Posted by: radar


Oh come now. Didn't you notice just how quickly the usual Republican suspects rushed to vote for the wise Latina:


Republicans Supporting Sotomayor (9 of 40)


• Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.)

• Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)

• Sen. Christopher Bond (Mo.)

• Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)

• Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine)

• Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.)

• Sen. Mel Martinez (Fla.)

• Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.)

• Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio)Waving the Supreme Court bloody flag is the least effective argument for electing a rino senator.


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 04, 2010 03:07 PM (BTyMb)

808 Why didn't they help her? Because of her portrayal by the liberal Media? OMG she thinks Masturbation is a sin! It's called a personal belief people, did you really think she was gonna form a Masturbation police force? gimme a freaking break.

It does make you wonder what else is clanking around in her mind.

Posted by: Newt & Romney's Truck 'n' Tow at November 04, 2010 03:07 PM (OzY4y)

809
I've got news for you, asshole. I've helped Republican candidates
get elected in Blue states and districts before. Several times. Guess
what? I know what fuck I'm talking about. I know how the messaging
works. I know what it takes, what will and will not fly.

I believe the advice of another well known messaging guru was, "Don't punch down!"

As I said, dKos-level, elitist twatwaffle


Posted by: MCPO Airdale at November 04, 2010 03:07 PM (G5qLy)

810 If picking up 6-7 senate seats and 63 House seats is the result of "making O'Donnel" the face of the tea party, we picked a good face.
We aren't going to win every election, and I'm skeptical that Castle would have won. That's the basic premise of DrewM and others, but conservatives would not have turned out for Castle in DE. You can't win without a base. In DrewM's world, the base is always going to turn out for the REpublican so you can just ignore them and run anybody. That's sloppy logic.

Posted by: Matt X at November 04, 2010 03:07 PM (g+4m8)

811 Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 02:23 PM (5aa4z)

Yes! And we let them behave like our betters -- look what that got us.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ( NJConservative) at November 04, 2010 03:07 PM (LH6ir)

812 She is right. The Republican party let her down and Joe Miller. The Repub power brokers, IE Rove and co will be gone! They ate their own

WE THE PEOPLE...

Posted by: gonzotx at November 04, 2010 03:08 PM (vVte+)

813 Bullfuckingshit. I hope that sentence echoes through your head the next time a Supreme Court slot opens up.

Posted by: radar at November 04, 2010 03:00 PM (sWEaY)

The fuck are you smoking? When have Republicans in the Senate EVER filibustered a Supreme Court nominee?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 04, 2010 03:08 PM (FkKjr)

814 807 Christine ODonnell didn't
demand to become a national figure.


Posted by: Mongerel at November 04, 2010 03:04 PM (YqWfw)
Anyone running for the U.S. Senate (multiple times now) is most certainly demanding to become a national figure.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 03:08 PM (U+goV)

815 806
Unless you've been down in the GOP trenches slugging it out, you will
never really appreciate what damage that GOP undermining did in this
race. As a consultant, I've seen it first hand in more than one race.
What amazes me are all the guilt ridden "it was her own fault"
stories about her losing and the "see we told ya" stories. What I don't
see are any "it was their own fault" or "see we told ya" stories about
Whitman or Carly both RINOs with all the support and money they needed,
blowing it against two candidates who they should have defeated.

Posted by: D. at November 04, 2010 03:04 PM (plSrP)

I want to tell you something. I lost faith in O'Donnell when I heard her lie her behind off in a radio interview. The lie was her own, it had nothing to do with GOP. However, so many of the people who insisted on promoting her act as if this lie was no big deal. All of us conservatives are just supposed to overlook it, but golly gee no one is perfect. We are not supposed to form opinions of this candidate that might run counter to those promoted by the likes of the self styled leaders of the conservative movement.
By the way, Christine O'Donnell is a member of the GOP, she is a Republican herself.

Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 03:08 PM (bNnwW)

816 Alvin Greene got 28% of the vote in S. Carolina. Think about it.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at November 04, 2010 03:08 PM (90bLF)

817 " if we can't have O'Donnell, we're better off with Coons."

Again, Castle would have been another Senator answering when "History Calls".

Then there would be post after post and comment after comment about talks about purity because of all the Scott Browns, John McCains, Maine Twins and Mike Castles.

Think long term.

Posted by: Dave C at November 04, 2010 03:08 PM (poJjg)

818 Maybe a few of you Palinisto!/COD'bots should go and re-read your posts from the 1st and 2nd.
IIRC, and I do- More than one of you were ready to call OD thefinal Jewel of Sarah P.'s Crown.
Now, you are less than willing to admit that you were way, way, off.
Go ahead, re-read them,I think some of the BlogPosts are still on the Front Page.
I'll wait.

Posted by: garrett at November 04, 2010 03:09 PM (NuEHe)

819 but it took us 6yrs before ordinary average
Americans actually decided to run for office. Why did it take us so long
before we decided to actually do something instead of just complain
about it?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 02:59 PM (xc0ds)

I'm thinking the treatment these people received this year explains why it took so long. Not just COD and Angle. Buck, McMahon, even Miller and Paul. The reason we here so much about the vicious attacks, which the dems always do anyway, is because SO many republicans support them in doing it for the most part because they are somehow "unfit" to hold office. The dems put up way worst candidates who are in some cases certifiable and then these same republicans start talking about being above such muckraking. Why? They like the dems doing it. The dem attacks can be used to take out who they don't like too. It's a hell of a lot easier than debating the ideas and convincing people that's for sure.

Posted by: Rocks at November 04, 2010 03:10 PM (Q1lie)

820 PUNCH UP!!!!

Posted by: Someguy at November 04, 2010 03:10 PM (NuEHe)

821 DeMint says he's fine, he's an honorable man for a politician, and I believe him. I do wish he had taken on McConnell, but he didn't. So, let's focus on what we have here.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 03:11 PM (xc0ds)

822 Bullfuckingshit. I hope that sentence echoes through your head the next time a Supreme Court slot opens up.
When?
When it's confirmed with 64 or sovotes?
Oooh, if only we'd have had Mike Castle, he'd have gummed the works and halted it! Phhht. Ha.
I don't know what sort of Candyland you live in but you're not getting me hooked on that stuff.
At the moment I'm still quite content that we don't have McCain. No telling if we'd have a tea party then.

Posted by: Entropy at November 04, 2010 03:12 PM (IsLT6)

823 825
807 Christine ODonnell didn't
demand to become a national figure.

Posted by: Mongerel at November 04, 2010 03:04 PM (YqWfw)

Oh I don't know about this. She has been promoting herself one way or another for years. That is the whole point. This was just the latest attempt on her part to become a big shot. Why do you think she went on Maher's show in the first place? Why did she run that right in campaign long before there even was a Tea Party movement.

She lost, because she is a weak candidate in a state where Republicans are greatly outnumbered. She never had a real shot at winning. So blaming everyone else is just another sign of her need to keep herself front and center. After all, it is all about her.

Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 03:12 PM (bNnwW)

824 Those who call for going with Castle types in deep blue areas are promoting a Party, and not a cause.

No, they're just realists who'd prefer to have some of something rather than all of nothing.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 04, 2010 03:13 PM (jqIg1)

825 Well I'm glad that's behind us and we can get back to being civil and reasonable.





IF WE DON'T ELECT DR. RON PAUL AS PRESIDENT IN 2012 WE'D BE BETTER OFF WITH OBAMA YOU RINO PUSSIES!

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 04, 2010 03:13 PM (5pIHA)

826 Would we still be stuck in this farkin' stupid thread if Marco Rubio had been the Delaware candidate?

Wouldn't have started to begin with, since Tha Gheyz fancy him.

Posted by: Carradiene's Belt at November 04, 2010 03:13 PM (qL20/)

827 The one thing I took away from this whole incident immediately after the Republican primary was what one Delawarian articulated (at AoSHQ) better than anyone could:
For the first time in a long time, people in Delaware felt like they had an opportunity to make a CHOICE other than the same POS candidates that the ¡°powers that be¡± in the Delaware GOP deigned to toss their way. And many of the voters in Delaware jumped at that opportunity. They made their voices heard. They put their party on notice that they were tired of being taken for granted.
In all of the grousing that is going on now in the electoral post-mortem, we ignore that very small but important fact at our peril. The people of Delaware SPOKE. I doubt that many of them thought there was a real chance that a Republican candidate in Delaware could win a Senate seat, so they did what Mr. Spock did in the ¡°Galileo 7¡å episode ¨C they sent up a desperation flare, in hopes that SOMEONE would see it.
I daresay it worked.

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at November 04, 2010 03:14 PM (5Bfym)

828 And the first unavoidable obstacle to that end that must be removed are the people who currently hold it and wish to keep it- Mike Castle types.
By replacing the Castle types with the likes of Coons, who will likely hold the seat for a very long time?
We wouldn't be having this discussion if aScott Brownlost a close race against Coons. We're having it because the Dems were given a free seat to a liberal due to a stupid mistake by the outside influences that won her the primry.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 03:15 PM (plsiE)

829 I do not give a rat's patootie. No more RINOs, no way, no how. Enough half-ass strategery - it's the conservative way or the highway.

Castle? Why not just import Barney Frank and go all the way? Sheesh.

Posted by: J. Moses Browning at November 04, 2010 03:15 PM (i5153)

830 Anyone running for the U.S. Senate (multiple times now) is most certainly demanding to become a national figure.


Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 03:08 PM (U+goV)
Pleeease. Who's the other Senator from Delaware? Who the fuck knows? And no one cares, either.

Posted by: George S. at November 04, 2010 03:16 PM (G/MYk)

831 831I'm
thinking the treatment these people received this year explains why it
took so long. Not just COD and Angle. Buck, McMahon, even Miller and
Paul. The reason we here so much about the vicious attacks, which the
dems always do anyway, is because SO many republicans support them in
doing it for the most part because they are somehow "unfit" to hold
office....

That means we didn't care even to try. If you just sit on your hands and don't do anything to change the status quo, it's the same as endorsing it. We always get poorly treated by the media and some within our own party, always. If we (especially those who won't vote due to purity reasons) actually believe in our principles, then we need to get out their and fight, even if it means taking on both sides.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 03:16 PM (xc0ds)

832 I forgot the "Blind" with the "loyalty" meme. Silly of me.

Yeah, that good old blind loyalty. That's what it was. Mass freaking stupidity. Yep. Eeeeveryone was sooooo stupid. Wonder they can operate the Internets at all.

Posted by: K~Bob at November 04, 2010 03:16 PM (AJ9HO)

833 It would be a lot easier to make this argument if Karl Rove and the rest of the establishment hadn’t chosen to undercut her at the moment of her victory.

I don’t trust anyone who makes the argument that it was okay to hamstring a racer because we knew they weren’t going to win. See? They didn’t win.

Primary candidates say that their opponent is unelectable is dog-bites-man. General election candidates saying their opponent is unelectable is dog-bites-man. The media saying the Republican candidate is unelectable is dog-bites-man. The Republican party saying that the Republican candidate is unelectable is man-bites-dog.

You can argue all you want that it didn’t matter, but that argument would be more believable if it weren’t necessary to make it.

Posted by: Jerry at November 04, 2010 03:17 PM (7Ahkq)

834 We wouldn't be having this discussion if aScott Brownlost a close race against Coons. We're having it because the Dems were given a free seat to a liberal due to a stupid mistake by the outside influences that won her the primry.I thought the people of Delaware voted for who they wanted?

Posted by: EZB at November 04, 2010 03:18 PM (Ty06w)

835 Demand 100% purity from those in blue districts and they'll be replaced by Dems, resulting in a very pure permanent minority.

I'm not, but some things can't be overlooked.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't be expected to vote as conservative
as they can get away with- especiallywhen we need their vote the most.
Castle probably could've gotten re-elected even if he voted against Cap
and Tax.

Deal breaker.
Still, it's very much a case of "lesser of two evils", and
Coons is by far the bigger devil compared to Castle.

Every Republican that supports Cap and Trade is like 3 Democrats. Why? It emboldens the Dems to be more liberal than they normally could get away with because they have Republican cover. So when they return to the district the solution is "Bi-Partisan". Additionally if we do not punish those who vote for this kind of tripe, then the squishy, morally flexible, wheelers and dealers in our caucus are emboldened to make more "deals" with liberals for more socialism.


We simply can't gain and maintain a Senate majority with only 100%
conservative candidates- there are simply too many blue states for that
to happen.
Again false choice. I not asking for 100% pure, just better than Castle. And I think we can expect some loyalty on a few big issues and still get a majority.




Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 04, 2010 03:18 PM (0q2P7)

836 Did a liberal write this post? This is the stupidest thing I've seen since Matthews tingle.

Posted by: MrX at November 04, 2010 03:19 PM (LEXTW)

837
We need warriors leading us, not party hacks. The work has just begun. Stay engaged and don’t let up. We still have a country to save.

Posted by: sickinmass at November 04, 2010 03:19 PM (1rflU)

838 So ... How 'bout them Cowboys?

Posted by: toby928™ at November 04, 2010 03:19 PM (S5YRY)

839 822 Yes! And we let them behave like our betters -- look what that got us.

We do, and we whine and complain and didn't bother to make our voices heard until it was almost too late. Now we have more voices in places of power, but we're too busy looking backward and not forward. Congress has a lot of work to do, we need to support those who are willing to do it and light a fire under those who refuse or start being devoured by that cesspool. Doing nothing is not an option.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 03:20 PM (xc0ds)

840 No, they're just realists who'd prefer to have some of something rather than all of nothing.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 04, 2010 03:13 PM (jqIg1)
Well, given there's really nothing left, we both lose.There are very different goals at stake between the two camps here, so there continues to be a lot of talking past of each other.I don't want to go back to 2008. I want to go back to 1908, before Wilson and Roosevelt and the other fascists got their hands on our liberties. This is the opportunity being presented to us, by crisis and by the ineptitude of the opposition. Playing today's political game is going to get us nowhere. Mike Castle was a liability to that goal. Short term, as far as votes for the next couple years, he wasn't even reliable there, so there was no point in not taking a far larger risk with O'Donnell.
There's a real disconnect to what people are talking about here.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 03:20 PM (5aa4z)

841 Come on, you knew this post was coming. It's been a decent interval but let us get it over with and move on.

Okay then.
Drew M, fuck you.
1. Christine O'Donnell is a poor candidate, especially based upon our general standards.
2.The Delaware GOP failed to vet O'Donnell years before, when she was their official candidate in 2008.
3. The Delaware GOP tried to crown Castle, but used a primary to do it. He didn't bother to campaign here until O'Donnell got TPE backing. That they chose to do this, when Bennet, Murkowski and Crist had all lost primaries, is staggering.
4. When he did start, he went negative, hard and fast. We could see the ads here. She went negative here, and appealed to the base. Is that what wins a general? No, but you have to win the primary to win the general. She understood that; he didn't.
5. Some here, myself included, determined that Castle's efforts were backfiring. The criticisms from the national/pundit level seemed to be piling on one candidate (which in a way, it was).
6. She managed to win the primary, which few of us expected.
7. The dead end media market that is Delaware, its make up and Dem bias all added up against her. The late Sen. Bill Roth stated to me that he had decided to accept the fact that he would never be treated fairly by the local media. That was from an incumbent senior Senator.
8. This inherent hostility was added to the fall out of the Republican primary (which we also see in Alaska) and the criticisms from the Punditry. The Delaware GOP trying to sue her was a bonus.
9. This is a state that elected Joe Biden seven times. Eight if you count 2008, when Delaware voted for him for two different offices. The fact that no one here objected to his scheme to create a Kennedy jr dynasty should also be cause for alarm/disgust.
10. Her opponent received considerable help in the form of heavy hitters firing up their base.
11. She lost by 16 points. Raese lost by 10, as did McMahon. Both were seen as being better candidates in comparison, and better fits for the states in which they competed. Miller is faring even worse.
12. How much of her loss can or should be credited to intrasagence by the state, national GOP or Castle? Probably some, but it's dificult to measure.
13. How much of the losscan be credited to her? Much.
14. Lack of accomplishment was her problem? Delawareans ignored that in Biden. He went to the US Senate with no more than a college degree, no law experience and a partial term in New Castle County Council.
15. Other issues, such as the witch thing, and the disgusting Gawker story, received varying degrees of acceptance or revulsion. I believe that her public image was framed much the same way Dan Quayle's was. Reality doesn't penetrate such stupidity. And when there is some basis in fact, it is all the harder. The fact that some are immune from its effects (Joe Biden) makes one realize how capricious this all is.

All in all, it was a long, unpleasant ride. Sadly, the State GOP, if they learned anything from this, would be to suppress the base and become more authoritarian and lean to the left. That would allow more liberal candidates to survive. That's actually what I suggest they do back in the Spring, during their state conference.
Fell free to ignore what happened here and resume the false purity crap and demeaning slurs.
And again Drew M, fuck you.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 03:20 PM (R2fpr)

842 843
Anyone running for the U.S. Senate (multiple times now) is most certainly demanding to become a national figure.


Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 03:08 PM (U+goV)
Pleeease. Who's the other Senator from Delaware? Who the fuck knows? And no one cares, either.


Posted by: George S. at November 04, 2010 03:16 PM (G/MYk)
You don't care who's voting for the health care bill or the stimulus?

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 03:21 PM (U+goV)

843 837
Those who call for going with Castle types in deep blue areas are promoting a Party, and not a cause.

No, they're just realists who'd prefer to have some of something rather than all of nothing.


Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 04, 2010 03:13 PM (jqIg1)
Nice play on the "purity" theme. No, they are Party folks. Screw 'em. There is a cause worth fighting for, and it isn't a political party. This is exactly what Washington believed when he admonished people to not "go there" by forming parties and plying this stupid game.

Posted by: K~Bob at November 04, 2010 03:21 PM (AJ9HO)

844 Chris Coons to Christine O'Donnell supporters:

Democrat Chris Coons took the stage with a huge crowd of family and campaign supporters at the Doubletree Hotel as a crowd of supporters cheered and waved signs in anticipation of his victory speech.

...he reached out to O’Donnell supporters.

“Even if I did not win your vote, I hope to have the chance, by working tirelessly for every Delawarean, to earn your respect and your partnership.”


Rinos to Christine O'Donnell supporters:

"Hey, FUCK YOU man! You aren't even my real Dad. You're just my mother's husband!

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 04, 2010 03:22 PM (BTyMb)

845 751 So, what did the POSs who write for this site do to HELP O'Donnell??
All you did was piss all over her, thereby giving aid and comfort to
the enemy.Posted by: Bender at November 04, 2010 02:50 PM (pLTLS)

I voted for Castle in the primary, despite my loathing of his stand on cap and tax, my writing letters to him to vote "no" and then he voted "yes". I was not disappointed in the slightest when he lost.
I voted for Christine in the general election, but sent her no $$ in light of the fact she pulled in well over $2,000,000 from around the country. Instead, I contributed $$ and GOTV work for the GOP House candidate, Glen Urquhart, here in the general, because I had decided to work on his campaign prior to him winning the primary.
Having answered Bender's question, I'd amend it to read, "So, what did those who post on this site do to HELP conservative candidates in their own necks of the woods?" That's rhetorical, by the way; I am signing off on this subject with this post. {* this is a joke >> *} However, folks coming to PuddingCon here on Saturday can resurrect it once more and, if this thread is any indication, after the inevitable public brawl breaks out and the Wilmington police get through with us, we can unite again as MMs as we hunt up the services of a bail bondsmen.


Posted by: ya2daup at November 04, 2010 03:23 PM (UzjcV)

846 What did Karl Rove say about her personally that was not 100 percent
factual, and what did he say about her campaign's chances that was not
ultimately borne out?

When was the last time you saw Carville or Begala or the MSNBC crew repeatedly bashing a Dem Senate candidate? Democrats get strategy and tactics. The GOP probably never will.

Posted by: Ian S. at November 04, 2010 03:23 PM (p05LM)

847 That is the stupidest fucking thing ever to drizzle from your lips. "Made her the face of the movement?". Clue for ya: The "face of the movement" is whoever the MFM decides to focus on today. It's been COD, Palin, Rubio, Angle, Scott Brown, Rand Paul, the guy who didn't spit on a Congressman, the lefty in Tea party clothes with the Hitler sign, etc. I don't know where th fuck you came up with that.
Perhaps you missed the story about how O'Donnell got the most coverage out of all Republican candidates.
Blame the MSM all you want, but it was the high profile support of Palin and the TPE that won her the primary and resulted in the amount of coverage she got.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 03:23 PM (plsiE)

848 " I've got news for you, asshole. I've
helped Republican candidates
get elected in Blue states and districts before. Several times. Guess
what? I know what fuck I'm talking about. I know how the messaging
works. I know what it takes, what will and will not fly."

And I've got news for you too shit monkey.

Most of the Republicans you got elected in Blue States don't vote with republicans often enough to justify their being elected as republicans and THAT SHIT IS JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH ANYMORE.

We are all stocked up on high minded Quisling types now. We have plenty to go around, and don't want any more. We'd rather get defeated by the other party in honest confrontation than sold out by supposed members of our own,who we unfortunately supported, with our money and time, in the vain hope that they would represent US in turn.

I need more of your blue-state, left-leaning RINO election "help" the same way I need more jock itch, sucking chest wounds, and osteoporosis.

Posted by: cackfinger at November 04, 2010 03:23 PM (Elbt6)

849
>>No more RINOs, no way, no how. Enough half-ass strategery - it's the conservative way or the highway.

1884: (For those who think RINOs are recent developments)
Democrat Grover Cleveland defeated Republican James G. Blaine ending a particularly acrimonious campaign. The outcome of the presidential race was determined by the electoral vote of New York, which Cleveland won with a plurality of just 1,047 votes. Former Senator and Secretary of the Interior Carl Schurz was among those “reform-minded” Republicans who crossed party lines. Cleveland was the first Democrat to occupy the White House after the Civil War and was so bad he was thrown out four years later. He came back and won after four years out of office which shows you bozo voters are nothing new either.

Posted by: sickinmass at November 04, 2010 03:23 PM (1rflU)

850 You don't care who's voting for the health care bill or the stimulus?


Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 03:21 PM (U+goV)
No. My point was that most Senators are not nationally famous, which you implied that anyone running for the Senate is seeking.

Posted by: George S. at November 04, 2010 03:25 PM (G/MYk)

851 By replacing the Castle types with the likes of Coons, who will likely hold the seat for a very long time?
This isn't about the seat in DE. Fuck DE. We don't need DE.
What we need is a party. It's a 2 party system, so I needs me one of those parties.
Can't even attempt to play in this political system ATM without a party. Ain't got a dog in the fight until then.

Posted by: Entropy at November 04, 2010 03:25 PM (IsLT6)

852 Read the second paragraph, undead states: I don’t trust anyone who makes the argument that it was okay to hamstring a racer because we knew they weren’t going to win. See? They didn’t win.

There was no purpose to making that argument after the primary win—unless they wanted to lose. That’s why that narrative dominated the race.

Posted by: Jerry at November 04, 2010 03:25 PM (7Ahkq)

853 When was the last time you saw Carville or Begala or the MSNBC crew repeatedly bashing a Dem Senate candidate? Democrats get strategy and tactics. The GOP probably never will.
Hi there. Can I interest you in my comic book?

Posted by: Alvin Greene, O'Donnell's long lost doppelganger at November 04, 2010 03:25 PM (plsiE)

854 This isn't about the seat in DE. Fuck DE. We don't need DE.
What we need is a party. It's a 2 party system, so I needs me one of those parties.
Can't even attempt to play in this political system ATM without a party. Ain't got a dog in the fight until then.
And just exactly how many states can we afford to write off if we ever want to see a 60 seat majority?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 03:28 PM (plsiE)

855 The conservatives should go into these deep blue states with the idea of teaching the liberals all about conservative history. It may take a generation but don't give up before you start. The more candidates that can be fielded then themore liberals can be exposed to better ideas.

Posted by: scif at November 04, 2010 03:28 PM (iaOa9)

856 If we can't crack the party, then the nextrecourse is to structurallybreak the system.

Posted by: Entropy at November 04, 2010 03:28 PM (IsLT6)

857 Perhaps you missed the story about how O'Donnell got the most coverage out of all Republican candidates.
Blame the MSM all you want, but it was the high
profile support of Palin and the TPE that won her the primary and
resulted in the amount of coverage she got.

And if you look at it from just a slightly different angle than you're viewing it from now, it proves my point in spades. It was editorial choice to cover COD. The Tea Party didn't make that choice. Media did, because she was a conservative in a blue state, and they needed a target. They do it every fucking time.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 03:28 PM (5aa4z)

858 When was the last time you saw Carville or Begala or the MSNBC crew
repeatedly bashing a Dem Senate candidate? Democrats get strategy and
tactics. The GOP probably never will.

They're also blind party hacks who don't say what they really think about their party until they loose an election. Ellis Henican never would have admitted what he did about the Blue Dogs if it weren't for the fact they got drubbed everywhere but in the Senate.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 03:28 PM (xc0ds)

859 865
You don't care who's voting for the health care bill or the stimulus?


Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 03:21 PM (U+goV)
No. My point was that most Senators are not nationally famous, which you implied that anyone running for the Senate is seeking.


Posted by: George S. at November 04, 2010 03:25 PM (G/MYk)
It's tough to keep a low profile when you're one of the most powerful people in the United States government and voting on bills that affect the entire country. Anyone running for public office can't say they didn't want the spotlight.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 03:28 PM (U+goV)

860 I'll ask the question again.What did Karl Rove say about her personally that was not 100 percent
factual, and what did he say about her campaign's chances that was not
ultimately borne out?

I'll also ask the question again.

When was the last time you saw Carville or Begala or the MSNBC crew repeatedly bashing a Dem Senate candidate?

The anti-COD peeps on this thread are claiming to have strategy and tactics on their side. I'm not seeing how Rove's statements were at all useful as strategy or tactics.

Posted by: Ian S. at November 04, 2010 03:28 PM (p05LM)

861 I'll ask the question again.

I wonder how he would feel while running, if, after the primary, George Bush came out and said he was a sure loser, and talked about all sorts of bad stuff he had done.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 04, 2010 03:29 PM (0q2P7)

862 871
If we can't crack the party, then the nextrecourse is to structurallybreak the system.

Isn't that what we're in the midst of doing?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 03:29 PM (xc0ds)

863 I thought the people of Delaware voted for who they wanted?

I get the impression that some people believe Delaware Republicans had apparently never heard of Mike Castle and Christine O'Donnell, and the only impression they went by was the TEA Party Express, which is ridiculous.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 04, 2010 03:29 PM (FkKjr)

864 However, folks coming to PuddingCon here on Saturday can resurrect it once more and, if this thread is any indication, after the inevitable public brawl breaks out and the Wilmington police get through with us, we can unite again as MMs as we hunt up the services of a bail bondsmen.
Posted by: ya2daup

I'm about done with it. We've been at this for months, and most here are still only taking what fits their preconceptions. We tried to describe what we see here locally, but does not matter a tinker's damn.

See you at Puddingcon.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 03:29 PM (R2fpr)

865 What did Karl Rove say about her personally that was not 100 percent
factual, and what did he say about her campaign's chances that was not
ultimately borne out?

Posted by:The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2010 03:24 PM (/AxgK)

Ever hear of a self fulfilling prophecy?


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 04, 2010 03:30 PM (/G5LI)

866 What did Karl Rove say about her personally that was not 100 percent
factual, and what did he say about her campaign's chances that was not
ultimately borne out?

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2010 03:24 PM (/AxgK)
He repeated stupid innuendo and rumor about her and sucked all the air right out of her victory, as he started all this before the primary even ended. He accused her of dodging idiotic questions and generally impugned her character. Then he went on TV the next few days and continued on with it, again and again. And many of the other Vichy Right followed along.
As to Rove's prognostications, that idiot is the one who ran the GOP political fortunes when we went from having all of Washington to having none. He presided over more damage to the GOP than even Clinton had done to the dems, which was quite amazing. Given that history that Rove has in understanding America, politically, why would you listen to him opine about anything?

Posted by: George S. at November 04, 2010 03:30 PM (G/MYk)

867 And just exactly how many states can we afford to write off if we ever want to see a 60 seat majority?

Oh so now we are about 60 and not 50?
I'll tell you. Since the math is HARD.

20 States.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 04, 2010 03:30 PM (0q2P7)

868 Still, just two years ago O'Donnell was in the
position to be a team player and she decided not to be one. She's really
has no grounds to demand others do for her what she herself was
unwilling to.That's not exactly principled leadership, is it?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 03:06 PM (HicGG)

No, that was 4 years ago. 2 years ago O'Donnell won the primary and went on to win more votes for an R senator against Biden then any other candidate before. She played it right in 2008 and did well. Was anyone surprised she ran again wanting to win? What does the R leadership do? Do they reach out to her and maybe work out a deal? No, they dismiss her and put forward the crony.
What people fail to note is Urqhart was an upstart too and he beat the party pick for the House seat. The DE republican party leadership is a joke. This entire situation could have been avoided if they actually listened to their own voters instead of just doing whatever they wanted.

Posted by: Rocks at November 04, 2010 03:31 PM (Q1lie)

869 871
If we can't crack the party, then the nextrecourse is to structurallybreak the system.

Posted by: Entropy at November 04, 2010 03:28 PM (IsLT6)

AMEN!!!!!

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 04, 2010 03:32 PM (/G5LI)

870 I never do anything wrong.

Posted by: christine O'Donnell at November 04, 2010 03:32 PM (FKt9E)

871 With respect, and there is plenty of it due Ace of Spades and DrewM, I am not that disappointed by Delaware. The key objective in Delaware was killing Cap and Trade by making sure it did not become a bargaining chip for control of the Senate. That was accomplished.

It is simply too easy to envision a scenario in which Senate control comes down to one vote, and that vote is Castle's. He calls McConnell and says, "I'd like to see you as the Majority Leader Mitch but I need some assurances that Republicans will not block my environmental legislation...".

Does McConnell cave in? Of course he does. And then we have Graham and Castle handing us Cap and Trade Lite from the Republicans.

No thanks. I'll agree strongly that O'Donnell was a flawed candidate but she sure did her job well in the primary. Thank you Christine!

Posted by: DaMav at November 04, 2010 03:32 PM (QNU76)

872 But she's a true, red-blooded conservative. How can you criticize her?

Posted by: JEA at November 04, 2010 03:32 PM (QGbEp)

873 I'm like Reverse Jesus, Jr. Everyone else must pay for my sins.

Posted by: christine O'Donnell at November 04, 2010 03:33 PM (FKt9E)

874 Please read Palin's op ed today at NRO.

It really deals with alot of this and the method for next time is right on target.

Posted by: Dan at November 04, 2010 03:34 PM (1jzSs)

875 Fucking Karl Rove.

He could have given Delaware voters their marching orders and gotten O'Donnell elected, but that motherfucker Just. Wouldn't. Do it.

I mean, look how many times Karl Rove got Joe Biden reelected Senator in Delaware. He's one powerful fucking juju man.

Get your heads out of your asses.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 04, 2010 03:34 PM (5pIHA)

876 "Dark forces."

Posted by: christine O'Donnell at November 04, 2010 03:34 PM (FKt9E)

877 Nice play on the "purity" theme. No, they are Party folks. Screw 'em.

It has nothing to do with "purity" and everything to do with the sausage making procedure of legislative committee operations.

If you're the majority party and hold the committee chairman positions, you're in a much better position to establish the rules and what makes it to the floor for a vote and what is allowed to die quietly.

A RINO who votes against you 80% of the time is still valuable in establishing which is the majority party and which party controls the committee chairs.

If you freaking people can't get past this purity red herring and see the operational advantages of having a majority, even if it requires some RINO's to get it, then you're all naive about how politics works.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 04, 2010 03:34 PM (jqIg1)

878 hey, can we start a new thread already..? You know, like, should Pelosi appear as skrunt of the month in Skranck magazine or should she appear as skrank of the month in Sckrunt magazine?
Anyway, what good could you have expected fromthe state that repeatedly elected Joe Biden to the Senate?

Posted by: mallfly at November 04, 2010 03:34 PM (bJm7W)

879 And just exactly how many states can we afford to write off if we ever want to see a 60 seat majority?
We don't need 60.
41 Demints and Pauls and Coburns would do more for classical liberalism in this country than the Republican party ever has, ever.
These bumblefucks would claim they can't get anything done without 66 if you gave them 60, but that's just what they say to hide the fact they don't really want to do anything.

Posted by: Entropy at November 04, 2010 03:34 PM (IsLT6)

880 Was CO a great choice? No, but the GOP voters of DE liked her over Castle

You try to support the players you've got, and try not to point out all the weaknesses to the opposition

What Rove and others in the Old Boys Network did was decide that they didn't get the player they wanted, so they decided to tell the opposition all the plays and weaknesses. Kind of like tipping off the batters what pitches were coming

If Rove and the others demand that we all unite and play as a team, the fucks should have this thrown in their faces

Posted by: kbdabear at November 04, 2010 03:34 PM (vdfwz)

881 But she's a true, red-blooded conservative. How can you criticize her?
Posted by: JEA

The same way that I can criticize you, you syphilitic cur. Why are you here? Obama couldn't take to India? Can't make it through quarantine?

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 03:35 PM (R2fpr)

882 The same Dark Forces that sabotaged me before. Sat out in my bushes. The faces might be different; their party affiliation might be different, but they're the same dark forces. The just move from party to party, from election to election. They use the bushes.

Posted by: christine O'Donnell at November 04, 2010 03:36 PM (FKt9E)

883 But I suppose Karl Rove, the man with political
acumen enough to have given us the White House twice in the last decade,
was not supposed to act in his current role as a Fox News commentator
by giving people his honest view of the situation on-air. A view that
earned him hateful vitriol from O'Donnell's supporters, and a view that
was proven this week to have been correct all along.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2010 03:30 PM (/AxgK)

It is ASSUMED that Karl Rove GAVE us the White House. My perception is that Al Gore and John Kerry did it. Even then, it was a close call.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 04, 2010 03:36 PM (/G5LI)

884 Again false choice. I not asking for 100% pure, just better than Castle. And I think we can expect some loyalty on a few big issues and still get a majority.
Nobody is arguing against the idea of nominating someone better than Castle. However, a deeply flawed candidate with zero chance of winning isn't "better", no matter what their ideology.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 03:36 PM (plsiE)

885 If you freaking people can't get past this purity
red herring and see the operational advantages of having a majority,
even if it requires some RINO's to get it, then you're all naive about
how politics works.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 04, 2010 03:34 PM

Nice having a nominal majority, but one that passes shit like Crap N Trade and puts Sotomayor and Kagen on the Supreme Court?

Nice to have a committee chair that bends over for the likes of Leahy, Schumer, and other Dem mafioso

Posted by: kbdabear at November 04, 2010 03:38 PM (vdfwz)

886 The people who voted for COD in the primary fucked up. Bigtime. It goes way beyond whether in the long-run it is better the Dems own their legislation by having no bipartisan cover. That's a legitimate argument. You guys simply can't vote for someone who is so easily served up on a platter for the liberal press to destroy and tarnish other candidates by association. Best long-term strategy arguments don't apply to COD because of her very scary biography.

Posted by: Spike at November 04, 2010 03:38 PM (WLxeI)

887 pretty much exactly what Rush said ... guess she is in good company ... sorry

Posted by: The Kraken at November 04, 2010 03:38 PM (GvYeG)

888 I wasdemoted at a conservative think tank because conservatism is sexist and I am a victim of sexism.
Although I never hold down real jobs, I file 7 million dollar frivilous lawsuits because I am a victim.
I fell behind 90,000 in mortagage payments. Because I am a poor victim.
People make fun of me for saying stupid thengs because I was a young, naive victim.
The IRS and debt collectors chase me around because I am a victim.
I lost becauxse I am a vcitim.

LOOK AT ME. FEEL BAD FOR ME. ME. ME. ME. I AM A VICTIM!!!

Posted by: Christine O'Donnell at November 04, 2010 03:39 PM (OAzB1)

889 You make a good sales pitch, but I am not buying. Rove, et. al. speak of loyalty, but only when it suits them. Sure, she might not have been a great candidate but she won the primary and she deserved better than she got. And what good are RINO's anyway.

Posted by: Terry at November 04, 2010 03:39 PM (FoXgF)

890 905th!!!
Cordially...

Posted by: Rick at November 04, 2010 03:40 PM (HbWhE)

891 I think we can all agree, though, that Empire of Jeff gives the best head.

If you buy his shitty real estate, that is.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 03:40 PM (5aa4z)

892 900
But I suppose Karl Rove, the man with political
acumen enough to have given us the White House twice in the last decade,
was not supposed to act in his current role as a Fox News commentator
by giving people his honest view of the situation on-air. A view that
earned him hateful vitriol from O'Donnell's supporters, and a view that
was proven this week to have been correct all along.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2010 03:30 PM

A coach going on TV and telling the world what plays they were going to run and which players sucked might be honest, but not too damned smart

Anyone ever see the Dems air out their dirty laundry for the opposition to sniff at?

Posted by: kbdabear at November 04, 2010 03:40 PM (vdfwz)

893 To those who think I would have been dependable vote in the Senate..

Chumps.


Posted by: Mike Castle Answering History's Call at November 04, 2010 03:40 PM (poJjg)

894 837 Those who call for going with Castle types in deep blue areas are promoting a Party, and not a cause.No, they're just realists who'd prefer to have some of something rather than all of nothing.Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 04, 2010 03:13 PM (jqIg1)

Criticizing O'Donnell is not the same thing as loving/liking/not hating Castle.

And frankly a lot of COD supporters were just dicks during the campaign. I hate to stir stuff up but people should have to stand behind their previous statements.

You may not agree with Drew's views on the DE race but at least he was open and honest and willing to take his lumps on it if it had gone the other way. But a lot of COD supporters are being kind of weasily and trying to walk back their previous comments.

I can understand the appeal of the anti-RINO, anti-Castle arguments even if I don't really agree with them. But that courtesy was not returned by many COD supporters who were all too willing to be assholes to fellow conservatives - who I might point out have been working away in the trenches long before O'Donnell ever appeared on the scene.

And all this fratricidal dickishness over a kinda flakey candidate in a blue state who's never had a real job? Really? I don't get it.

Posted by: Mætenloch at November 04, 2010 03:41 PM (pAlYe)

895 41 Demints and Pauls and Coburns would do more for classical liberalism in this country than the Republican party ever has, ever.
These bumblefucks would claim they can't get anything done without 66 if you gave them 60, but that's just what they say to hide the fact they don't really want to do anything.
And just exactly how do you propose we repeal Obamacare or other bad legislationwith 41 votes? Hope that 19 Dems cross the isle?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 03:41 PM (plsiE)

896 A RINO who votes against you 80% of the time is still valuable in establishing which is the majority party and which party controls the committee chairs.

If you freaking people can't get past this purity red herring and see the operational advantages of having a majority, even if it requires some RINO's to get it, then you're all naive about how politics works.

Posted by: Purple Avenger



New House Oversight Committee Chair Issa to Investigate Both Bush and Obama

November 4, 2010

As chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has the authority to subpoena records from both current and former presidents — and that’s exactly what he plans to do, Politico reports.

“I’m going to be investigating a president of my own party, because many of the issues we’re working on began [with] President Bush or even before, and haven’t been solved,” Issa told MSNBC interviewers while serving as a guest on the show “The Daily Rundown.”

...“I want to prove the pundits wrong. My job is not to bring down the president. My job is to make the president a success,” Issa said on a midnight conference call with reporters, just after House Minority Leader John Boehner’s victory speech.


Yep, so, so naive...



Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 04, 2010 03:41 PM (BTyMb)

897 ...I'm in love with Jeff B.

Posted by: I may have low standards... at November 04, 2010 03:42 PM (Ufo2V)

898 I'll ask the question again.

What did Karl Rove say about her personally that was not 100 percent factual, and what did he say about her campaign's chances that was not ultimately borne out?
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2010 03:24 PM (/AxgK)
By your logic, it is incumbent upon us to repeatedly, doggedly, and stupidly point out, again and again how immensely fat Chris Christie is when he runs for President. I'm sure it'll all work out just fine. At least that way you cant accuse us of blind loyalty.

We can all point at fine shed he built for his tool and say, look War, see, he's a fat mother fzcker! All jiggly an' shzt! Just look at it! Whooo-ee!

Now what, exactly would be factually wrong about it?

Posted by: K~Bob at November 04, 2010 03:42 PM (AJ9HO)

899 Castle wasn't good, but he would have been better than Coons. Can I get an AMEN, Brotha!?

Posted by: rdbrewer at November 04, 2010 03:42 PM (FKt9E)

900 Nobody is arguing against the idea of nominating someone better than Castle. However, a deeply flawed candidate with zero chance of winning isn't "better", no matter what their ideology.
That. But the Dan Riehls in their 14-comment threads will never concede the logic of it.
Cordially...

Posted by: Rick at November 04, 2010 03:42 PM (HbWhE)

901 Maet scores:
And frankly a lot of COD supporters were just dicks during the campaign. I hate to stir stuff up but people should have to stand behind their previous statements.

Posted by: rdbrewer at November 04, 2010 03:43 PM (FKt9E)

902 Look, all you O'Donnellites. You have this coming. You know damn well you do, so just take it like the booger-eating lummoxes you are.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at November 04, 2010 03:44 PM (PmZ9N)

903 It's payback time, assholes.

Posted by: rdbrewer at November 04, 2010 03:44 PM (FKt9E)

904 And just exactly how do you propose we repeal Obamacare or other bad
legislationwith 41 votes? Hope that 19 Dems cross the isle?

Yeah. Shame we won't have Mike Castle up there to help out.


Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 03:44 PM (5aa4z)

905 OK, OK, I give up! It's always about having our team nominally in charge, so we can be so proud that they gave minimal opposition to the shit the Dems pump up our asses, and Lindsey Graham can have a few drinks with Dick Durbin

If someone is shoving shit down my throat, I curse him whether he has a big D or big R on his fraternity sweater

Posted by: kbdabear at November 04, 2010 03:44 PM (vdfwz)

906 At least I have a three-million dollar slush fund to keep me dumb and happy until the next fake campaign.

Posted by: christine O'Donnell at November 04, 2010 03:46 PM (FKt9E)

907 It's payback time, assholes.

Posted by: rdbrewer at November 04, 2010 03:44 PM (FKt9E)
For what? Taking the fucking abuse of Drew and Ace because we realized Castle was a piece of shit, too, but just weren't willing to get ick on our fingers trying to pick that turd up by the clean end?

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 03:47 PM (5aa4z)

908 Mætenloch, those are all worthwhile arguments for before the primary and after the general. Unless the person making them specifically wants the candidate to lose, however, they suck as arguments between the primary and the general.

Republicans criticizing a Democratic candidate isn’t news and it doesn’t set the narrative. Republicans criticizing a Republican candidate is news and it does set the narrative.

Posted by: Jerry at November 04, 2010 03:47 PM (7Ahkq)

909 Can someone get this chisler out my territory?

Posted by: Reverse Jesus at November 04, 2010 03:48 PM (FKt9E)

910 Morganholz, you've been the most belligerant asshole on this topic. You're just as stupid as O'Donnell when it comes to accepting responsibility for bad decisions.

Posted by: rdbrewer at November 04, 2010 03:49 PM (FKt9E)

911 See Rove et al. broke the 11th Commandment. They should have said their shit during the primary, not the election. During the primary it would be legitimate and constructive. That's why you have a primary in the first place. Its the vetting process. After the primary it just gives ammo to the libs. It can be 1000% true, but it doesn't matter. It hurts the cause and does nothing constructive. Which is why we have an 11th commandment in the first place.

Posted by: Iblis at November 04, 2010 03:50 PM (9221z)

912 Just so you know, the 1000th post in this thread automatically becomes the 2012 Delaware Republican Senate nominee.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 04, 2010 03:50 PM (BTyMb)

913 And all this fratricidal dickishness over a
kinda flakey candidate in a blue state who's never had a real job?
Really? I don't get it.

Posted by: Mætenloch at November 04, 2010 03:41 PM

The Dems didn't win by telling the world what a total asshole Alan Grayson is, or that Al Franken would be either a dick or total clown

If your quarterback sucks, you still try to block for him, you don't stand aside and tell the other team where he's going to throw the pass

COD sucked as a candidate, I get it. Giving aid and comfort to the Dems and their MFM propagandists is what I don't get

Posted by: kbdabear at November 04, 2010 03:50 PM (vdfwz)

914 This is fucked up. We're pacing to double the posts of the gloat thread. and, I'm not done gloatin'.
And it's Drew's fault. Silly dickweed launches an unnecessary14 paragraph rant, cuz he felt stung by COD on CNN. What a pussy. How are either of those initials even relevant today? Ya think maybe there might be something more important? Go home and cry to mama, you ineffectual piece of shit. It only hurts if there's some truth in there. And, the truth is in the middle. COD could've been a better candidate, AND the "establishment" totally fucked up (Rove, Drew = establishment. Yep. Drew isn't even half a Rush [physically and mentally]). But, today: take a lesson from Bill Murray's Meatballs: "It just doesn't matter! It just doesn't matter! It just doesn't matter!"
Everyone else can suck my pudding-laden nuggets, or enjoy some nice self-fornication. I'd do it myself, but I'm not that flexible.

Posted by: Pooper Scooper at November 04, 2010 03:50 PM (LlX9m)

915 The mean people keep spoiling my campaigns.

Posted by: christine O'Donnell at November 04, 2010 03:51 PM (FKt9E)

916 I think we can all agree, though, that Empire of Jeff gives the best head.

If you buy his shitty real estate, that is.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010

You dirty son of a bitch.

That real estate was NOT shitty.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 04, 2010 03:51 PM (5pIHA)

917 And just exactly how do you propose we repeal Obamacare or other bad legislationwith 41 votes? Hope that 19 Dems cross the isle?
Sure they'll repeal it now?
They won't. It'll take till '12.
And you'll never have 60 anyway.
And honestly? After '14 or '16 when people start dying, and you get your "lesser of two evils" choice, DE will vote for Ollie Fuckin North if that's their option. Just like we're told to take the lesser. 'Cept we'd be picking.
How did the dems get Obamacare in the first place? It's cause they're not afraid to gambit two dozen blue dogs. They'll win them back in another election or three, lose them again, win them back. That's just called politics. That's how it works, unless and until you have a 1 party system, and if you think a 1 party Republican system would do shit for you other than stomp their boots onyour right nut instead of your left, you're deluded.
If we HAD HAD just 41 (back when the GOP had more than that) we wouldn't need 60 at all because it wouldn't have happened.
You see what squish majorities get you?
You're telling me I need to vote for them so they can save me from themselves.
I need them to undo what they just allowed to happen?
At least with 41 DeMints, perhaps we cannot repeal it, but it will not happen again.
53 Mike Castles will tell you they'll repeal it if it's what you want to hear, but it WILL happen again... just like it has. At least 41 stops the damage.

Posted by: Entropy at November 04, 2010 03:52 PM (IsLT6)

918 Yep, so, so naive...
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 04, 2010 03:41 PM (BTyMb)
Honestly that's a smart way to go. If you say you're investigating things from both Bush and Obama, they cannot hammer you on the "You're only going after your opponents!" BS. Decent cover in my eyes to really nail this current crop of crooks.

Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 03:52 PM (oVQFe)

919 I think I am going to sue Karl Rove for being an objective analyst on Foxnews for 7 million because he is a mean sexist and I amthe victim.

Posted by: Christine O'Donnell at November 04, 2010 03:53 PM (OAzB1)

920 So by your logic, Being Fat = Misappropriating Campaign Funds and Smearing Primary Opponents.

Again, where is the amazing strategy in choosing to point those things out about your own candidates?

I keep hearing that Rove's a super-genius. All I see is a guy who a) smeared the fuck out of McCain in 2000, which arguably caused McCain to run in '08 b) nearly lost to Al Gore, the world's least charismatic candidate (and did lose big in the popular vote, as libs like to point out) c) ran possibly the least effective White House messaging operation in the last 50 years d) nearly lost to John Effin' Kerry before the Swift Boat Vets bailed his ass out.

Posted by: Ian S. at November 04, 2010 03:53 PM (p05LM)

921 Republicans criticizing a Democratic candidate isn’t news and it doesn’t set the narrative. Republicans criticizing a Republican candidate is news and it does set the narrative.Posted by: Jerry at November 04, 2010 03:47 PM (7Ahkq)

I think you wildly over-estimate the impact of Rove and the blogosphere in general. If no Republican had said a single critique about her, I think she would still have lost by about 15 points. We'll all political geeks around here but most voters i.e. normal people pay no attention to pundits or blogs.

Posted by: Mætenloch at November 04, 2010 03:54 PM (pAlYe)

922 Nice having a nominal majority, but one that passes shit like Crap N Trade and puts Sotomayor and Kagen on the Supreme Court?

If you have a nominal majority and control the committee chair positions, CT never makes it to the floor for a vote and remains stalled in committee bogged down with all sorts of "procedural problems". You DON'T NEED the RINO's vote if they're kept off all of the most important committees, you just need them to be there so you get those chairmanship positions.
Being the majority party allows all sorts of vile shit to be spiked by the committee chairmen and never see the light of day. If it takes a RINO to produce that majority, so be it.

If you can't see the obvious advantages of being in the majority position, then you're blind.




Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 04, 2010 03:56 PM (jqIg1)

923 You are dead wrong on this one Ace.

Posted by: John at November 04, 2010 03:56 PM (y+bhC)

924 This post was very predictable. You knew it was coming. Hot Air will do their share of hand wringing too. Whatever. The best thing about Odonnell is she assasinated Mike Castle. The most liberal republican in the congress. Screw Mike Castle.

She also took the negative media attention away from the other conservative or tea party type canidates. That was helpful. They also said she was going to cost Toomey in Penn. Didn't happen.

It would be great to find a true moderate type in delaware like Scott Brown who was talentedand win delaware. But if not, then screw delaware. I prefer democratic commies to Republican ones any day of the week.

Posted by: Keven at November 04, 2010 03:57 PM (yO+uQ)

925 Karl Rove is damaged goods in my mind, in the league of Steven Schmidt, Nicolle Wallace, and Newt Gingrich

He can talk all he wants, but anyone who trusts him ever again is a damned fool

Was it worth it, Karl? Sometimes silence is golden

Posted by: kbdabear at November 04, 2010 03:57 PM (vdfwz)

926 891
Please read Palin's op ed today at NRO.

Read it twice -- in some parts I thought, "She does remember she ran and supported John McCain, right?"

Posted by: prettypinkfluffypanties at November 04, 2010 03:58 PM (cQfrc)

927 Oh, give me a break. It was Bush himself who called Rove "The Architect" after his 2004 win.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2010 03:51 PM (/AxgK)
Oy. Bush only won in 2004 because of his own drive for victory in Iraq (against kerry's call to run away in defeat) and mosty, because of the Swift Boat Vets. Bush and Rove took what should have been a 10% savaging and turned it into a mediocre 4% slider.
Then Bush veered left in his second term and everything really went to shit. Rove was right on top of that political turn and the total devastation for the GOP (and especially conservativism) that followed.

Posted by: George S. at November 04, 2010 03:58 PM (G/MYk)

928 940 Though Rove did run an amazing campaign against Ann Richards in '94 and again in the reelection bid of '98. So, he was great down in TX and deserves kudos for the 2002 and 2004 House races.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 03:58 PM (xc0ds)

929 @ 926
-- For what? Taking the fucking abuse of Drew and Ace because we realized
Castle was a piece of shit, too, but just weren't willing to get ick on
our fingers trying to pick that turd up by the clean end?

No. For being a tiny but vociferous gaggle of pugnacious, shit-talking, gormless dirtbags who insisted that, not only was Mike Castle not worth supporting, but that anyone who thought otherwise was a traitorous RINO, hell-bent on licking every boot in sight in order to endear themselves to the rope line sentinels at the Ruling Class Elite Cocktail Party and Cavalcade of the Out-of-Touch Has-Beens of Yesteryear.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at November 04, 2010 03:58 PM (PmZ9N)

930
If you freaking people can't get past this purity red herring and see the operational advantages of having a majority, even if it requires some RINO's to get it, then you're all naive about how politics works.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 04, 2010 03:34 PM (jqIg1)

With respect PA, the folks selling the red herring aren't the ones who are bashing O'Donnell like pointless, John Stewart wannabes. Sure, she lost. Sure she was flawed. But the loss and her candidacy in general had FA to do with loyalty, purity, or any other stupid BS meme these tossers are tossing.

And you can go with the naive thing if you want. You'd be wrong, but being all engineerish like me, you expect that some of the time.

Look, I was about where you are just a year or so ago. But things changed. People have finally had enough, and we are on the cusp of somthing that is emphatically not politics as usual. In time it will revert to that, sure, but right now a movement is happening that is more profound than any we've seen in our lifetime.

It is no longer naive to help this movement. It's the right thing to do.

Posted by: K~Bob at November 04, 2010 04:00 PM (AJ9HO)

931 Being the majority party allows all sorts of vile shit to be spiked by
the committee chairmen and never see the light of day. If it takes a
RINO to produce that majority, so be it.

The trouble is, it ALWAYS sees the light of day. May I remind you of McCain-Feingold, Amnesty, and No Child Left Behind. The price of keeping those RINOs in line most of the time is the committee chairs which "reach out to my friends" and crank out shit the Dems wanted anyway

Posted by: kbdabear at November 04, 2010 04:00 PM (vdfwz)

932 Look, all you O'Donnellites. You have this coming. You know damn well you do, so just take it like the booger-eating lummoxes you are.
Posted by: Walt Gilbert

And the asshole is back. As a guy who voted for Castle in the primary, you and Drew can both go straight to Hell. The whole notion of 'odonnellites' is utter bullshit. Once she won the primary, the choice here was to sit home, vote for Coons (which at least one asshole above thought was preferable) or vote for her.
Let's see if six months from now, the idiot who thinks Coons is better than O'Donnell will be willing to repeat that.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:01 PM (R2fpr)

933 Morganholz, you've been the most belligerant asshole on this topic.
You're just as stupid as O'Donnell when it comes to accepting
responsibility for bad decisions.

I get real fucking belligerent when being talked down to by dipshits. People jumped the gun on both sides, and I held my tongue until Drew turned into a flaming fucking dickhead over the whole thing. I lost most respect for him over this. Not because of his position, but because he became such a fucking douchebag.

As for my failures at accepting responsibility, who are you? My parole officer? Cuz if so, uh, that wasn't me at that, uh, that thing.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 04:02 PM (5aa4z)

934 You might be right, Mætenloch. But we won’t know, because Republican leadership didn’t let us find out. I think you’re wrong, because Karl Rove saying that makes an effective media narrative.

The news saying “republican leadership thinks republican candidate is unelectable” is more effective than the news saying “democratic leadership thinks republican candidate is unelectable”.

To say otherwise—that her loss would have been the same no matter what—is to ignore the great posts on this blog about the media and the narrative it tries to set.

Posted by: Jerry at November 04, 2010 04:02 PM (7Ahkq)

935 Though Rove did run an amazing campaign against Ann
Richards in '94 and again in the reelection bid of '98. So, he was great
down in TX and deserves kudos for the 2002 and 2004 House races.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 03:58 PM

Bret Favre and Randy Moss were great at one time too

Posted by: kbdabear at November 04, 2010 04:02 PM (vdfwz)

936 I saw this at Geraghty's. Kind of brutal really. But I do think there are people out there who are tired of hearing O'Donnell whine about her fate, after all she was not the only one who lost that day:



[Note from Jim: Massachusetts readers are probably lamenting that they feel on par with California, Hawaii, and Delaware.]


As to Delaware, as I feared, Christine O’Donnell not only lost badly
to Coons, she precipitated a down-ballot disaster for the GOP, an
outcome that would never have occurred with Castle running for, and
likely winning, the U.S. Senate seat. O’Donnell claimed on Tuesday
night that she forever changed the Republican Party in Delaware and she
is right: she has put the GOP on life support, transitioning Delaware
from dark blue to navy blue. O’Donnell’s negative coattails were as
follows: State Senator Colin Bonini, a genuine conservative running for
state Treasurer, had counted on Castle being at the top of the ticket –
as did all House and Senate challengers throughout the state. Bonini
lost 51-49.

Our GOP state auditor, Tom Wagner, barely held on by 0.5
percent and may yet face a recount. In the State House of
Representatives, the GOP needed a net gain of 5 sets to flip the chamber
back to the GOP (held by the Ds 24-17). The GOP had held the House
chamber since Pete du Pont’s days as Governor until the Obama-Biden
landslide of 2008. Instead of gaining seats on Tuesday, the GOPlost additional seats, giving the House a liberal veto-proof majority over aDemocraticgovernor.

GOP challengers in Brandywine Hundred, the most Republican suburbs of
New Castle County, went down to defeat in two races that were deemed an
easy flip. In one seat held by a freshman GOP House member won in a
special election in December 2008 in a slightly more challenging
suburban district, this GOP incumbent was defeated in the Democratic
tide. In other areas of New Castle County, polished and well-recruited
GOP challengers in the Newark and Middletown suburbs lost by 2-1 or
worse. In Kent County, a Democratic member arrested for DUI in
mid-October, who was expected to lose by partisans on both sides, was
re-elected.

The GOP base obviously had its issues with Mike Castle, culminating
with the congressman’s cap-and-trade vote in 2009, but this was the
wrong moment to punish Castle: cutting off their nose to spite their
face. Not only were the in-state consequences horrifying, Delaware
threw away a senator who would have been #1 in seniority among the
freshman class, given his 9 terms in the House, his former governorship,
and his immediate swearing-in to fill the Biden vacancy.

In addition
to losing a GOP seat in the United States Senate and giving the Delaware
GOP some badly-needed life to continue a rebuilding process, we are
left with ashes. We burned down the village to save it. Moreover,
Castle was only going to serve the remaining 4 years of the Biden
vacancy and then retire. At least the GOP would have had the
opportunity to groom a successor from a growing conservative bench. We
now have nothing – zip, zero, nada.

Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 04:03 PM (bNnwW)

937 The trouble is, it ALWAYS sees the light of day.

Not true. Something like 95+% of submitted bills die in committee never making it to the floor for an up/down vote.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 04, 2010 04:03 PM (jqIg1)

938 O'Donnell was a flawed candidate with lots of baggage.

Despite this, the DE GOP should have been more supportive.

Rove and the other R pundits were wrong for breaking the 11th Commandment the way they did, even if they were right.

Ultimately, the voters of Delaware decided they wanted Coons over O'Donnell based on <insert reason here>, and there is no going back.


Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 04:03 PM (xc0ds)

939 For being a tiny but vociferous gaggle of
pugnacious, shit-talking, gormless dirtbags who insisted that, not only
was Mike Castle not worth supporting, but that anyone who thought
otherwise was a traitorous RINO, hell-bent on licking every boot in
sight in order to endear themselves to the rope line sentinels at the
Ruling Class Elite Cocktail Party and Cavalcade of the Out-of-Touch
Has-Beens of Yesteryear.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at November 04, 2010 03:58 PM (PmZ9N)
I'm impressed. You can talk and chew cum at the same time.Fuck you.


Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 04:04 PM (5aa4z)

940 Diarhea!

Posted by: Peter Griffin at November 04, 2010 04:04 PM (LlX9m)

941 Can we seriously move on from this whole O'Donnell thing. It's over, she lost. Time to let it go. Senate was a long shot anyways.

Posted by: mastour at November 04, 2010 04:04 PM (fIg94)

942 Nearly all the bad that is said about O'Donnell is true.

That said what about our boy Castle?

1- Castle was the last big player for the Repubs in Delaware.

2- COD became a player on his watch. Why?

3- Castle pulled out all the stops in torching COD in the primaries. Nearly all the negatives you heard came from his op-research team.

4- Castle refused to endorse COD.


But of course, none of that actually translated into fault on the part of the exalted Michael. And all the constant negatives repeated by the Drews of the world had no effect on votes at all.

One more thing: The POTUS had to come here to campaign. Did that hurt us somewhere else or did it hurt them to spend time and money here?

Posted by: kidney at November 04, 2010 04:04 PM (ENRGu)

943 Wow, a huge eye-poking thread about a candidate who didn't matter in the end.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 04, 2010 04:04 PM (fLHQe)

944 @ 954
-- I wear your scorn like scrotal pudding.


Posted by: Walt Gilbert at November 04, 2010 04:04 PM (PmZ9N)

945 I want this poseur off my radar.

Posted by: Reverse Jesus at November 04, 2010 04:05 PM (FKt9E)

946 But I am so cute with my chubby cheek dimples and big doe-eyes. Feel sorry for me. I just a little poor victim. Who should I sue? The NRSC?

Posted by: Christine O'Donnell at November 04, 2010 04:06 PM (OAzB1)

947 And just exactly how many states can we afford to write off if we ever want to see a 60 seat majority?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 03:28 PM (plsiE)
Ok, but how many blue states do we have to have squishes in? Maine, DE, Taxachusetss, NY, Cali, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, etc. etc.

Now if we have 60 votes, but 20 of those votes are 35%ish supporters like Castle; we get a net of 7 votes there. 60 seats, 47 votes... still can't get a simple majority with that consensus building. We'd need "Blue Dogs" there... or something.

There's a point at which I consider a candidate too squishy to vote for.
Snowe ACU rating past 5 years:
48, 12, 28, 36, 32 Avg: 31.2
Collins ACU rating past 5 years:
48, 20, 36, 48, 32 Avg: 36.8
Castle, (numbers above) 5 year Avg: 36.8

I'm not seeing much reason to strive to keep/get more of these.

I'm sorry O'Donnell lost; but not much, as she wasn't a good candidate. I'm not sorry Castle lost... he sucked.

To point out Castle's worst recent showing.
2007 ACU ratings:
Snowe - 28; Collins - 36, Castle - 20; Specter - 40, Landrieu - 40, Baucus - 20

Is Max Baucus a RINO we should court? Is being half as reliable a conservative vote as Specter and Landrieu something we should shoot for? When you're the single most liberal Republican in the 2007 ACU ratings; maybe we could do better?

Oh, and I checked, none of the 80's that year were Democrats... why don't they have to push for the "strong opposition party" style centrist as well? When our side is the one with candidates who oppose us more than they support us; we're not going to get much done regardless how many seats we have.

Posted by: Gekkobear at November 04, 2010 04:06 PM (7TZuc)

948 When was the last time you saw Carville or Begala or the MSNBC crew repeatedly bashing a Dem Senate candidate?
Alvin Greene.

Hey…he was the Democratic nominee.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 04:06 PM (OWjjx)

949 Posted by: Mætenloch at November 04, 2010 03:54 PM (pAlYe)
Something doesn't quite compute. "The narrative" is that O'Donnell won the primary because of outside influence and not because Castle was a lousy candidate, according to the anti-O'Donnell people.

However, according to the anti-O'Donnell people she didn't lose because of an outside influence, she lost because she was a lousy candidate.

A more likely explanation is this - Delaware Republicans never particularly liked Mike Castle, but they held their noses and voted for him. When he didn't take the primary seriously, they voted against him for the person that had been their Senate candidate previously.

O'Donnell was a weak candidate who didn't campaign well but had a lot of money. This puts her in the same group as Carly Fiorina and McMahon. All three of them lost by large margins in blue states. O'Donnell's margin was larger, but so was the negativity on her from all sides.

Unlike Fiorina and McMahon however, we are stewing over O'Donnell's defeat and taking it as some kind of 'lesson' that electability uber alles is the way to go. This in spite of the examples of Crist, Specter, and Murkowski. It's this latter thing that worries me.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 04, 2010 04:06 PM (FkKjr)

950 957
Bret Favre and Randy Moss were great at one time too

So we know they all had talent at some point, though I would argue Rove had more to fight in '00 and '04 than the reasons that have been given so far (it's far more complicated, IMO). Maybe's he's washed-up, perhaps he's a sell-out, he could just speak his mind at inappropriate times, who knows. But the fact is that he did it. People can choose to respond to him the way they see fit, but it doesn't take-away from what he did in TX or twice in the House.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 04:07 PM (xc0ds)

951 Why are people complaining about Rove saying something he honestly thought about O'Donnell? Was he supposed to lie? I keep hearing how he should have said nothing, or gone along..or whatever. Please..if I had a dollar for every time I heard some pissed of conservative piss and moan about Bush or McCain or any other number of high profile Republicans I could quit my job and retire early.

Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 04:07 PM (bNnwW)

952 You DON'T NEED the RINO's vote if they're kept off all of the most important committees, you just need them to be there so you get those chairmanship positions.
Amen, brotha.

Posted by: rdbrewer at November 04, 2010 04:07 PM (FKt9E)

953 So you're okay with the facts that Christine O'Donnell uses campaign
donations to pay for her house, and that her idea of politicking is to
use a cynical "whatever works" strategy against other Republicans?

The house thing sucks. The cynical strategy, not so much. Politics is a contact sport. Besides, as I pointed out, Rove/Bush did some heavy-duty cynicism in 2000, and I'm not seeing anyone saying that was a reason to vote for Gore that year.

You don't mind that somebody like that is supposed to be The Ultimate Conservative Ideal, yet somebody so flawed we can't even talk about her personal and political history, all at the same time?

I'm simply trying to apply your standards consistently. Supporting Castle, even though he helped pass Cap and Trade, was a strategic choice to bump up numbers in the Senate. The same thing applies to not pointing out COD's flaws.

Posted by: Ian S. at November 04, 2010 04:07 PM (p05LM)

954 I'm going to sue that witch for trespassing.

Posted by: Reverse Jesus at November 04, 2010 04:08 PM (FKt9E)

955 @ 961 -- A little Desitin will help take the sting out of that redass.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at November 04, 2010 04:08 PM (PmZ9N)

956 If you freaking people can't get past this purity red herring and see the operational advantages of having a majority,

Oh yes I remember. That was the Bush years, where spending and entitlements grew. We inched toward Europe, just slower.

If you freaking people can't understand that it's not worth doing if we do it the same way we did last time. Then you're all ignorant about what politics is for.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 04, 2010 04:08 PM (0q2P7)

957 Just so you know, the 1000th post in this thread automatically becomes the 2012 Delaware Republican Senate nominee.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix

Yikes. At least that victim candidate can be assuered of the support of such stalwarts as Dre M, undead, at least one of the Jeffs and that turd Walter. As a guy, i'll try my best to live up to that whole crazy slut thing.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:08 PM (R2fpr)

958 So Bush had no idea what he was talking about when he handed out the credit for his own electoral win?


Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2010 04:01 PM (/AxgK)
Are you kidding. Bush never even had any words to say about the Swift Boat Vets. The GOP pretended that they never even existed.Bush clearly had problems understanding the politics of his constituents, as he proved in all of the hair-brained stuff he did in his second term. The amnesty drive by Bush, McCain and the GOP leadership is what killed the GOP. That was where the Tea Parties really started, in the phone banks and activity needed to keep killing amnesty. And Bush and Rove and the GOP never understood what serious damage they were doing, until they were totally wiped out in 2008, in favor of an America-hating marxist piece of shit who can't string two thoughts together and lies like a banshee. Hello. Clue.O'Donnell was part of the wave that saved the GOP from Rove et. al.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at November 04, 2010 04:09 PM (G/MYk)

959 Drew M,

You bore the hell out me.

Posted by: anon_mux at November 04, 2010 04:10 PM (ArQzL)

960 974
Why are people complaining about Rove saying something he honestly
thought about O'Donnell? Was he supposed to lie? I keep hearing how he
should have said nothing, or gone along..or whatever. Please..if I had a
dollar for every time I heard some pissed of conservative piss and moan
about Bush or McCain or any other number of high profile Republicans I
could quit my job and retire early.


Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 04:07 PM (bNnwW)
True Conservatives (TM) always lie to protect Republicans! Or something. Who knows? It's tough to keep up with some of the mental gymnastics around here.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 04:10 PM (U+goV)

961 I can't believe Castle wouldn't give me his support. After all, I just accused him of being a homosexual. And unfaithful.
How could he have a problem with that?

Posted by: christine O'Donnell at November 04, 2010 04:10 PM (FKt9E)

962 Typical Delaware. Rehobeth Beach is a liberal vacation spot for DC cadre. It is annoying to vist their. I usualy go to Dover for the Nascar events but I dont spend any money in that state. We take food and beverage their and stop for other feeding in the now red state of PA.
But thn again I am redneck with values.

Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at November 04, 2010 04:10 PM (nRF6+)

963 I hope this isn’t post 1000

I don’t want to move to Delaware (no offense, Blue Hen)

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 04:11 PM (OWjjx)

964 I wear your scorn like scrotal pudding.
Posted by: Walt Gilbert

Your fashion sense matches your intelligence.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:11 PM (R2fpr)

965 So we should have sacrificed our principles to get to 47 Senate seats? Whatever.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 04:12 PM (LLZiU)

966 I hope this isn’t post 1000

I don’t want to move to Delaware (no offense, Blue Hen)
Posted by: Mallamutt
None taken, especially after this election.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:12 PM (R2fpr)

967 Castle was a middle of the road moderate. He was not a communist. He was also actually representative of the state of Delaware. He would have voted the way you wanted him about half the time.

Coons is an honest to God liberal and that is who you got. Trying to explain it away by complaining about Castle does not change that. Castle was going to retire in 4 years anyway. Coons will probably be there for decades.

But the reason these threads are going on is that Christine O'Donnell can not just lose the election, thank her supporters and show some grace....noooooo....we have to have some more drama. It is not as if we have had enough...and then after the accusations and recriminations and complaining...the same people who started this spat will complain about the fact that everyone is picking on poor Christine, the eternal victim.

Come on. Let it go. She lost.

Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 04:13 PM (bNnwW)

968 So by your logic, Being Fat = Misappropriating Campaign Funds and Smearing Primary Opponents.'Kay.


Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2010 03:45 PM (/AxgK)
No, that would be your straw man. My argument was about pointing out facts, not what those facts are. And the point is that you don't own goal during the game. You are selling an own goal, big time, just so you can puff up Rove (who I don't have a problem with in this regard), and attack O'Donnell, for some reason that must be urgent to you, but which matters not at all for the coming 2012 elections.You don't want to be part of the movement toward individual liberty? Fine. Keep selling that "oooh, we must have one party control of the Senate, even if that party looks like Lindsay Graham in a tutu" crap. Looks like most of us aren't buying that this year.I'll give you this much: in another season, with the usual bullshit in play, you would be right. But not now.

Posted by: K~Bob at November 04, 2010 04:13 PM (AJ9HO)

969 The only thing we should take away from this whole thing is whomever wins the Primary, support them, don't break them down. Support who the voters voted for, period. They made the call, it does no good to piss in the wind and complain whether that person is electable or not. Support the candidate selected out of the Primary!!!

Posted by: mastour at November 04, 2010 04:13 PM (fIg94)

970 It's a dubious honor to be the next Republican Senate candidate from Delaware

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:14 PM (R2fpr)

971 No. For being a tiny but vociferous gaggle of pugnacious,
shit-talking, gormless dirtbags who insisted that, not only was Mike
Castle not worth supporting, but that anyone who thought otherwise was
a traitorous RINO, hell-bent on licking every boot in sight in order to
endear themselves to the rope line sentinels at the Ruling Class Elite
Cocktail Party and Cavalcade of the Out-of-Touch Has-Beens of
Yesteryear.


Whatever the short-term benefits of electing a useless turd like Mike
“Me, Too!” Castle, the long-term effect would have been bad for the GOP.

http://t.co/dQAVOhn

Posted by: Mike Castle Answering History's Call at November 04, 2010 04:14 PM (poJjg)

972 It's a dubious honor to be the next Republican Senate candidate from Delaware

second try

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:14 PM (R2fpr)

973 It's a dubious honor to be the next Republican Senate candidate from Delaware

third time pays for all.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:14 PM (R2fpr)

974 @ 987 -- Is that a pudding cup in your mouth, or are you just happy to see me?

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at November 04, 2010 04:14 PM (PmZ9N)

975 i know the left You got that right Sir.

Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at November 04, 2010 04:14 PM (nRF6+)

976 damn

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:15 PM (R2fpr)

977

I'll go for 1,000

it's the only thing this thread is good for


Posted by: s'moron at November 04, 2010 04:15 PM (UaxA0)

978 By the way...

The assumption that COD would be a reliable conservative vote is deeply flawed. Becoming popular in DC means becoming a RINO if you are a Republican. What is it in COD's biography that indicates she'd be immune to such influences? Jesus...that lawsuit suggests to me she'd sell-out in a heartbeat.

Posted by: Spike at November 04, 2010 04:15 PM (WLxeI)

979 Who didn't see this coming? This is a woman for whom nothing is ever "her" fault. It is always some nefarious "other", some "conspiracy" to keep her brilliance from being able to shine. (likely driven by those human-mice hybrids she was talking about) Hopefully now that she has enough money to go buy herself a lovely new house she will go the fuck away.

Posted by: Chris in Va at November 04, 2010 04:15 PM (oj52M)

980 I can't believe that twit accused me of being gay even if it was after I called her crooked,a liar, a twit, a tax evader et al.

Posted by: Mikey Castle at November 04, 2010 04:15 PM (ENRGu)

981 Is that a pudding cup in your mouth, or are you just happy to see me?
Posted by: Walt Gilbert

And history repeats itself! We have another sterling candidate. Walter stop eating the pudding off of your scrotum long enough to take a bow.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:16 PM (R2fpr)

982 I could understand if Rove lost his cool and attacked Odonnell on electon night like he did. His boy lost. The problem is he proceded to do it 4 more times in the next 3 days. It was an attempt to sabotage Odonnell. I have no doubt about it. Coordinated. Calculated. Rove is nothing if not calculating. Anybody who doesn't realise what Rove was trying to do isn't to bright or honest.

Posted by: Keven at November 04, 2010 04:16 PM (yO+uQ)

983 If O' Donnell would have got as many votes as she gets comments on AoSHQ threads she not only would have beaten Coons, she would have also beat Alvin Greene who got 190,000 more votes that Chris Coons

Posted by: robtr at November 04, 2010 04:17 PM (hVDig)

984 On Tuesday Christine O'Donnell lost by 17 points.
I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which Karl Rove is influential
enough among the electorate of state as blue as Delaware to be
personally responsible for a loss THAT big. Regardless, Rush hasn't
apologized to Rove, nor has he offered much of a clue as to why Rove was
a good enough guy to guest-host his show this summer, but is now
suddenly persona non grata.
Today, Rush went on another purity tear that has defined the 180-degree
shift he's undergone in recent months, and even sneered at the very idea
of Republicans taking back "their precious Senate", as many of O'Donnell's supporters have.

Perhaps
Christine O'Donnell is still a witch after all, because she's certainly
done some strange things to otherwise-rational people.


Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2010 04:11 PM (/AxgK)

And yet they want to repeal Obamacare. How does that happen if they don't take back the Senate? And btw, if Rush did not want to see the Republicans take back the Senate, why support O'Donnell in the first place? Was the whole point to ruin Castle and not win the seat at all?
I used to listen to Rush, but lately he has been kind of hysterical.

Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 04:18 PM (bNnwW)

985 -- 1000
@ 987 -- Is that a pudding cup in your mouth, or are you just happy to see me?

That HAD to sting.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at November 04, 2010 04:18 PM (PmZ9N)

986 "...the same people who started this spat will complain about the fact that everyone is picking on poor Christine, the eternal victim.Come on. Let it go. She lost.
Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 04:13 PM (bNnwW)"
Wait a minute, who posted this thread again?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 04, 2010 04:18 PM (fLHQe)

987 So Walter 'snackpack' Gilbert is to be the 2012 Republican candidate for the US Senate from Delaware. And DrewM and undead can be the campaign managers/ladies in waiting. May you have the same luck Christine did.
God bless them, and all who sail in them.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:19 PM (R2fpr)

988 I honestly cannot believe COD supporters are blmaing her 17 point loss on an objective comment from a news analyst.
This is beyong pathetic. I figure most of these people spend very little time in blue states. Everything is an establishment or RINO conspiracy. I never knew democracy was a conspiracy. There are a lot more liberals and moderates then conservatives, a lot more. Period, end of story.

Posted by: Christine O'Donnell at November 04, 2010 04:19 PM (OAzB1)

989 Today, Rush went on another purity tear that has defined the 180-degree shift he's undergone in recent months, and even sneered at the very idea of Republicans taking back "their precious Senate", as many of O'Donnell's supporters have.
The same Rush Limbaugh who endlessly droned on and on and on about spending nights in the Lincoln Bedroom after Bush was elected…..that Rush Limbaugh……..NNNNOOOO!!!!!!

O.K., all snark aside…..here are the two things that get repeated a lot around here regarding who is and is not a true conservative and who is or is not a RINO: ACU ratings and Rush Limbaugh.

As for ACU ratings, look, they are helpful, but that is it. Why, because the ACU is defining a conservative based on their own agenda, which may or may not be the same agenda I, you or anyone else on this blog may use. They are a fine organization but I am just not prepared to sell my soul and abandon a candidate just because they do not hit a magic number according to the ACU.

Then there is Rush Limbaugh. Hell, might as well throw in the rest of talk radio land as well. Can Rush be insightful, funny, witty….sure. Is Limbaugh the man that going to determine, at least for me, whether a candidate is or is not conservative enough for me? Hell no. Why…because the one conservative Rush Limbaugh will always promote before all others is……….Rush Limbaugh. And I am fine with that. It is what it is. As for entertainment, at least Limbaugh’s first hour is good (the last 2 – really, are about 45 minutes of commercials, including commercials inside the show and 15 minutes of filler) but as for final arbiter of all things conservative….I am gonna pass.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 04:19 PM (OWjjx)

990 Blue hen, Any idea the Black turnout in the state this time? I got the impression that the COD effect killed R's across the state but I also have an inkling that the Pres's shoutout to black voters here was headed and had an equally damning effect at the polls.

Posted by: Mikey Castle at November 04, 2010 04:20 PM (ENRGu)

991 974
Why are people complaining about Rove saying something he honestly
thought about O'Donnell? Was he supposed to lie? I keep hearing how he
should have said nothing, or gone along..or whatever.

He should have done what Carville and Kaine did about Alvin Greene and Kendrick Meeks. Ignore them, change the subject, say as little as possible about that.

I didn't hear Carville or any Dem strategists tell everyone who would listen what a shitty candidate Greene or Meeks were, and they could have had a fighting chance with their chosen candidates.

Yes, O'Donnell lost. No big damage there. Castle lost too, time for Castle apologists to face that too. Once he lost, Rove should have known you can't put the shit back into the horse

Posted by: kbdabear at November 04, 2010 04:20 PM (vdfwz)

992 Is that a pudding cup in your mouth, or are you just happy to see me?That HAD to sting.
Posted by: Walt Gilbert
Nope. Who wants that job? Too many assholes attacking you and eating pudding out of their crotch simultaneously. Makes shaking hands very risky.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:20 PM (R2fpr)

993 1005 The only thing we should take away from this whole thing is whomever wins the Primary, support them, don't break them down.Christine O'Donnell has a history of doing the exact opposite.Unity for me, but not for thee.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2010 04:15 PM (/AxgK)
This seat is actually up again in 2012 right? I hope that there is an actual decently conservative resident in that cesspool state that starts attending Tea Party rallies and going to the GOP saying that they are running for it.

Posted by: Eric Cartman at November 04, 2010 04:21 PM (oVQFe)

994 You see, the Republicans drove the GOP car in the ditch.While the Tea Party was pulling it out, you guys were up there, standing around, eating McRibs.
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:45 PM (uFokq)

***scoots chair back - stands up - claps wildly***
Bravo! Brah vo!

Posted by: Steph at November 04, 2010 04:21 PM (ZfkPl)

995 Question, out of curiosity: How many people here thought O'Donnell was going to win?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 04:21 PM (xc0ds)

996 /damn sock

Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 04:22 PM (oVQFe)

997 If only establishment Republicans hadwasted millions on my campaign, I might have lost by only ten points.

Posted by: christine O'Donnell at November 04, 2010 04:22 PM (FKt9E)

998 Maybe Bill Maher is right: ya'll are a bunch of fucking idiots. Climb back aboard the Booktastic Bus (get in the back!), sit down, shut up, and start cleaning the feathers out of your chicken lovin', skid-marked, protein stained skivvies.
Gee, I wonder if there are any good new vids on youtube. Reading this thread is like watching flies fuck. Unless, they're doing something freaky, like an antenna up a thorax, or conducting a circle jerk that results in "dandruff flake" on Drew's collar. Ever wonder why he doesn't wear black?

Posted by: Officer Barbrady at November 04, 2010 04:22 PM (LlX9m)

999 I honestly cannot believe COD supporters are blmaing her 17 point loss on an objective comment from a news analyst.

I never did, though I it didn't help, certainly, and the dismissive and downright nasty attitudes of the Establishment types certainly cost her several points.

Ye she was a weak candidate, and in fact didn't run a good campaign, and in fact, despite the screaming of the "pragmatists", as they euphemistically call themselves, DE was almost certainly unwinnable.

I'm just pissed that people had to be such downright fucking assholes about it. And it turned me, as rdbrewer said, into a belligerent asshole, myself.

So to anyone whom I may have offended, go fuck yourself and grow a pair.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz. Belligerent Asshole at November 04, 2010 04:23 PM (5aa4z)

1000 "Walter stop eating the pudding off of your scrotum long enough to take a bow.
Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:16 PM (R2fpr)"
I think the bow is inherent in the position. Besides, if I could do that, you couldn't pry my lips off my scrotum.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 04, 2010 04:23 PM (fLHQe)

1001 @ 1019 -- Nope. Who wants that job? Too many assholes attacking you and eating
pudding out of their crotch simultaneously. Makes shaking hands very
risky.

The ravages of tertiary syphilis are not a pleasant thing to behold. Coherence is the first thing to go.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at November 04, 2010 04:24 PM (PmZ9N)

1002 997
No. For being a tiny but vociferous gaggle of pugnacious,
shit-talking, gormless dirtbags who insisted that, not only was Mike
Castle not worth supporting, but that anyone who thought otherwise was
a traitorous RINO, hell-bent on licking every boot in sight in order to
endear themselves to the rope line sentinels at the Ruling Class Elite
Cocktail Party and Cavalcade of the Out-of-Touch Has-Beens of
Yesteryear.


Whatever the short-term benefits of electing a useless turd like Mike
“Me, Too!” Castle, the long-term effect would have been bad for the GOP.

http://t.co/dQAVOhn


Posted by: Mike Castle Answering History's Call at November 04, 2010 04:14 PM (poJjg)
Mike Castle did not lie his ass off in an interview, he paid his help, he paid his taxes. He might not have voted the way I wanted him to all the time, but so far as I can tell he is an honest man who has won several state wide elections in DE. The sad thing about all this is that Christine O'Donnell is not some paragon of conservative virtue. If Castle had been running against someone else in the primary, someone who was conservative and electable it might be different. So speaking of short term and long term, Coons will probably be there for decades.

Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 04:24 PM (bNnwW)

1003 didn't hear Carville or any Dem strategists tell everyone who would listen what a shitty candidate Greene
They did. It just wasn’t on air that much because…well, if given a choice between mocking a Dem or mocking a Republican, you know which one the media will choose.

And Meeks was a useful tool, because the Democrats wanted to win the Florida governorship and they needed Meeks to draw out the African American vote

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 04:24 PM (OWjjx)

1004 1005 Christine O'Donnell has a history of doing the exact opposite.
Unity
for me, but not for thee.

Look, I have no personal investment in O'Donnell, I just think it's fucking ridiculous to be fucking arguing a point that's behind us now. Let's just let it go already. We're fucking talking about Delaware for Christ sake. Really? Our hopes and dreams depended on this one race. Give me a freaking break. We should be looking towards 2012 now and positioning ourselves accordingly.

Posted by: mastour at November 04, 2010 04:24 PM (fIg94)

1005 1006
Who didn't see this coming? This is a woman for whom nothing is ever
"her" fault. It is always some nefarious "other", some "conspiracy" to
keep her brilliance from being able to shine.


Posted by: Chris in Va at November 04, 2010 04:15 PM

And that's different from King Barry, the Coolest, Smartest Man Ever to Walk the Earth in what way?

Even Hillary knew to keep her yap shut in the 2008 general election when she knew that King Barry was a far left America hating empty suit

Posted by: kbdabear at November 04, 2010 04:24 PM (vdfwz)

1006 Blue hen, Any idea the Black turnout in the state this time? I got the impression that the COD effect killed R's across the state but I also have an inkling that the Pres's shoutout to black voters here was headed and had an equally damning effect at the polls
Idon't know. My understanding was that the Dem vote was heavier than we had predicted/hoped, which was the case in many other states. I would agree that in such a scenario, any Republican would be in trouble here, since Dems tend to do party line voting more than Republicans.
Her only path to success was a depressed Dem turnout AND a heavy Republican one. The first did not happen. The second is under debate, but is moot in the face of the first.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:25 PM (R2fpr)

1007 This woman is killing me. Soon they'll be no one left to take the blame.

Posted by: Reverse Jesus at November 04, 2010 04:25 PM (FKt9E)

1008 Gekkobear: Your position is ruh-tarded.

(Referring to your claim of RINO's being "net" votes on a discounted basis based on their percentage of support).

Its not like the RINOs flip a 20 sided Dungeons & Dragons dice to decide where they will actually, you know, throw one of those percentage conservative votes.

Just the opposite, in fact: On the biggest, most important, most crucial issues, they are 100% in the liberal camp. That is because they are liberal people. In their core mindsets. So on those serious "issues of the day" they'll vote their conscience (liberal as it is).

Posted by: GonJaMa at November 04, 2010 04:26 PM (nTd0a)

1009 The ravages of tertiary syphilis are not a pleasant thing to behold. Coherence is the first thing to go.
Posted by: Walt Gilbert

then seek help snackpack. And get a refund on that hooker; she obviously wasn't the bargin you thought.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:27 PM (R2fpr)

1010 War- Why exactly is it just peaches for Castle to go negate/personal and horribly evil for the opposition to answer in kind?
I didn't like the gay dig but I can tell you the Castle campaign did nothing but negative campaigning until about the last week. That is why he lost.

Posted by: kidney at November 04, 2010 04:27 PM (ENRGu)

1011
So to anyone whom I may have offended, go fuck yourself and grow a pair.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz. Belligerent Asshole at November 04, 2010 04:23 PM (5aa4z)

Maybe Christine ought to grow a pair and stop whining and finger pointing. It is not as if she is the only person who lost an election that day. Angle lost, gave a gracious speech and that was the end of it. Christine has sent out emails, gone to the same press she says badly treated her and whined about it all. I mean come on, who is instigating all this right now?

Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 04:28 PM (bNnwW)

1012 Who didn't see this coming? This is a woman for whom nothing is ever
"her" fault. It is always some nefarious "other", some "conspiracy" to
keep her brilliance from being able to shine.

Posted by: Chris in Va at November 04, 2010 04:15 PMAnd that's different from King Barry, the Coolest, Smartest Man Ever to Walk the Earth in what way? Even
Hillary knew to keep her yap shut in the 2008 general election when she
knew that King Barry was a far left America hating empty suit

Posted by: kbdabear at November 04, 2010 04:24 PM (vdfwz)
Who knew COD was the most evil person in America? If only one Democrat was worth this kind of ire....nah, I got nothing.

Posted by: Oldcat at November 04, 2010 04:28 PM (z1N6a)

1013 1024
True Conservatives (TM) always lie to protect
Republicans! Or something. Who knows? It's tough to keep up with some
of the mental gymnastics around here.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 04:10 PM (U+goV)
You are a one dimensional thinker.
If Castle hadwon the primary and immediately
afterRove went on national news and repeatedly commented on Castles
negative attributes, which are numerous, for days on end your position
would be totally different. You are the ribbon twirler of mental
gymnastics.


Posted by: polynikes at November 04, 2010 04:21 PM (m2CN7)
Not really. Karl Rove has a right to his opinion and probably gets paid a lot of money by Fox News to speak his mind. That's his job.
I doubt that he had that much influence on the election. COD did her best fundraising *after* Rove said what he said. It might have even raised her profile. She was never hurting for money or attention.When you lose an election by 16 points, it's not the fault of one talking head on one cable news channel.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 04:28 PM (U+goV)

1014 And
Meeks was a useful tool, because the Democrats wanted to win the
Florida governorship and they needed Meeks to draw out the African
American vote

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 04:24 PM

The Dems fragged Meeks at every opportunity, but they didn't go on all the news shows to loudly denounce him. The Dems wanted The Orange Weasel to win so they'd get an "independent (cough-cough) to caucus with the Dems. Remember who pushed Crist as the "electable" Senate candidate? Remember their sabotaging of a rising conservative star like Marco Rubio?

You may not, but I do. And no, I'm not putting COD in Rubio's class, so save your breath all of you

Posted by: kbdabear at November 04, 2010 04:29 PM (vdfwz)

1015 I'd like to thank War, Tattoo, et al for supporting my RINO policies, defending my worthless positions and taking it up the ass when I'm randy, and only commenting on Christine O'Donnell threads. Why is that by the way?

Posted by: Mike Castle at November 04, 2010 04:29 PM (LLZiU)

1016 War- Why exactly is it just peaches for Castle to go negate/personal and horribly evil for the opposition to answer in kind?I
didn't like the gay dig but I can tell you the Castle campaign did
nothing but negative campaigning until about the last week. That is why
he lost.

Posted by: kidney at November 04, 2010 04:27 PM (ENRGu)
And of course, its unheard of for Democrats to engage in such negative campaigning.

Posted by: Oldcat at November 04, 2010 04:29 PM (z1N6a)

1017 *And that's different from King Barry, the Coolest, Smartest Man Ever to Walk the Earth in what way?*

And we're Democrats now then? K. good to know.

That's the thing. Conservatives used to value honest, principled candidates. You don't have to be perfect. No one is (and I will volunteer that I am sure as hell far from it). But you have to...you know..not be a grifter.

There were a TON of things about COD (outside of her wacky statements) that through up big red "SCUMBAG" signals. That alone should have disqualified her. But evidently for O'Donnell, the standard evaporated. We can now run the equivalent of Charlie Rangels and Maxine Waters if they promise to vote our way (even if they haven't ever demonstrated any interest in anything outside of social crap).

Posted by: Chris in VA at November 04, 2010 04:29 PM (oj52M)

1018 1041

So to anyone whom I may have offended, go fuck yourself and grow a pair.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz. Belligerent Asshole at November 04, 2010 04:23 PM (5aa4z)Maybe
Christine ought to grow a pair and stop whining and finger pointing. It
is not as if she is the only person who lost an election that day.
Angle lost, gave a gracious speech and that was the end of it. Christine
has sent out emails, gone to the same press she says badly treated her
and whined about it all. I mean come on, who is instigating all this
right now?


Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 04:28 PM (bNnwW)
She Christine O'Donnell won't take responsibility for her (latest) crushing defeat and her supporters won't take responsibility for backing a professional candidate who has never come within 1000 miles of winning an election. Must be a coincidence.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 04:30 PM (U+goV)

1019 I mean come on, who is instigating all this right now?
Posted by: Terrye

DrewM. Try reading the top of the post.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:30 PM (R2fpr)

1020

So speaking of short term and long term, Coons will probably be there
for decades.
Ahem...

Posted by: Beau Biden at November 04, 2010 04:30 PM (ENRGu)

1021 I love the logic of the Mike Castle fan boys which is he would have won if only.
The fan boys overlook the fact that the "if only" part was that he already lost a state wide primary.
Who's fault was that again?

Posted by: robtr at November 04, 2010 04:30 PM (hVDig)

1022 No recrimination postings about Linda Mcmahon or Carly Fiorina or Sharon Angle.

Why is that?

Posted by: Dave C at November 04, 2010 04:31 PM (poJjg)

1023 People of Delaware, as your next Senator, I promise to put my dick in your mashed potatoes.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 04, 2010 04:31 PM (5pIHA)

1024 Damn. Over 1000 comments spawned by one of the bloggers throwing a hissy fit over not having the requisite equipment to dip in a pudding cup. Just dip your horn (or horns, depending on your species) and move on.

Posted by: Unopened Pudding Cup at November 04, 2010 04:31 PM (VmtE9)

1025 *War- Why exactly is it just peaches for Castle to go negate/personal and horribly evil for the opposition to answer in kind?*

Because what Castle said was true? And because he only said it after O'Donnell started painting him as the reincarnation of a Hitler-Stalin hybrid? And because the stuff she said and her campaign said (That's the rumor!) wasn't necessarily true?

Posted by: Chris in VA at November 04, 2010 04:31 PM (oj52M)

1026 WBUS:
934
It is ASSUMED that Karl Rove GAVE us the White House.

Oh, give me a break. It was Bush himself who called Rove "The Architect" after his 2004 win.<<<

Yeah. He also said, "Heck of a job, Brownie." I guess you bought that as the gospel as well.

This thread smells of beta male.

Posted by: Kerry at November 04, 2010 04:31 PM (a/VXa)

1027 Let's get something striaght. Rove ain't to blame for anything O'Donnell. If there is anything, it's the lack of party support. But that isn't either. She lost by 17, not just a few. That money was better spent elsewhere.

Posted by: rdbrewer at November 04, 2010 04:31 PM (FKt9E)

1028 Not really. Karl Rove has a right
to his opinion and probably gets paid a lot of money by Fox News to
speak his mind. That's his job.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 04:28 PM (U+goV)
If his job is now to trash Republican candidates, I can treat him with the contempt that I have for everyone else in the MSM.He's either a savvy political operator, in which case he knew it would be damaging, or Rove is now a talking head that pops off at random, in which case he is worthy of no respect at all.Can't have it both ways.

Posted by: Oldcat at November 04, 2010 04:32 PM (z1N6a)

1029 Not really. Karl Rove has a right to his opinion and
probably gets paid a lot of money by Fox News to speak his mind. That's
his job.
I doubt that he had that much
influence on the election. COD did her best fundraising *after* Rove
said what he said. It might have even raised her profile. She was
never hurting for money or attention.When you lose an election by 16 points, it's not the fault of one talking head on one cable news channel.

You're right, Rove didn't cost her the election.

But I'll never trust that SOB again, and lots of other conservatives won't either

Was it worth it, Karl?

Posted by: kbdabear at November 04, 2010 04:32 PM (vdfwz)

1030 @ 1039
-- then seek help snackpack. And get a refund on that hooker; she obviously wasn't the bargin you thought.

... followed shortly by spelling, punctuation, and the ability to form complete sentences.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at November 04, 2010 04:32 PM (PmZ9N)

1031 1048


There were a TON of things about COD (outside of her wacky statements)
that through up big red "SCUMBAG" signals. That alone should have
disqualified her. But evidently for O'Donnell, the standard evaporated.
We can now run the equivalent of Charlie Rangels and Maxine Waters if
they promise to vote our way (even if they haven't ever demonstrated any
interest in anything outside of social crap).

Posted by: Chris in VA at November 04, 2010 04:29 PM (oj52M)

The message is that it's OK to run unqualified airheads so long as they're *our* unqualified airheads.

We used to laugh at liberals for running people like this. Now you're not a "real conservative" unless you're ready to die to protect Christine O'Donnell's honor.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 04:32 PM (U+goV)

1032 Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2010 04:29 PM (/AxgK)
War – I think I butchered my point. My point was not that you were wrong on the Limbaugh thing. My point was I am sick and tired of every time this debate gets kicked around about who is or is not a conservative, someone comes in and says “well. Rush said………”.

Really, I just don’t care what Limbaugh says. For entertainment, he is fine. As for deciding who I want to vote for, really, I think I will just decide for myself.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 04, 2010 04:33 PM (OWjjx)

1033 1022
You see, the Republicans drove the GOP car in the ditch.

While the Tea Party was pulling it out, you guys were up there, standing around, eating McRibs.

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2010 02:45 PM (uFokq)

***scoots chair back - stands up - claps wildly***

Bravo! Brah vo!Christine O'Donnell is not the whole Tea Party. I supported most of their candidates, but I am not going to support someone just because they latch onto that movement. After all, Maes in Colorado was put in there by the Tea Party and he was abandoned because of his own stupidity..Palidino in NY messed up too...those two people are not the Tea Party anymore than Christine O'Donnell is. The movement is a large grass roots decentralized movement. Christine was trying and failing to win elections a long time before there was a Tea Party movement for her to grab onto.


Posted by: Steph at November 04, 2010 04:21 PM (ZfkPl)

Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 04:33 PM (bNnwW)

1034 *Karl Rove honestly capable of engineering a 16-point margin *

Dude. You underestimate my capability. I use my Dark Arts everywhere to undermine conservatives.

Carl Paladino was up 45 points before I fucked his campaign up.

Sincerely yours,
Turd Blossom

Posted by: Karl Rove, Country Club Oracle at November 04, 2010 04:33 PM (oj52M)

1035 If Castle and the DE GOP wanted O'Donnell out of the race, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEAT HER.

Some of you guys are arguing with the air.

There were people in DE (probably not reading this blog) who wanted her. They weren't using game theory to determine their preference.

So, someone else in DE needed to step up, or Castle needed to step up, and BEAT HER.

They didn't. So, move on.

People talk like there is a candidate manufacturing plant somewhere to order your ideal choice.

Posted by: mockmook at November 04, 2010 04:34 PM (WZMt3)

1036 Christine O'Donnell won't take responsibility for her (latest) crushing defeat and her supporters won't take responsibility for backing a professional candidate who has never come within 1000 miles of winning an election. Must be a coincidence.
Funny, that.

Posted by: rdbrewer at November 04, 2010 04:34 PM (FKt9E)

1037 1059
Not really. Karl Rove has a right
to his opinion and probably gets paid a lot of money by Fox News to
speak his mind. That's his job.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 04:28 PM (U+goV)
If his job is now to trash Republican candidates, I can treat him with the contempt that I have for everyone else in the MSM.He's
either a savvy political operator, in which case he knew it would be
damaging, or Rove is now a talking head that pops off at random, in
which case he is worthy of no respect at all.Can't have it both ways.


Posted by: Oldcat at November 04, 2010 04:32 PM (z1N6a)
It's his job to say what he thinks, even when people on his side don't like it. If you want someone who will just spin for the Republicans 100% of the time, you're basically asking for a conservative version of Begala or Carville. No thanks.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 04:34 PM (U+goV)

1038 The message is that it's OK to run unqualified airheads so long as they're *our* unqualified airheads.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 04:32 PM (U+goV)
You don't get to choose who runs. Its the law. She filed, shes in.You don't get to choose the nominee. The voters do.When this changes, you can worry about messages.

Posted by: Oldcat at November 04, 2010 04:35 PM (z1N6a)

1039 998No, that would be your straw man.

No, conjuring up a GOP operative in some future election who calls Chris Christie fat is a straw man. I answered that with all the respect it deserved.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2010 04:14 PM (/AxgK)
Perhaps a refresher course in logic would help? The example I gave fits your logic, which you are selling hard (one clue it might be flawed): You can obviously say anything negative you want about a candidate in your Party before the election if it is true, and no one should criticize you for it. That's what you are selling.

My example was an illustration of the absurdity of your repeated question. Every parent needs to have the talk with their kids about discretion being the greater part of valor. You don't put up with your kid pointing out someone's deformities in public, even if they are correct in what they say. Neither should we be expected to put up with Roves defamations in this instance. Doesn't matter whether it was a factor in the outcome or not. Doesn't matter if his statements were true. Wrong strategy is wrong, period.

Posted by: K~Bob at November 04, 2010 04:35 PM (AJ9HO)

1040

Because what Castle said was true? And because he only said it after
O'Donnell started painting him as the reincarnation of a Hitler-Stalin
hybrid? And because the stuff she said and her campaign said (That's the
rumor!) wasn't necessarily true?
Bullshit. Plus you conveniently ignore the fact that ol Mikey could have made his distaste known long before COD became a player. Up to this point, he WAS the Republican party in D'ware. He was just fine with her and her flaws until she had the audacity to primary against him.
He is a cynical whining entitled jackass and I'm glad he's gone.
And no, she aint no daisy either.

Posted by: Beau Biden at November 04, 2010 04:35 PM (ENRGu)

1041 Goback to fingerpainting in your puddingsnackpack. The adults are discussing politics.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:36 PM (R2fpr)

1042 1050
I mean come on, who is instigating all this right now?

Posted by: Terrye

DrewM. Try reading the top of the post.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:30 PM (R2fpr)

And why was there a post? Because she is out there whining. Just like yesterday I read a post at Powerline in response to an email they got from the O'Donnell camp...and they were taking crap from O'Donnell people for even talking about her.

Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 04:36 PM (bNnwW)

1043 Let's separate the "bad candidate" argument from the "RINO or Bust" argument.

The simple fact is that Castle sucked... a lot. Yeah, I get the idea that he was considered a shoo in, a way to technically flip a deep blue state to something resembling red, the committee and control perks, etc. None of that changes the fact that Castle did not represent the views and interests of DE or anyone else on the conservative side. That's what primaries are for and that is why he lost.

The alternative was O' Donnell. Yup, she was not vetted, she has a whole wagon train full of baggage, and she's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. On the other hand, her message consistently represented conservative views and interests. Again, that is what primaries are for and that is why she won. But there is no disagreement (from me at least) that she sucked as a candidate too.

In my mind, the primary worked precisely as it was intended to and gave us the best result possible, considering that the choice was suck and sucks even more.We got the best candidate out of the available choices... but both choices were awful.

So, we went into the general election with the suck candidate. That problem was compounded by the fact that the late primary date left a very short window to start pitching a general election message, she got very little financial or functional support from the national party (arguably understandable, all things considered), she got publicly trounced by her own side on the national networks (inexcusable, IMO. We all knew the problems. For better or worse, she was the nominee. Time to STFU). All of this compounded the inevitable beating that she (or any other conservative candidate) was going to get from the left, the press, and the "entertainers". In short, she went into the same lions den that anyone else would have faced as a conservative in a blue state, running for Biden's old seat... and was metaphorically naked and without weapons. Under those circumstances, even a Zombie Reagan would have lost much less flake with a masturbation hang up who only source consistent income in decades has been campaigning for office.

Mix that all up in your witch's cauldron and she ends up with a shitty general election organization and playing defense against stupid BS from the left and Rove and Co. on the right while leaving Harry Reid's bearded Marxist pet to do nothing except watch her burn and run completed unchallenged.

In spite of that, she actually ended up closer than she had any right to be. Why? Because she had the support of the Tea Party and the Wave- based solely on the conservative principles that she won the primary with. There was NO OTHER REASON that ANYONE voted for her (well, with the exception of those that find her easy on the eyes).

IMO, if she hadn't been running against both sides, perhaps Wave-level turn out, and her conservative message, amplified by the MSM press and the national talking heads, could have carried her over the top. She never got that opportunity. While I generally agree with "why" she didn't get the support, it's still inexcusable.

Splitting hairs aside, here's what we should have learned:
1. Yes, a conservative message can and does win in blue states, against the establishment machines of both sides, and in most cases to a large enough extent that it even overcomes the Margin of Fraud
2. Lesson 1 really should be coupled with a good candidates AND a conservative message, otherwise you will be cast as a nut and people will vote for the evil that they know. (See Reed vs. Angle, Coons vs. O' Donnell, etc)
3. The Establishment is a greater enemy to progress than Democrats. (See Lisa MurCokeski vs. Miller vs. Whoever the Democrat was. Miller is a good candidate without any of O'Donnell's baggage, but he's still losing- entirely due to the Establishment fucktards and the other shit that O'Donnell had to deal with. Even the margins are similar across the relevant groups).
4. Yes, it would have been really nice to have a majority. Personally, I was more fond of the idea of a Reed-Free Senate and a 50-50 split until 2012. Let Biden be the deciding vote on the shit that's going to get rammed through. That takes away any chance of Obama not owning the inevitable fuck ups). If we had a majority with Castle, The Main Sisters, and the other squishes and fluffers; what we'd really have accomplished is providing Obama with a free pass to blame the past two years and the subsequent two squarely on Republicans. Blame is the only game he has. Electing RINOs plays directly into it.

Posted by: Damiano at November 04, 2010 04:36 PM (PA722)

1044 1053
No recrimination postings about Linda Mcmahon or Carly Fiorina or Sharon Angle.

Why is that?


Posted by: Dave C at November 04, 2010 04:31 PM

Because they were "electable in blue states" who give us better than no loaf at all Republicans.

Carly Fiorina fucked up HP and Lucent when she ran them, but I wouldn't go blabbling that to the whole world because I would have voted for a serial killer over Barbara Boxer.

Meg Whitman is Ahnuld with tits. That's what an "electable in a blue state" Repubican gets us.

Posted by: kbdabear at November 04, 2010 04:37 PM (vdfwz)

1045 1065
1022Christine
O'Donnell is not the whole Tea Party. I supported most of their
candidates, but I am not going to support someone just because they
latch onto that movement. After all, Maes in Colorado was put in there
by the Tea Party and he was abandoned because of his own
stupidity..Palidino in NY messed up too...those two people are not the
Tea Party anymore than Christine O'Donnell is. The movement is a large
grass roots decentralized movement. Christine was trying and failing to
win elections a long time before there was a Tea Party movement for her
to grab onto.


Posted by: Steph at November 04, 2010 04:21 PM (ZfkPl)


Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 04:33 PM (bNnwW)
There it is. When I think "Tea Party", I think about people like Ellmers and McClung who normally wouldn't be running for office but did it this year because they decided they had to get involved. COD is someone with no life accomplishments who has been trying to get elected (to the U.S. Senate!) for years now and suddenly decided she was a Tea Party candidate. Get real.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 04:38 PM (U+goV)

1046 1067
If Castle and the DE GOP wanted O'Donnell out of the race, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEAT HER.



Some of you guys are arguing with the air.



There were people in DE (probably not reading this blog) who wanted
her. They weren't using game theory to determine their preference.



So, someone else in DE needed to step up, or Castle needed to step up, and BEAT HER.



They didn't. So, move on.



People talk like there is a candidate manufacturing plant somewhere to order your ideal choice.


Agree, especially with your last.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 04:38 PM (xc0ds)

1047 "Look, I have no personal investment in O'Donnell, I just think it's fucking ridiculous to be fucking arguing a point that's behind us now. Let's just let it go already. We're fucking talking about Delaware for Christ sake. Really? Our hopes and dreams depended on this one race. Give me a freaking break. We should be looking towards 2012 now and positioning ourselves accordingly.
Posted by: mastour at November 04, 2010 04:24 PM (fIg94)"
This.
I guess this thread is for preening and pissing people off because Republicans and Conservatives winning a historic election isn't as big a deal as saying "fuck you" to each other.
It's not like the analysis is hard on this one.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 04, 2010 04:38 PM (fLHQe)

1048 If Castle and the DE GOP wanted O'Donnell out of the race, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEAT HER. Some of you guys are arguing with the air. There were people in DE (probably not reading this blog) who wanted her. They weren't using game theory to determine their preference. So, someone else in DE needed to step up, or Castle needed to step up, and BEAT HER. They didn't. So, move on. People talk like there is a candidate manufacturing plant somewhere to order your ideal choice.
Posted by: mockmook

Thank you. He campaigned late, and badly. That fact is inconvenient, so it's ignored. her shortcomings, which are also a fact, are not.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:39 PM (R2fpr)

1049 994 The only thing we should take away from this whole thing is whomever wins the Primary, support them, don't break them down. Support who the voters voted for, period. They made the call, it does no good to piss in the wind and complain whether that person is electable or not. Support the candidate selected out of the Primary!!!Posted by: mastour at November 04, 2010 04:13 PM (fIg94)

But what does 'support' mean? For some commenters then means that one must never say anything negative about a candidate and be rah-rah about them to the maximum extent possible at all times. Anything else is 'not supporting' them. In fact according to a poll I ran earlier 20% of readers of this blog didn't want any possibly negative stories about O'Donnell to even be covered.

I'm sorry but that would make this blog just a mindless propaganda site. And worse it would be completely boring. If that's what you're looking for, well this blog may not be the place for you.

Posted by: Mætenloch at November 04, 2010 04:39 PM (pAlYe)

1050 Steph, it is hopeless.

Like battered wives, the Frumites just can't stop lovin their Rinos.

Rinos betray, lie, stab you in the back, scheme with the Dems against us, kiss Obama arse (Castle chatting with Hussein after his loss), kiss MSM arse, leak, trash, and agitate against Conservatives in public, stall, undermine, midigate the conservative agenda, and even take leftwing money to beat conservatives.

And this goes on for DECADES...because Rinos are easily elected, and remain in office precisely because the MSM allows it. No conservative would have gotten away with the do-over that Murk did, no way, the AK and national media would have creamed her.


Posted by: pam at November 04, 2010 04:40 PM (h8R9p)

1051 When I think "Tea Party", I think about people like Ellmers and McClung who normally wouldn't be running for office but did it this year because they decided they had to get involved. COD is someone with no life accomplishments who has been trying to get elected (to the U.S. Senate!) for years now and suddenly decided she was a Tea Party candidate. Get real.
10:4.

Posted by: rdbrewer at November 04, 2010 04:41 PM (FKt9E)

1052 1073


Because what Castle said was true? And because he only said it after
O'Donnell started painting him as the reincarnation of a Hitler-Stalin
hybrid? And because the stuff she said and her campaign said (That's the
rumor!) wasn't necessarily true?
Bullshit.
Plus you conveniently ignore the fact that ol Mikey could have made his
distaste known long before COD became a player. Up to this point, he
WAS the Republican party in D'ware. He was just fine with her and her
flaws until she had the audacity to primary against him.
He is a cynical whining entitled jackass and I'm glad he's gone.
And no, she aint no daisy either.


Posted by: Beau Biden at November 04, 2010 04:35 PM (ENRGu)

By the same token you could make the point that Castle was never primaried, he got decent approval ratings, if there was a problem, the conservative Republicans in DE were not making much of an issue of it. They could have tried to find someone else to run against him. The point is he lost the primary and then she lost the general. If it is not fair for him to blame other people for his loss, then maybe Christine and her fan club should learn that lesson as well.

Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 04:41 PM (bNnwW)

1053 *No recrimination postings about Linda Mcmahon or Carly Fiorina or Sharon Angle.*

I think alot of people are pissed that Angle was teh candidate & not someone who might have been stronger, but I think there is also a feeling that she should have *still* won. Going into Tuesday, it looked like she would. And frankly I expected her too.

McMahon did everything she could right. People in CT will have a better view but from what I saw and read and was told she came off like a very qualified would-be Senator. She ran a great campaign. Evidently Blumy really was unbeatable in CT. I don't think any of the others would have taken him. Maybe Rell, who had run statewide, but she wasn't interested.

Fiorina's total was a disappointment undoubtedly. But I think it says more about CA than her as a candidate. Look at Meg Whitman. I'm not sure I'll ever see a day again when there is a senator with (R-California) after his or her name.

Posted by: Chris in Va at November 04, 2010 04:41 PM (oj52M)

1054 "At the end of the day, and when all is said and done, all is said and done." (Yogi Berra) However, a few questions still remain:

1. If Castle is such a genius compared to COD, and an, oh, so much better candidate, then why then did he lose to her in the primary? Was he too smug/stupid to campaign properly? Wow! This guy sounds like a sure-fire winner to me!

2. If Angle, COD et al are too stupid to be U.S. Senators, then would someone please point out to me (and name) the alleged "geniuses" presently in the U.S. senate. All of us know who they are, they're the fucking "geniuses" who have managed to bring this country to the very brink of disaster - if not beyond.

You know, sometimes common sense is a much more desirable (and useful) trait than "genius".

Posted by: alwyr at November 04, 2010 04:42 PM (w2++y)

1055 1088
*No recrimination postings about Linda Mcmahon or Carly Fiorina or Sharon Angle.*





I think alot of people are pissed that Angle was teh candidate not
someone who might have been stronger, but I think there is also a
feeling that she should have *still* won. Going into Tuesday, it looked
like she would. And frankly I expected her too.





McMahon did everything she could right. People in CT will have a better
view but from what I saw and read and was told she came off like a very
qualified would-be Senator. She ran a great campaign. Evidently Blumy
really was unbeatable in CT. I don't think any of the others would have
taken him. Maybe Rell, who had run statewide, but she wasn't interested.





Fiorina's total was a disappointment undoubtedly. But I think it says
more about CA than her as a candidate. Look at Meg Whitman. I'm not sure
I'll ever see a day again when there is a senator with (R-California)
after his or her name.







Posted by: Chris in Va at November 04, 2010 04:41 PM (oj52M)
They also aren't out there whining and playing the victim card AGAIN.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 04:42 PM (U+goV)

1056 Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:30 PM (R2fpr)

That's what you're pissed about? That line?

I can honestly say it wasn't about gloating. I don't think I did any gloating in the post. Given the attention paid to this race everywhere I think we all knew at some point there was going to be a post-mortem on it.

Trust me, if I wanted to gloat or shove people's noses in it, you'd have known. I tried to keep it pretty factual.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 04:42 PM (HicGG)

1057 And why was there a post? Because she is out there whining. Just like yesterday I read a post at Powerline in response to an email they got from the O'Donnell camp...and they were taking crap from O'Donnell people for even talking about her.
Posted by: Terrye
No. There is a post because DrewM decided to post it. Her witch powers do not extend to what gets posted here. She lost, and yes, she's whining. It could have been ignored, or posted as a news item on the sidebar.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:42 PM (R2fpr)

1058 It's his job to say what he
thinks, even when people on his side don't like it. If you want someone
who will just spin for the Republicans 100% of the time, you're
basically asking for a conservative version of Begala or Carville. No
thanks.


Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 04:34 PM

Carville and Begala are smart enough not to frag their own, because they know it would appear on opposition ads and talking points 2 seconds after it escaped their pieholes. Rove apparently thinks the MFM is actually just there to report the news in a balanced way.

Posted by: kbdabear at November 04, 2010 04:43 PM (vdfwz)

1059 Whatever the short-term benefits of electing a useless turd like Mike “Me, Too!” Castle, the long-term effect would have been bad for the GOP.
Know what the real long-term effect of this race will be? A message sent loud and clear to the "GOP establishment" that you need to run a RINO if you want a chance at winning in anything but a deep red state.
How else would they interpret losses by Angle and O'Donnell?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 04, 2010 04:44 PM (plsiE)

1060 Carville

Perhaps you didn't catch the Gulf Oil spill. We're dyin' down here!

Posted by: Ragin' Cajin' at November 04, 2010 04:45 PM (oj52M)

1061 I would have been Comment 1000 IF IT WASN'T FOR KARL FUCKING ROVE!

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 04, 2010 04:45 PM (5pIHA)

1062 You? Demanding unity? She WON the primary. By your "thinking," any primary candidate of which you and the GOP establishment don't approve deserves to be attacked and shunned, even if he/she wins the primary. Then, having done what you can to undermine the candidate and insure defeat in the general election, youcluck your tongue disapprovingly and say, "We told you so."
Too bad we didn't have yourwisdomto guide us in Florida - we could have had Senator Crist instead of Senator Rubio.
Get bent.

Posted by: SmokeVanThorn at November 04, 2010 04:45 PM (3DSNk)

1063 They didn't. So, move on.



People talk like there is a candidate manufacturing plant somewhere to order your ideal choice.Agree, especially with your last.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 04:38 PM (xc0ds)
I think that goes for both sides however. Like I said, the people not moving on right now are the people who feel that they were dissed by Rove and God knows who else. Christine needs to accept her loss and stop complaining about it.

Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 04:45 PM (bNnwW)

1064 Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:30 PM (R2fpr)That's what you're pissed about? That line?I can honestly say it wasn't about gloating. I don't think I did any gloating in the post. Given the attention paid to this race everywhere I think we all knew at some point there was going to be a post-mortem on it. Trust me, if I wanted to gloat or shove people's noses in it, you'd have known. I tried to keep it pretty factual.
Posted by: DrewM

Your coverage of this whole sad story has been infuriating. Remember that this is coming from someone here in Delaware, who agreed with Ace and others that Castle was the better choice overall, and voted for him in the primary, to no avail. This mess could have been avoided if Castle and the state party learned from what had already happened across the country.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:46 PM (R2fpr)

1065 No. There is a post because DrewM decided to post it. Her witch powers do not extend to what gets posted here. She lost, and yes, she's whining. It could have been ignored, or posted as a news item on the sidebar.Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:42 PM (R2fpr)

And you could have ignored the thread as well.

Actually at this point I've sorta lost track - BH what is it that you're so angry over?

Posted by: Mætenloch at November 04, 2010 04:46 PM (pAlYe)

1066 1. If Castle is such a genius compared to COD, and an, oh, so much
better candidate, then why then did he lose to her in the primary? Was
he too smug/stupid to campaign properly? Wow! This guy sounds like a
sure-fire winner to me!

It was either ace or one of the cobloggers who wrote that Castle might have survived his primary had he not treated the voters as something he had to wipe off his shoe.

Posted by: kbdabear at November 04, 2010 04:46 PM (vdfwz)

1067 1093 Carville
and Begala are smart enough not to frag their own, because they know it
would appear on opposition ads and talking points 2 seconds after it
escaped their pieholes. Rove apparently thinks the MFM is actually just
there to report the news in a balanced way.

Which he has admitted as being among his biggest mistakes. Though how the heck he missed that one is beyond me.

But yes, by-and-large the Dem pundits hold their fire until during/after the election and they can start naming names and saying in public what they had been saying behind closed doors. They are much better self-disciplinarians and campaigners than the Rs.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 04:47 PM (xc0ds)

1068 They also aren't out there whining and playing the victim card AGAIN.

You have a point. But I am not defending O'Donnel's whine, I am responding to Drew's taking it as one more chance to kick anyone who didn't lick Mike Castle's boots. I hope COD goes away.
That doesn't excuse the people who helped jumped at the chance to help the other side to skewer her.

Posted by: Beau Biden at November 04, 2010 04:48 PM (ENRGu)

1069 sHed that nasty skin

Posted by: kindey at November 04, 2010 04:48 PM (ENRGu)

1070 *It was either ace or one of the cobloggers who wrote that Castle might have survived his primary had he not treated the voters as something he had to wipe off his shoe.*

Castle ran a bad campaign and started late. He was caught flat-footed, there's no question about that. He wasn't going to run any ads at all because he thought the prudent course of action was to ignore her but the NRSC finally convinced him to go on offense by mid-August. By then it was too late. He didn't hit his own targets in New Castle County, where he had expected 60 and got 57. Those three points gave O'Donnell the nomination.

Posted by: Ragin' Cajin' at November 04, 2010 04:48 PM (oj52M)

1071 With all my new millions, I don't have to look for a sugar daddy anymore. Maybe at 42 I can finally do adult things like settle down, get marreid, have kids, and get a real job... well maybe not that real job thing.

Posted by: Christine O'Donnell at November 04, 2010 04:49 PM (OAzB1)

1072 rdbrewer and Chris in VA

Will you admit that Rove "likely" tried to hurt Odonnell chances with his repeated and constant bashing??? Yes or no?

Posted by: Keven at November 04, 2010 04:49 PM (yO+uQ)

1073 *have kids,*

We can't do doggy style? ONLY missionary? Fuck.

Posted by: Christine O'Donnell's disappointed future husband at November 04, 2010 04:51 PM (oj52M)

1074 respell

Posted by: kidney at November 04, 2010 04:51 PM (ENRGu)

1075 If Castle is such a genius compared to COD, and an, oh, so much better candidate, then why then did he lose to her in the primary? Was he too smug/stupid to campaign properly? Wow! This guy sounds like a sure-fire winner to me!It was either ace or one of the cobloggers who wrote that Castle might have survived his primary had he not treated the voters as something he had to wipe off his shoe.
Posted by: kbdabear

This.
They fucked up the primary. The fact that our primary was one of the last meant that we could have learned from Alaska, Utah and Florida. Don't take the base or your chances for granted. Do NOT wait for it to be handed to you. We never learned, and lost the filter that a primary provides, weeding out weak candidates. And thus we lost a great opportunity which we probably won't have again.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:51 PM (R2fpr)

1076 Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:46 PM (R2fpr)

My coverage of her? I don't think I posted anything about her after the primary other than the witch story.

That was news.

Beyond that, I tried to avoid her.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 04:52 PM (HicGG)

1077 @ 1103 It was either ace or one of the cobloggers who wrote that Castle might
have survived his primary had he not treated the voters as something he
had to wipe off his shoe.
________________________

Thank you for the quote kbdabear! I'm sure you'll agree that was a perfect reason not to have voted for him in the first instance.

Posted by: alwyr at November 04, 2010 04:52 PM (w2++y)

1078 They weren't perfect, but Fiorina, McMahon, and Angle were all strong,
viable candidates who were more interested in giving their Dem
opponents serious races than in weeding out impure Republicans.

Fiorina and McMahon certainly weren't strong viable candidates. Fiorina's list of negatives could go toe to toe with Christine O'Donnell's.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 04, 2010 04:53 PM (FkKjr)

1079 But what does 'support' mean? For some commenters
then means that one must never say anything negative about a candidate
and be rah-rah about them to the maximum extent possible at all times.
Anything else is 'not supporting' them. In fact according to a poll I
ran earlier 20% of readers of this blog didn't want any possibly negative stories about O'Donnell to even be covered.I'm
sorry but that would make this blog just a mindless propaganda site.
And worse it would be completely boring. If that's what you're looking
for, well this blog may not be the place for you.

Posted by: Mætenloch at November 04, 2010 04:39 PM (pAlYe)

How about this Maet? Support is that no matter what you guys put up about an R nominee you make it perfectly clear that no matter how bad it is there is something worse and that is voting for a Democrat. If you really hate a candidate don't vote for them. Voting against them isn't an option. For too may republicans this election, in places like CT, DE, CO and NV, it was an option and Rs in those states voted for the Dem. It cost both Angle and Buck a Senate seat.
Could someone explain to me how the hell 16%, SIXTEEN fucking percent, of people who call themselves DE Republicans vote FOR Coons?
I don't know how often I read on here how bad it is not to vote. Well you know what? if you really can't bring yourself to vote for someone then not voting is the best option. Voting for the Liberal should be anathema but we make people feel so bad about not voting they vote for the Dem instead of just leaving it blank.

Posted by: Rocks at November 04, 2010 04:53 PM (Q1lie)

1080 You have a point. But I am not defending O'Donnel's whine, I am responding to Drew's taking it as one more chance to kick anyone who didn't lick Mike Castle's boots. I hope COD goes away.That doesn't excuse the people who helped jumped at the chance to help the other side to skewer her.Posted by: Beau Biden at November 04, 2010 04:48 PM (ENRGu)

Uh no.

No one here licked Castle's boots.

And trust me - no one here was jumping at the chance to criticize her. All that brings is more crazy hate from the more obsessive COD supporters. No-thank-you-very-much.

Posted by: Mætenloch at November 04, 2010 04:54 PM (pAlYe)

1081 1099
I
think that goes for both sides however. Like I said, the people not
moving on right now are the people who feel that they were dissed by
Rove and God knows who else. Christine needs to accept her loss and
stop complaining about it.
It's an interesting discussion. However, I think the best thing to do is take-away the
"what have we learned?" bits and just go from there. If some feel Rove is typical of R elitism, then either don't listen or write letters of complaint. As for O'Donnell, I'm not sure why she became the face of the Tea Party when Jon Scott (IIRC) pointed out that Rubio was the 1st to really use that banner. Anyway, if we're going to be angry at Dems for magically pulling ballots out of hats (Etheridge, Ortiz, etc.), then O'Donnell also deserves some criticism for sounding like a sore loser. I'm sorry she lost and that she was savaged, but that's the end of it.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at November 04, 2010 04:54 PM (xc0ds)

1082 Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:46 PM (R2fpr)My coverage of her? I don't think I posted anything about her after the primary other than the witch story.That was news. Beyond that, I tried to avoid her.
Posted by: DrewM

It was news. Her continuing the whining is news. The way it was presented, and amplified over the months by several of the cobloggers was annoying. But it hardly matters now.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:55 PM (R2fpr)

1083 Tonight on the PROGRAM I'll be telling ya'll about a grew new show premiering right here on THE Fox News Channel. Tea Party Nation with Christine O'Donnell. I'm working hard with Christine to deliver a format as engaging as Hannity but I don't think it will be hard with Christine's cutting edge insight and razor sharp ability to slice through the BS and zero in on the true issues facing REAL America.

This week she will also be producing three documentary specials "Witchcrafts and Paganism in America: It' s worse than you think." "Masturbation: Save your potion and your lotion" and - oddly enough - but Christine insisted on it - "Money Matters with Matthew Lesko".

I hope you, as a Great American, will join me, The Great American, in welcoming Christine to the Fox News Channel. If ya'll are lucky we might even work her into next year's freedom concert!

Posted by: SEAN HANNITY! at November 04, 2010 04:55 PM (oj52M)

1084 Anything like the Tea Party is always bound to attract grifters and con artists like Christine O'Donnell who see a golden opportunity to latch on to a winning movement and use it to their own profit.
Yep. TEA Party Express leaders seem to fit this description too. While they're out there staying in the news (and consequently raising funds), they're lining their pockets. There using a movment that was never meant to be organized.
She's been telegraphing since Tuesday that she will continue to do this, come hell or high water.
That was my guess. What else can she do? Sh doesn't have a job, and with th three-million dollar slush fund, you can pay yourself pretty well.

Posted by: rdbrewer at November 04, 2010 04:57 PM (FKt9E)

1085 Well it's been great fun flinging the poo around with you other monkeys.

enjoy!

Posted by: kidney at November 04, 2010 04:58 PM (ENRGu)

1086 The bottom line is this. There are supposedly 3 "legs" of the the conservative stool: fiscal, national security, and social. No one expects the NE Republicans to be solid on all three. We hope they can get the fiscal conservatism down at least (ie only with us 33% of the time!). That 's a simple criterion. Chris Christie can win in NJ. I can tolerate him a little squishy on immigration or social issues. But the guy is a solid fiscal conservative.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 04:58 PM (R4ub4)

1087 Who had more influence over Delaware voters: Karl Rove or Jon Stewart?




BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE!

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 04, 2010 04:58 PM (5pIHA)

1088 16%, SIXTEEN fucking percent, of people who call themselves DE Republicans vote FOR Coons?

Some of them bought into the crazy meme. I know some; I'm related to some. Add to that some people I personally know that liked Castle, and then swore off. One I know accounced that he was voting for Coons. That's how screwed up this state is. Please note that what I'm relating can't be quantified; it's merely what I'm hearing in my circles of aquaintence.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:58 PM (R2fpr)

1089 Know how to make an attention whore go away? Hint: it has to do with not giving her attention.
The fact is that she didn't get much help from the establishment and some even worked against her. Continuing to pile on the loser attention whore who's whining about being piled-on is only going to feed that troll.
The most strident O'Donnell supporters aren't the only ones who need to let this go.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 04, 2010 04:59 PM (fLHQe)

1090 It was news. Her continuing the whining is news. The way it was presented, and amplified over the months by several of the cobloggers was annoying. But it hardly matters now.Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:55 PM (R2fpr)

Huh? Really?

Actually most of the bloggers here got to where they avoided any COD topics entirely since it seemed to bring nothing but pain.

So again - what is it that you're so angry about?

Posted by: Mætenloch at November 04, 2010 04:59 PM (pAlYe)

1091 99.9999% sure I never want to hear from Christine O'Donnell again.
She's one tick more worthwhile as a candidate for the US Senateas Alvin Greene.

Posted by: MikeD at November 04, 2010 04:59 PM (jmoS0)

1092 This.
They fucked up the primary. The fact that our primary was one of the last meant that we could have learned from Alaska, Utah and Florida. Don't take the base or your chances for granted. Do NOT wait for it to be handed to you. We never learned, and lost the filter that a primary provides, weeding out weak candidates. And thus we lost a great opportunity which we probably won't have again.
Posted by: Blue Hen at November 04, 2010 04:51 PM (R2fpr)
Um doesn't Delaware sort of have like a mini convention to pick their candidate? And then after that they hold a primary for those that are unhappy with the candidate chosen by the State Party? I thought that was mentioned. And that is basically what Utah had to remove their RINO. Still holding a primary so late in the election cycle is rididulous, and I think that is part of the reason this race got more coverage than it deserved.
I mean no offense to you and others in the state but I mean come on this is fucking Delaware! Its as worth focusing on a race as San Francisco is. If the primary wasn't so close to the general and merely just one race among many other primaries happening at the same time, people would not have been as likely to carry their enthusiasm through on a race that did not deserve the enthusiasm.

Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 05:00 PM (oVQFe)

1093 Will you admit that Rove "likely" tried to hurt Odonnell chances with his repeated and constant bashing??? Yes or no?
I'd say that he didn't care whether he did. And, no, I don't trust him one bit. Remember, he's the big-governmentRepublican who pushed Bush. Anyone wanna bet he never bothered to talk to Bush about what worked for Reagan?

Posted by: rdbrewer at November 04, 2010 05:00 PM (FKt9E)

1094 Posted by: K~Bob at November 04, 2010 04:35 PM (AJ9HO)

Perhaps you don't understand what the job of a political commentator is.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2010 04:36 PM (/AxgK)
Yeah. Sure, that must be it. Yeah, go with that. Look, I'm not taking issue with the fact that O'Donnell is not a strong candidate. But I'm not ignoring the fact that the R's pulling for Castle claimed it was a necessary evil to get the Senate, but wouldn't accept the exact, same amount of necessary evil by supporting the primary winner. Did it cost her the seat? Probably more than a little, but can't be proved.

While we're talking about R's "learning something," you can't have both the "neccessary evil" approach and the "don't support a flawed candidate" approach at the same time without looking stupid. Stupid only wins in Moron arguments. That's why we're here.

Besides, Rove is just an example of a commenter who is also working as an "operative." If you want a "political commentator" look to George Will or someone not actively paid to help anyone's campaign. Rove is not the same at all.


Damn. I gotta get some shzt done. And I guess I'm done with this whole topic. It's pointless. Catch ya later, War, and all you other crazy Morons and Moronettes!

Posted by: K~Bob at November 04, 2010 05:00 PM (AJ9HO)

1095 The most strident O'Donnell supporters aren't the only ones who need to let this go.
Excellent point. Castle is not a good spokeperson for the conservative message and can do a lot of harm. The election is over.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:00 PM (R4ub4)

1096 Uh no.No one here licked Castle's boots.

No, the expectation was for Delaware Republicans to do that.


Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 04, 2010 05:00 PM (FkKjr)

1097 If Lincohn Chaffee or Mike Castle are only hope in the NE, then we are done there. Chris Christie provides a real hope there.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:02 PM (R4ub4)

1098 I'm baaaaaaaaaaack.

Posted by: Gov-Elect Lincoln Chafee (I-Rhode Island) at November 04, 2010 05:03 PM (oj52M)

1099 Christine O'Donnell doesn't have any of her own money because she doesn't work for a living.
The same can be said of people like Murkowski and Castle. They are living off the tax payers. We have the whole democratic party on tax payer 's dole already. We don't need more on the Rep side! What real work Murkowski, Chaffee, and Castle have done for a living?

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:05 PM (R4ub4)

1100 I for one wouldn't mind if there were recriminations for Angle and Buck too. The thing about those races is that Sue Lowden and Jane Norton were solid conservatives, who just happened to be attached to the "establishment". There was so much mud and lies spread about them by people like Erick Erickson and teh "real conservaives" and their little proxy war against the NRSC. It was stupid. Its about the Republic. Not petty grievances. Jane Norton would have made a great Senator.

Posted by: Patrick Henry at November 04, 2010 05:05 PM (OAzB1)

1101 Drew I tend to think your somewhat more grown up than this. I suppose that if you were in Christine Os shoes, you would have just let what happened in this election go? The truth is Castle was a far whinier little bitch than Christine O. Just like the other Rinos who have proven they can't be trusted or depended on.

Posted by: Africanus at November 04, 2010 05:06 PM (I9eTK)

1102 Atleast you come 3/4ths the way to where I am on Rove rdbrewer. I also come 3/4ths the way to your point that Rove didn't cost Odonnell the race. He probably only cost her 4-5 points.

Posted by: Keven at November 04, 2010 05:08 PM (yO+uQ)

1103 Yes they were. They were as strong as could be expected in states like
California and Connecticut, ran aggressively against their Democrat
opponents, and poured millions of dollars of their own money into their
campaigns.O'Donnell - 40% of the voteFiorina - 43% of the voteMcMahon - 44% of the vote

So competency and aggressiveness buys you 3 or 4% in a blue state? Let's bear in mind Fiorina was running against an incumbent polling under 50%, and McMahon was running against a guy who lied about his service in Vietnam.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 04, 2010 05:08 PM (FkKjr)

1104 And trust me - no one here was jumping at the chance to criticize her. All that brings is more crazy hate from the more obsessive COD supporters. No-thank-you-very-much.
Posted by: Mætenloch at November 04, 2010 04:54 PM (pAlYe)
Bullshit. I'm definitely no COD supporter, but I remember watching you guys torch reasonable dissenting opinions in the comments section for weeks.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 04, 2010 05:09 PM (fLHQe)

1105 1129
99.9999% sure I never want to hear from Christine O'Donnell again.
She's one tick more worthwhile as a candidate for the US Senateas Alvin Greene.

That's sexist. Conservatism is sexist and your actions humiliate me. How come you cant feel sorry for me? I'm the victim here. I'm go to sue you for 7 million.

Posted by: Christine O'Donnell at November 04, 2010 05:09 PM (OAzB1)

1106 Its about the Republic.

A good point. Without the tea party, we would have Crist, Castle, Murkowski, Bennett etc... That would be more stupid and the death of the Rep party. We can do a post-mortem in a constructive spirit. If we want to talk about perfection, then we are lost. Without the tea party, it was not a guarantee that we would take back the house! Tea party made mistakes of course, but there are ample reasons why people were suspicious of the Est Reps. Ayotte is an example where the tea party candidate got out of the way and campaign for her!

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:10 PM (R4ub4)

1107 The vitriol in this unpleasant business seems to have come mostly from the Rove/DC Fraternity Row side. Or they started it, at any rate.

Shall we go to the archives and check? It'll be fascinating.

Posted by: tsj017 at November 04, 2010 05:11 PM (4YUWF)

1108 Oops, I really miss the conservative message from Mike Castle!

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:11 PM (R4ub4)

1109 Posted by: Africanus at November 04, 2010 05:06 PM (I9eTK)

A serious question...what's wrong with what I wrote? Was I factually inaccurate about something? You can say we should just forget about her an move on but she was an incredibly important figure in this election. I did her the service of taking her and what she represented seriuosly.

If she were an Alvin Greene type kook, I'd ignore her but she generated a lot of interest and support from conservatives nationally. They must have seen something they like in her. I think lionizing her is dangerous for us long term. It's a discussion worth having.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 05:14 PM (HicGG)

1110 Let's bear in mind Christine O'Donnell was running against a bearded-Marxist sacrificial lamb. She lost to him by a larger margin than any of the other ladies in their races.

While some people on our side seemed to be more interested in attacking her than the bearded Marxists. That 's the real shame!

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:14 PM (R4ub4)

1111 I think lionizing her is dangerous for us long term. It's a discussion worth having.

Noone is lionizing her! People are reacting to the vicious attack against her from our side. We expect that from the dems. Seems like the Castle people cannot let it go after the primary.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:16 PM (R4ub4)

1112 Let's bear in mind Christine O'Donnell was running against a bearded-Marxist sacrificial lamb. She lost to him by a larger margin than any of the other ladies in their races.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2010 05:12 PM (/AxgK)
Yes, she was a weak candidate, like the other two.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 04, 2010 05:17 PM (FkKjr)

1113 1134 But what does 'support' mean? For some commenters then means that one must never say anything negative about a candidate and be rah-rah about them to the maximum extent possible at all times. Anything else is 'not supporting' them. In fact according to a poll I ran earlier 20% of readers of this blog didn't want any possibly negative stories about O'Donnell to even be covered.I don't hold commentors to that standard but I do hold Conservative blogs and pundits that profess to want to defeat the opposition. Doing otherwise during an election only helps the opposition. I don't know how you justify that.Posted by: polynikes at November 04, 2010 05:00 PM (m2CN7)

Well then you're going to be continually disappointed by this blog. Cause that didn't happen in 2004 with Bush/Kerry and for sure not in 2008 with McCain/Obama. And it's not going to be that way in the future either.

Posted by: Mætenloch at November 04, 2010 05:18 PM (pAlYe)

1114 The key lesson is that the Rep have to select someone with conservative credentials to win the Rep primary. If we can not expect our candidate to represent at least one of the 3 legs of the conservative stool, then what is the point? What good is Lincoln Chaffee to us? He voted for Obama!

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:18 PM (R4ub4)

1115 Jane Norton would have made a great Senator.
Unless you're living in a parallel universe you don't know jack shit about her electability.

Posted by: Ronster at November 04, 2010 05:20 PM (9q4PA)

1116 While some people on our side seemed to be more interested in attacking her than the bearded Marxists. That 's the real shame!
Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:14 PM (R4ub4)

Other than when O'Donnell made news, most of us avoided the subject. Why? Because she was going to lose. We spent our efforts elsewhere. Lots of people said, 'take the easy, if imperfect, win with Castle". We lost and the O'Donnell partisans won that argument. They immediately found themselves in a race where they were down by 10-20 pts throughout. You wanted it and you got it. It's success or failure was up to you, not us.


Don't blame those of us who said don't pick that fight with not fighting it hard enough. We didn't want it because we knew it couldn't be won.

You're allowed to gamble and lose, you not allowed to demand I work harder to give you more money to play with.


Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 05:20 PM (HicGG)

1117 First the awwww....

Delaware politicians bury the hatchet -- really
By RANDALL CHASE , 11.04.10

GEORGETOWN, Del. -- After their bruising U.S. Senate battle, Democratic senator-elect Chris Coons and his defeated Republican opponent Christine O'Donnell made nice Thursday in a time-honored Delaware ritual where political foes bury a hatchet as a symbol of making amends.

Coons and O'Donnell rode together in a parade of horse-drawn carriages and old-time automobiles that ended with party leaders burying a hatchet in a box of sand. Coons sat by his wife, Annie, while O'Donnell was accompanied by a bodyguard.

Coons gave a thumbs-up signal when asked how he and O'Donnell were getting along. The two traded had sharp barbs during the campaign, but O'Donnell said Coons has been "very cordial" to her. "I sincerely wish him well," she said.

The southern Delaware hamlet of Georgetown plays host to the event called Return Day after every election. It harkens back to a time when residents traveled to the county seat to vote and returned two days later to hear the election results read.

In a break with tradition, the master of ceremonies invited Coons and O'Donnell to pose together with the hatchet before it was buried, to show healing within Delaware's political establishment. The phrase "bury the hatchet" dates back to a Native American expression for peacemaking.

Riding behind Coons and O'Donnell in the parade were Democratic congressman-elect John Carney Jr. and his Republican opponent, Glen Urquhart. Like O'Donnell, Urquhart attracted strong support from the tea party movement and defeated a GOP-endorsed candidate in the primary election.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 04, 2010 05:20 PM (BTyMb)

1118 Ignore her. Just like the establishment should have.
If the media did the smart thing and ignored Palin, she'd have significantly less positive or negative influence than she has now.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 04, 2010 05:20 PM (fLHQe)

1119 COD will not be silent, until Frum, Brooks, Rove, and other "really smart guy Rinos" shut up.

Which will be never...since they are telegraphing their plans to take down SP before the primary, hoping she will decide against it. Just read Mike Allen (Rove's reporter), and read Frum and Brooks...(leaks from those oh so holy Rino Senators that we need sooooo much).

And as per their usual, Rinos working hard against there supposed own, instead of the commie libs.


Posted by: pam at November 04, 2010 05:20 PM (h8R9p)

1120
1138 I'm baaaaaaaaaaack.

Talk to the pudding covered scrotum.

Posted by: Beefy Meatball at November 04, 2010 05:21 PM (YYaIP)

1121 Gotta disagree with Ace a little here, but one vote from Mike Castle in support of some awful statist Obullshit. would taint the Republican brand and give the Obullshitter space to call it "bipartisan."
And the difference between 46 and 47 Senate seats? Not much. A liberal is a liberal. I don't want any liberals on our side voting like liberals. Let them stay on their own side.

Posted by: Nick at November 04, 2010 05:22 PM (S2Q0B)

1122 Other than when O'Donnell made news, most of us avoided the subject.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 05:20 PM (HicGG)
Is there some other AoSHQ blog I don't know about?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 04, 2010 05:23 PM (fLHQe)

1123 Bullshit. I'm definitely no COD supporter, but I remember watching you guys torch reasonable dissenting opinions in the comments section for weeks. Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 04, 2010 05:09 PM (fLHQe)

Funny I don't remember any of that. I do remember, though, COD supporters being very quick to cast out RINO and other epithets against anyone who dared say anything critical of O'Donnell - even if they've been working away for the conservative cause for decades. Being less than fulsome in praise for her was enough to get you tossed out of the movement.

Posted by: Mætenloch at November 04, 2010 05:24 PM (pAlYe)

1124 Posted by: Terrye at November 04, 2010 04:33 PM (bNnwW)
I don't recall seeing anything mentioned in the comment I responded to, or my comment, about O'Donnell.
I don't need a lecture on the Tea Party. I know it well.

Posted by: Steph at November 04, 2010 05:24 PM (ZfkPl)

1125 And now the Mike Castle moment....

Although Return Day is supposed to let candidates and politicians to put any harsh feelings aside, O'Donnell's upset victory over longtime congressman and former governor Mike Castle in the GOP primary left a lingering impact on the state Republican Party.

Besides O'Donnell and Urquhart, GOP candidates for state treasurer and several legislative seats were defeated as well.

"The Republican party took a real shellacking in this election in Delaware," Castle told The Associated Press.

During the primary, state GOP chairman Tom Ross leveled sharp words against O'Donnell, saying she couldn't be elected "dogcatcher." Castle said he doesn't blame Ross for the GOP losses.

"I think that responsibility lies particularly with the candidate for the Senate, the Republican candidate for Senate, who stirred the emotions of the Democrats to come out and to vote, and it ran down the ticket," Castle said.."


So Coons had the class to show some decency to his opponent, while Castle was the typical self centered spiteful queen. Just the sort of man you want as senator.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 04, 2010 05:25 PM (BTyMb)

1126 Better to have Coons in than a backstabbing Castle who would hand the Dems some bipartisan cover.

Posted by: KG at November 04, 2010 05:26 PM (2pDBV)

1127 Karl Rove is a RHINO ?????? really ?
please, his organization spent tons of money on Tea Party candidates all over America ...

Posted by: Jeff at November 04, 2010 05:27 PM (A3tpD)

1128 Don't blame those of us who said don't pick that fight with not fighting
it hard enough. We didn't want it because we knew it couldn't be won.
Then let it go, ignore her! Why provide the additional ammunition?
Don't want to support her, fine at least not get on TV and attack her openly like Karl Rove did. Looks like he intentionally wanted to sabotage her. He is a smart guy. He could finesse the attack on CO and turned his guns on Coons. But he didn't do that. That 's the problem.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:27 PM (R4ub4)

1129 1171

Karl Rove is a RHINO ?????? really ?

please, his organization spent tons of money on Tea Party candidates all over America ...

Posted by: Jeff at November 04, 2010 05:27 PM (A3tpD)
Well, he coulda fooled me with his attacks on O'Donnell.

Posted by: KG at November 04, 2010 05:27 PM (2pDBV)

1130 Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 04, 2010 05:23 PM (fLHQe)

Seriously? How many posts were there on her after the primary 10-12? I think that's on the high side. The DE primary was the 2nd week of September, so that's about 6 or 7 weeks.

There were maybe 2 post a week on her.

She was the most widely covered candidate in the country. That doesn't strike me as overkill by us.

Maybe I'm wrong on the number of posts but I don't think by that much.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 05:27 PM (HicGG)

1131 The support for McMahon and Fiorina was organic. The support for O'Donnell was orchestrated from the outside like Angle. That's the difference. That's where the Tea Party failed.
Tea Party was supposed to be about the grass roots, the people. Where the people led, the Tea Party succeeded like PA and WI. Toomey had conservative support for a long time. He built theat support through hard work. PA voters knew him, respected him. Johnson did it on his own. It wasgrass roots Wisconsin movment.
Delaware and Nevada just changed one set of kingmakers for another. Angle and O'Donnell were going nowhere. Tea Party Express, guys like Mark Levin and Jim DeMint's fund pumped up and propped up lousy candidates who never impressed any locals, who never generated much local enthusiasm until Rush, Hannity and Levin and other outsiders had to carry them on their backs.
The people of Deleaware were never impressed with COD. Rush pushed her like no other candidate in the final week and yet she still lost by 17 points.
The real Tea Party shouldnt be highlyorganized and it should be about local control. Jim DeMint spent a half million on Ovide Lamongtage, while Erick Ericskon spread lies about Kelly Ayotte's relationship with Planned Parenthood. That was not the Tea Party. That wasimperial.
If Ken Buck lost, Ovide most surely would have lost.I reject the kingmakers on both sides.

Posted by: swamp_yankee at November 04, 2010 05:28 PM (OAzB1)

1132 Here's what really bothers me about this race and people's positions on
it...every party and movement is going to nominate a stinker every now
and then. It happens. Usually though you just politely turn away and
ignore them. In this case a lot of folks not only didn't want to ignore
O'Donnell (that was RINOism!) but embraced and promoted her.

I doubt many people here were ardent supporters of her beyond her winning the primary. I didn't know much about her until that point. And even the witchcraft stuff. It was never defended-- if at all-- on here. Never paired with something like "So what's the big deal? Obama was in a cocaine induced haze at that age. And look! Alvin Green!" Because you have a smart military blog here that does sometimes help set the narrative. Not just parrot the MFM's narrative.

If it was that much of a concern for you, Drew, maybe a posting advocating Mike Castle before the primary would have been helpful. All you are doing now is being the Monday morning quarterback.

To me a bigger issue would by why didn't Angle win against Harry Reid. The same voters who turned her down also elected the Republican as Governor of Nevada. That should have been a winnable race. More so than DE.

It wasn't a matter of turn out. It was the messaging and the messenger. Angle had the personality of a banshee. And to have ousted the Majority leader of the Senate? Scrotums would still be encased with pudding.

I'm among those who agree that even if Castle had won his primary-- which he didn't-- he still would have lost. Because voters were being offered an echo, not a choice.


Posted by: Dave C at November 04, 2010 05:28 PM (poJjg)

1133 please, his organization spent tons of money on Tea Party candidates all over America ...

Yup, Karl Rove was acting like a big brother stooping down to help these ignorant tea partiers whose emotion is the only thing they have!

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:28 PM (R4ub4)

1134 Really, Blog Pros's? No new thread for 5 hours. You sick bastards are loving this shit, or having nightmares and projecting about your uncle playing "Hide the Sausage" when you were young.

Posted by: Antwone Fisher at November 04, 2010 05:29 PM (YYaIP)

1135 Apparently Coons is just the sort of man you want as senator. After all, he has "class" and "decency".
He is also a liar. But our side was too busy attacking CO instead of bringing up his lies! We don't need the NSRC to do much here but to encourage the Del Rep to be quiet at the very least.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:31 PM (R4ub4)

1136 Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:27 PM (R4ub4)

Why not let it go? Because I think it's important to note we as conservatives (in my opinion) made a mistake here. I don't want to see it repeated. I laid out my reasons and what I think the appropriate course is in the future.

That's not gloating, that's trying to contribute to future success.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 05:31 PM (HicGG)

1137 I don't consider it a mistake. Mike Castle was a mistake.

Posted by: KG at November 04, 2010 05:33 PM (2pDBV)

1138 1171
Karl Rove is a RHINO ?????? really ?
please, his organization spent tons of money on Tea Party candidates all over America ...
Posted by: Jeff at November 04, 2010 05:27 PM (A3tpD)
And then proceeded to bash the Tea Party in an interview with a German Magazine. He thinks people in the Tea Party are nothing but stupid backwoods yokels that need a refined intelligent leader like him to direct them properly.
I don't really care that much for O'Donnell, but Fuck Karl Rove.

Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 05:33 PM (oVQFe)

1139

It's a deeply blue state that actually likes liberals.
Then LET THEM VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS. You're obviously the kind of pushy salesman who tries to sell people something they don't want.
We had a chance to get a moderate-liberal Republican and passed on it.
No, we didn't. Castle was most definitely not a "moderate-liberal" Republican. Chris Christie is a moderate-liberal Republican. Scott Brown is a moderate-liberal Republican. Mike Castle is a saboteur. His goal, like that of Lindsay Graham and John McCain, is to destroy the Republican party from the inside. Don't hand me this "but he would have voted with us most of the time" bullshit. He would have voted with Republicans on the insignificant bills and "compromised" with the Democrats on everything really important. Far more seriously, he would have pulled the party itself to the Left and turned off conservative voters in other states, who would then SIT OUT ELECTIONS OR VOTE THIRD PARTY.
To me, that was tactically stupid. Yes, Castle would have been a pain in the ass but not as big a one when there were 47 or 48 Republicans in the Senate. The power of the moderates is when they are all the deciding vote, add a cushion and they are manageable. Personally, I would have liked to have had another no vote on HCR in the Senate but others didn't think that was important enough.
Castle not only wouldn't have voted to repeal HCR, he would have done everything within his power to stop such a repeal from ever coming up for a vote. And, if the Republicans took the Senate, he WOULD have been given a place on a powerful committee because he's a good stooge.

Posted by: Muppet Fart at November 04, 2010 05:34 PM (sW09Y)

1140 Why not let it go? Because I think it's important to note we as
conservatives (in my opinion) made a mistake here. I don't want to see
it repeated.
Yes, so don't force us to go with another CO by offering another Castle. That 's basically the point. We want NE Reps to be at least fiscal conservatives. If we can't have that, then what is the point? I don't want to choose the least of two evils. In this case, in the rational judgment of many people, Castle is the worse choice. I can understand the tactical reason for supporting Castle. Once the primary was over, we should have moved on.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:34 PM (R4ub4)

1141 Expected nothing less.I notice you didn't give the rationale in going negative on your own candidate during an election. Posted by: polynikes at November 04, 2010 05:27 PM (m2CN7)

Uh we didn't "go negative" on her - at most we covered negative news that was already being covered in the media. And if you scroll back through the archives, you'll find that we also covered plenty of negative items about McCain during the primaries and presidential campaign. This is a political blog - not a propaganda site.

And I don't recall people complaining about covering negative news during the 2008 elections. Funny how this new higher standard only seems to apply to Christine O'Donnell.

Posted by: Mætenloch at November 04, 2010 05:38 PM (pAlYe)

1142 If it was that much of a concern for you, Drew, maybe a posting advocating Mike Castle before the primary would have been helpful. All you are doing now is being the Monday morning quarterback.
Posted by: Dave C at November 04, 2010 05:28 PM (poJjg)

You mean like this or this or this?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 05:41 PM (HicGG)

1143 Absolutely spot on, Drew! The Senate is an important office and powerful office of national importance.and you don't nominate somebody with absolutely no political experience besides having run over and over and never winning anything. Palin should have vetted her before endorsing her and tea partiers should have vetted her before following Palin's recommendation.

I like the grass roots, self-organizing nature of the tea party movement, but if it's going to continue to be influential, it needs to have a head to go with its heart. You may believe in conspiracies, but when you lose, blaming your own party is not going to get you invited back.

And by the way, Sarah Palin's recent intemperate remarks about Poltiico and its reporting of anonymous sources within the GOP dissing her, kind of concerns me. She called them puppy kickers, child molesters, among other things. That's not a smart or dignified way to respond. This kind of stuff is part of life in politics and she should make it a mantra to ask "What would Reagan do."

Posted by: flataffect at November 04, 2010 05:41 PM (alC6Q)

1144 Posted by: polynikes at November 04, 2010 05:40 PM (m2CN7)

Your strategy sent Cris Coons to the US senate.

Mine would have been another vote against things like HCR and stimulus.

I'm going to stick with mine thanks.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 05:42 PM (HicGG)

1145 Polynikes,
I wouldn't go that far in politics. If candidate A gets 2 out of 3 legs and candidate B gets 1 out of 3 legs, I can go with B if B is definitely more electable. In the case of Castle and Chaffee, we got 0 out of 3. So what is the point of winning with them?

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:43 PM (R4ub4)

1146 I'm not gonna wade thriough the whole thread, but let me make one thing clear. Anyone who thinks that the AoSHQ was responsible for Christine O'Donnell's loss on Tuesday night can go eat a big bag of dicks.
I'm fucking serious here. MCPO Airedale, I like you. We've had good interactions on IB and the Hostages, but you're fucking out of line with that sniveling line of bullshit. Go skullfuck yourself with a chainsaw, douchenozzle.
And the worst fucking part? You're slandering good people in defense of a cute grifter with no fucking grasp of politics, other than where to endorse the contribution check. Not Barry Goldwater. Not Ronald Reagan. Christine O'Fucking Donnell. Retards. You're all fucking retards.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at November 04, 2010 05:43 PM (T4kFH)

1147 LOL, as if Castle was gonna do that. You stick your fantasies, sure.

Btw, the Republicans voters of DE disagreed with you, that's about as final as it gets.

Posted by: KG at November 04, 2010 05:44 PM (2pDBV)

1148 Please say that we're done with this shit now.
Fuck Delaware. Fuck Dippy O'Donnell. Fuck Castle the Courtesan. Fuck Vladimir Ilych Coons. Fuck the whole palsied lot of them with a dildo made of Nancy Pelosi's skin flabs.
We won the fucking election, morons. The House is ours. Harry Reid'smajority isweakened. Obama is going to have to try a half-assed Clinton impression to get anything done.
And when Boehner and McConnell go back to work in January, they're not going to be able to set free all our unicorns and skittles. They'll win some; they'll lose some. Two years from now we go all in for the big win. So let's get the fuck on with it.

Posted by: Andrew the Noisy at November 04, 2010 05:44 PM (V0QP1)

1149 And by the way, Sarah Palin's recent intemperate remarks about Poltiico
and its reporting of anonymous sources within the GOP dissing her, kind
of concerns me. She called them puppy kickers, child molesters, among
other things. That's not a smart or dignified way to respond.

Are you serious? Did you look into the statement she made? If you understand what she is saying, you would say it is about time someone from our side put these "corrupt bastards" on the rope for their sewage!

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:45 PM (R4ub4)

1150 1189
That's not gloating, that's trying to contribute to future success.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 05:31 PM (HicGG)

Your strategy is to vote for someone you think has the best chance to
win. My strategy is to vote for the person who more closely holds my
positions. Mine is based on principle. Yours is based on politics.
Different strokes.

Drew's method will give you a Charlie Crist type every time.

Posted by: Dave C at November 04, 2010 05:46 PM (poJjg)

1151 we didn't "go negative" on her - at most we covered negative news that was already being covered in the media.

Karl Rove helped to create negative news for more coverage!

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:49 PM (R4ub4)

1152 That was news. Beyond that, I tried to avoid her.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 04:52 PM (HicGG)
Oh, I see. You wrote this because it was news.
You chose to write this news. You knew what the hell was going to happen, but you just had to write this news.
What you chose to dowas pick at the scab, so you couldwatch it bleed. If you wanted it to heal, youshould have left it alone.

Posted by: Steph at November 04, 2010 05:50 PM (ZfkPl)

1153 The name "RINO" now has the same value as "Cooties".

You're now a RINO if, despite years of proven conservative/Republican creds, if you don't support a candidate that clearly had no proven conservative creds and any other year would have been considered a RINO because of her personal life.

We've entered the twilight zone......

Posted by: prettypinkfluffypanties at November 04, 2010 05:50 PM (cQfrc)

1154 Christine, why o why did you not consider burning crosses or joining the Lady Ku Klux Klan, or letting a woman drown in a canal?

That how you become the "conscience" or the "lion" of the Senate!

Posted by: logprof at November 04, 2010 05:50 PM (BP6Z1)

1155 Dammit people, y'all must remember that a few "moderate" Republicans have to be tolerated if only for the numbers. A Republican majority means Republican committee chairs and control of the agenda. Does anyone believe that a Republican controlled Senate would have let Obamacare loose on the floor for a vote? I know that having whats-her-name from Maine vote for the bill in committee is maddening, but still I do not believe that a Republican Senate would have allowed a vote even with the Maine witch voting for it.

At least be grateful that the Tea Party has decided to remain as a wing of the GOP; the Tea Party as a third party would have been a disaster.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 04, 2010 05:51 PM (V9Q+f)

1156


Rino's in NV helped Reid defeat Angle.
Rino's in DE helped Dems defeat COD.
Rino's in AK helped Dems defeat Miller.



So yes, this is a war that can no longer be swept under the rug and
not talked about, now that the Tea Party has brought it to light.

The Tea Party is the Rino's worst nightmare, that is why they are in full hysteria mode about the words today of little old nothing burger COD......

And even after their bearded Marxist beat the crap out of her, they still cannot let go of the hate.

A leftwing pathology for sure....that is why it is difficult to tell a Rino from a leftist.






Posted by: pam at November 04, 2010 05:51 PM (h8R9p)

1157 Drew's method will give you a Charlie Crist type every time.
Posted by: Dave C at November 04, 2010 05:46 PM (poJjg)

That's idiotic.

I came out for Rubio the day Cornyn went for Crist, which was pretty much the first time I heard of him.

Here's what I wrote when Frum came out against Rubio.

Why in the world shouldn't we want to nominate Marco Rubio in Florida
and do all we can to make it happen? It's not as if that state has
never elected a conservative. Jeb Bush did just fine there. Is there any
reason to think Rubio is so much more conservative than the former
Governor that Florida voters will be repulsed by him? Of course not.

I think you can be a conservative and still be willing to accept the
reality that sometimes you have to compromise. I do not see why you
should be considered a conservative when clearly your preference is for
liberals, even in a state where a conservative can win.

Fum always wants to know why conservatives won't support moderates,
well I'd like to know what conservative Frum would support over a
moderate/liberal? If not Rubio over Crist in Florida, then what
candidate and where will Frum support a real conservative over a
moderate/liberal?

Seriously, I don't expect people to know everything I've ever written but you might want to consider that you don't before you write stupid shit. I don't mind being taken to task but at least know what the fuck you are talking about.



Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 05:51 PM (HicGG)

1158 1200 we didn't "go negative" on her - at most we covered negative news that was already being covered in the media.Karl Rove helped to create negative news for more coverage!Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:49 PM (R4ub4)

You mean like the Bill Maher-provided witch clip?

Posted by: Mætenloch at November 04, 2010 05:53 PM (pAlYe)

1159 You mean like the Bill Maher-provided witch clip?

I would expect the libs to do that. Someone like Karl Rove can get on TV and easily finesse it and turn the guns on ample problems with Coons.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:55 PM (R4ub4)

1160 Posted by: polynikes at November 04, 2010 05:52 PM (m2CN7)

Right. That whole national realignment thing in the 60s and 70s had nothing to do with it. It certainly had nothing to do with Democrats became a left-wing, anti-American party. Nothing at all.

Ok, fine.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 05:55 PM (HicGG)

1161 Drew's method will give you a Charlie Crist type every time.

hell, I would put that part in large font if I could.

Type.

Posted by: Dave C at November 04, 2010 05:55 PM (poJjg)

1162 Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 05:55 PM (R4ub4)

I love how you and other people are blaming so-called RINOs for not spinning hard enough.

It never seems to occur to you that nominating someone with some many problems, requiring so much spin, might have been the problem.

Again, O'Donnell supporters created a problem and now you're pissed others didn't work harder to fix it.

The world does not work that way.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 05:57 PM (HicGG)

1163 Posted by: Dave C at November 04, 2010 05:55 PM (poJjg)

So your point is my strategy will give us Charlie Crist types but not actually Charlie Crist?

Wow, I've really got that finally calibrated, don't I.




Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 05:59 PM (HicGG)

1164 Come on Drew you need to accept "reality." Your decision to think Castle was, in Delaware,the better choice than O'Donnell means that in every state in the country Castle is the bellweather mark for how conservative a candidate should be to receive your support. Your support of Castle in fucking Delaware means that you are forbidden from supporting Angle in Nevada, Johnson in Wisconsin, Toomey in PA and Rubio in Florida.
Delaware is the line in the sand to determine where your support of conservatives stands. The people have spoken and that is now "reality!"

Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 06:00 PM (oVQFe)

1165 I love how you and other people are blaming so-called RINOs for not spinning hard enough.

This is simply to illustrate that Karl Rove didn't have to attack her right after the primary. She was the candidate we had, so we did the best we could. If the attitude is that she is not our choice, then screw it. Fine! Then don't expect us to support people like Castle.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 06:00 PM (R4ub4)

1166 Rove violated one of Reagan's Commandments, for that the Magnificent Bastard is just a bastard.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 04, 2010 06:02 PM (V9Q+f)

1167 Posted by: polynikes at November 04, 2010 05:58 PM (m2CN7)

Mostly I brought Rubio up because he brought up Crist.

If you don't want to talk about Rubio, there's all the posts I did on Johnson, Miller, Raese and at least half a dozen tea party backed House candidates.

I pimped every conservative there was except O'Donnell and apparently that makes me a sell out. That's insane.


Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 06:03 PM (HicGG)

1168 Again here is the prime example. The "moderates" create the McCain problem in 2008. You didn't even see people like Rush Limbaugh washed his hands and attacked McCain. He tried to "drag" McCain over the line. That was the attitude.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 06:03 PM (R4ub4)

1169 your decision to think Castle was, in Delaware,the better choice than
O'Donnell means that in every state in the country Castle is the
bellweather mark for how conservative a candidate should be to receive
your support.
Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 06:00 PM (oVQFe)



I specifically said, it depends on the state you are talking about. Did you even read 1207? It's all about the most conservative candidate that can win, not the most conservative candidate imaginable.

I wouldn't nominate DeMint in NY and I wouldn't want to see want to see a RINO like Lindsay Graham in a blood red state like, um, SC.

Anything else is simply fantasy land stuff.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 06:06 PM (HicGG)

1170 I come back from doing some work and everything is finally settled. Congrats.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 06:07 PM (LLZiU)

1171 Christine O'Donnell ovulated today.

My fault, my bad. Sorry.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at November 04, 2010 06:08 PM (WvXvd)

1172 I wouldn't nominate DeMint in NY

Noone expects a DeMint in NY. But it doesn't mean that we must have Castle. How about Chris Christie?

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 06:09 PM (R4ub4)

1173 I'm actually glad Coons won.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 06:10 PM (LLZiU)

1174 Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 06:09 PM (R4ub4)

If there was a midway candidate in DE between Castle and O'Donnell, I probably would have supported them but there wasn't. It was A or B.

Christie? Are you new here? I'm pretty much that guy's bitch on this site.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 06:11 PM (HicGG)

1175 I specifically said, it depends on the state you are talking about. Did you even read 1207? It's all about the most conservative candidate that can win, not the most conservative candidate imaginable.I wouldn't nominate DeMint in NY and I wouldn't want to see want to see a RINO like Lindsay Graham in a blood red state like, um, SC.Anything else is simply fantasy land stuff.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 06:06 PM (HicGG)
Drew reread what I posted, and think sarcasm while reading it.

Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 06:14 PM (oVQFe)

1176 I love how you and other people are blaming so-called RINOs for not spinning hard enough.

I love how you and other people are blaming the DE loss on fellow cons for being tired of sonsabitches like Castle.

Really, drew, you consider this a moving-on post? More like pick-a-scab post.

Posted by: KG at November 04, 2010 06:15 PM (2pDBV)

1177 I hope COD says something again tonight so Drew will have something to post tomorrow. Because this is so damn muchfun.

Posted by: Ronster at November 04, 2010 06:16 PM (9q4PA)

1178 Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 06:14 PM (oVQFe)

Sorry. I missed that but yeah, I see it now.

My bad.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 06:18 PM (HicGG)

1179 Does anybody here think that a candidate as good as Marco Rubio could have won the election in Delaware, California or Oregon? You have to realize that certain people cannot get elected in certain states or districts.


Posted by: Pelayo at November 04, 2010 06:19 PM (V9Q+f)

1180 Drew, take a breath for a moment.
Conservative structural integrity is what brought on this wave. Integrity does not yield to faux party strategem. The structural integrity was underwritten by the Tea Party movement.
You would be better off arguing the fact Castle wasnot the proper candidate in terms of core principles.
Because what you are currently arguing is emotionbased on a failed foundation of "pragmatism."

Posted by: journolist at November 04, 2010 06:20 PM (O/NP5)

1181 If Castle was going to hurt the Republican chances in 2012 through his votes and if O'Donnell was going to hurt the Repubs by being possibly crazy, give me some Coons for 4 years, 2012 is much more important.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 06:21 PM (LLZiU)

1182
I think you can be a conservative and still be willing to accept the reality that sometimes you have to compromise.
Sure. But Castle isn't a compromise. As I said before, he's a saboteur. End of story.

Posted by: Muppet Fart at November 04, 2010 06:22 PM (sW09Y)

1183 Posted by: journolist at November 04, 2010 06:20 PM (O/NP5)

You do realize we have actual evidence here right?

When I say you can't just run a conservative out without considering the electorate, I'm not making it up.

Exhibits A and B....O'Donnell and Angle.


Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 06:23 PM (HicGG)

1184 1230 Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 06:14 PM (oVQFe)Sorry. I missed that but yeah, I see it now.My bad.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 06:18 PM (HicGG)
Its ok I can understand it since there actually do seem to be people dumb enough to actually believe that is really true.

Posted by: buzzion at November 04, 2010 06:23 PM (oVQFe)

1185 All I have to say is Thank God we have a Marxist as Senator instead of a RINO!

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at November 04, 2010 06:25 PM (UVmP6)

1186 Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 06:21 PM (LLZiU)

What evidence is there that Castle would hurt in '12?

Snowe and Collins didn't hurt this year, did they?

Do you really think voters in NM or MI or MO care about who the junior Senator in the minority party from DE is?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 06:25 PM (HicGG)

1187
Does anybody here think that a candidate as good as Marco Rubio could have won the election in Delaware, California or Oregon? You have to realize that certain people cannot get elected in certain states or districts.
That doesn't mean you run ideological suicide-bombers like Castle (or Spector, or Shays, or McCain) instead.

Posted by: Muppet Fart at November 04, 2010 06:26 PM (sW09Y)

1188 What evidence is there that Castle would hurt in '12?


2006? 2008?

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 06:30 PM (LLZiU)

1189
What evidence is there that Castle would hurt in '12?
Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea how many conservatives and libertarians either stayed home or voted third party in 2008 because of McCain? Do you have any idea how disgusted people get when they hear Arlen Spector or Christopher Shays calling the base of the party "bigots" on Sunday morning shows to curry favor with the elite?
These traitors are destructive to the movement itself because they're not just Republicans who happen to be liberal—they're literally working for the other side.

Posted by: Muppet Fart at November 04, 2010 06:30 PM (sW09Y)

1190 If there was a midway candidate in DE between Castle and O'Donnell, I
probably would have supported them but there wasn't. It was A or B.

That 's the choice we had. So I respected your decision. It was a rational decision. So was mine. It was not ideal. But we got to deal with what we had. Once the primary was over, we worked to help our "candidate". That 's all. We did that with McCain. We worked against him furiously in the primary. Once he won, we tried to "drag" him over the finish line.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 06:32 PM (UEE89)

1191 Except that they weren't weak candidates. They were strong candidates in unfriendly territory.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2010 05:20 PM (XEkXF)
They all clearly garnered the same percentages. They all performed about the same. And you'll have a hard time convincing me Delaware is more red than Connecticut.It seems like you just want to say they were stronger candidates. The results don't bear that out.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 04, 2010 06:34 PM (h60Tu)

1192 I felt a grave disturbance in the moronosphere. It was as if millions of O'Donnell nutriders cried out in butthurt...

And kept bitching. And bitching.

Go build your True Conservative Movement around that shitball. I'm sure she'd love to have your money and attention.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 04, 2010 06:36 PM (5pIHA)

1193 Funny I don't remember any of that.
Posted by: Mætenloch at November 04, 2010 05:24 PM (pAlYe)
Of course you don't. Like I said, must have been some other AoSHQ blog with epic threads about CoD that got way more than the usual traffic from you bloggers in the commetns section.
This post is pure agitation and you guys pretending like it's not by hiding behind the "but look, she's whining" excuse is lame.
Take a look at you asking why Blue Hen is "so angry" in this thread when she's made some pretty measured comments. Or you mention "crazy hate" referring to people with whom you disagree. Like you guys are suddenly so sensitive and can't take heat or haven't agitated the shit out of comments sections.
Give me a break.
Or Russ coming in on the backside of this thread telling a strawman to eat a bag of dicks.
Again, the analysis of this race isn't fucking hard. Just be honest that you wanted to sling some shit because we apparently need some sort of catharsis after winning an historic election.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 04, 2010 06:36 PM (fLHQe)

1194 Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 06:30 PM (LLZiU)

Right. Mike Castle (and every other no name congressman) was responsible for the way the war was going in Iraq during '06 and the financial meltdown in '08.

If it's spending you're thinking about, I don't think Mike Castle was the national face of 'compassionate conservatism'.

I'm not defending Castle personally but let's not pretend there weren't a lot more people way further up the list of problems with the GOP those years.


Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 06:38 PM (HicGG)

1195 Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 04, 2010 06:36 PM (fLHQe)

Feel free to link to all these posts attacking O'Donnell post primary.

There's so many of them according to you that they shouldn't be hard to dig up.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 06:40 PM (HicGG)

1196 Drew, I know and you make some solid arguments but youcan't deny the fact the electorate alsonominated C'OD and Angle, so the people in their plurality spoke in putting them on the ticket to begin with. Right? Can we agree on that and get back to enjoying the 600 + conservatives we elected in local, state and federal races?

Posted by: journolist at November 04, 2010 06:41 PM (O/NP5)

1197
I'm not defending Castle personally but let's not pretend there weren't a lot more people way further up the list of problems with the GOP those years.
Sure. And Mike Castle was a traitor-in-training. He's a clone of every condescending neo-aristocratic "Republican" we have. You know, we never really did solve the conflict between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. I wonder if Patrick Henry knew just how prescient he was when he "smelled a rat" at the Constitutional Convention.

Posted by: Muppet Fart at November 04, 2010 06:44 PM (sW09Y)

1198 youcan't deny the fact the electorate alsonominated C'OD and Angle, so
the people in their plurality spoke in putting them on the ticket to
begin with. Right?
Posted by: journolist at November 04, 2010 06:41 PM (O/NP5)

They were nominated by the base of the party, that's their right but you can't pretend the conservative base of the GOP in Nevada and Delaware are anything like the general electorate.

If you nominate a base pleasing conservative in Texas, you're fine. If you do it in a liberal (DE) or swing (NV) state, you lose.

Nevada could have won with a conservative candidate because Reid was so damaged but Angle just was a bad face for it. She could have won in Kentucky like Rand Paul did but not in NV.



Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 06:46 PM (HicGG)

1199 You are trotting out a lot of straw men drew. Don't think we don't notice the misdirection.

Here is the thing: we get that you and others don't like O'Donnell, fine, but this incessant hammering on her and on those of us who aren't negative about her grates. It's not enough to be proven that DE voters as a whole won't accept O'Donnell, you have to get in that last dig, that last poke. You seem to be incapable of simply letting it go.


Posted by: KG at November 04, 2010 06:49 PM (2pDBV)

1200 Sure. And Mike Castle was a traitor-in-training. He's a clone of every condescending neo-aristocratic "Republican" we have.

Posted by: Muppet Fart at November 04, 2010 06:44 PM (sW09Y)

It's fun to rant and rave, you aren't constrained by those pesky fact things.

But how do you explain his vote against stimulus and ObamaCare? You know he voted to defund ACORN and against the Lilly Ledbetter Act, right?

How do you think Coons would have done on those 4?


Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 06:50 PM (HicGG)

1201 If you nominate a base pleasing conservative in Texas, you're fine. If
you do it in a liberal (DE) or swing (NV) state, you lose.

Here is another thing: Not everyone agrees with the win at all costs mentality. So you will always be at odds with those who prefer to make a principled vote over simply looking to win, if it means diluting said principles, as they see it.

Posted by: KG at November 04, 2010 06:52 PM (2pDBV)

1202 DrewM, you're missing my point to a certain extent. I'm saying Mike Castle, if elected Senator this election, may have hurt us in 2012 like certain senator's actions hurt us in '06 and '08. Remember the gang of ocho? Immigration reform? Cap and trade? Senators berating the base on enhanced interrogations ? The base being called racist? Etc? That shit hurt in those elections much more than the war which was offset to a certain extent by the good economy except in '08. 2008 was going to be bad due to the economy and Bush fatigue but it didn't have to be a fucking massacre.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 06:52 PM (LLZiU)

1203 bah forgot to italicize drew's quote.

Posted by: KG at November 04, 2010 06:52 PM (2pDBV)

1204
They were nominated by the base of the party, that's their right but you can't pretend the conservative base of the GOP in Nevada and Delaware are anything like the general electorate.
Who said anything about pretending? The GOP in Delaware explicitly chose her as their standard-bearer. She lost. Republicans can't win everywhere. I'm OK with that. I'm wondering you're not. I'm wondering why having Democrats-pretending-to-be-Republicans is so precious to you. All they do is sabotage the party from the inside. Why can't you understand that?

Posted by: Muppet Fart at November 04, 2010 06:53 PM (sW09Y)

1205 They were nominated by the base of the party, that's their right but you
can't pretend the conservative base of the GOP in Nevada and Delaware
are anything like the general electorate. If you nominate a base
pleasing conservative in Texas, you're fine. If you do it in a liberal
(DE) or swing (NV) state, you lose.

And someone who doesn't please the base WON'T WIN THEIR PRIMARY!

Why do you always dismiss this?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 04, 2010 06:53 PM (h60Tu)

1206 Posted by: KG at November 04, 2010 06:52 PM (2pDBV)

If your goal isn't to win as many seats as you can with the most conservatives you can, your simply not serious about this stuff.

You're probably the kind of person who calls into a sports talk show suggesting your team trade their 3rd string QB for another team's All-Pro wide receiver.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 06:57 PM (HicGG)

1207 How do you think Coons would have done on those 4?

How do you know that Castle won't pull a Crist or Murkowski? He is in his 70s. This may be his last term. If he choose to screw us in the next 6 years, what can we do? Castle can do a lot of damage to the Rep brand, esp with cap and trade! Anyway, I agree with #1251. We don't need strawmen here. It was a tough call between Castle and CO. So people can go either way. We let the primary take care of that. Once it was done, then moved on and did the best we can. That 's all. No need to spin it any further in my opinion. The lesson to learn is to find the best fiscal conservatives we can in the NE!

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 06:58 PM (UEE89)

1208 " Your strategy sent Cris Coons to the US senate.Mine would have been another vote against things like HCR and stimulus. I'm going to stick with mine thanks. "
Nope. 'Yours' most likely would have given us another crossover vote on a left facing compromise that got stuff like HCR and stimulus out of committee for vote and a signging.

Posted by: cackfinger at November 04, 2010 07:01 PM (Elbt6)

1209 At the same time, the base needs to understand their position as part of the whole electorate. In a place like Delaware where the base represents 15-20% of the electorate, selecting someone who pleases themselves is going to result in a loss.

While I appreciate the sentiment behind DeMint's statement about wanting 30 Rubios over 60 Specters, I'd rather have 30 Rubios + 21 or more people somewhere between Rubio and Specter.

Posted by: Arrico at November 04, 2010 07:02 PM (KLpqk)

1210 If your goal isn't to win as many seats as you can
with the most conservatives you can, your simply not serious about this
stuff.

You're probably the kind of person who calls into a sports
talk show suggesting your team trade their 3rd string QB for another
team's All-Pro wide receiver.


Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 06:57 PM (HicGG)
This is what I'm talking about, you are condescending to those who value principle over mere power. The trouble for you is that your way has been the norm for the past twenty years in the GOP, and the Dems outflanked them on the right in red states by running Blue Dogs who made rightish noises while the GOP were trying to please everyone, except their base.

Posted by: KG at November 04, 2010 07:02 PM (2pDBV)

1211 1262
If your goal isn't to win as many seats as you can
with the most conservatives you can, your simply not serious about this
stuff.

You're probably the kind of person who calls into a sports
talk show suggesting your team trade their 3rd string QB for another
team's All-Pro wide receiver.


Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 06:57 PM (HicGG)
This
is what I'm talking about, you are condescending to those who value
principle over mere power. The trouble for you is that your way has been
the norm for the past twenty years in the GOP, and the Dems outflanked
them on the right in red states by running Blue Dogs who made rightish
noises while the GOP were trying to please everyone, except their base.


Posted by: KG at November 04, 2010 07:02 PM (2pDBV)
It's a stretch to call Christine O'Donnell "principled."

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 07:04 PM (U+goV)

1212 It's a stretch to call Christine O'Donnell "principled."


Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 07:04 PM (U+goV)
And Castle is? Nice straw man.

Posted by: KG at November 04, 2010 07:05 PM (2pDBV)

1213 " If your goal isn't to win as many seats as you can with the most conservatives you can, your simply not serious about this stuff. "
How does Castle in any way whatsoever equate to " the most conservatives you can" ? The dude wasn't conservative. he didn;t vote conservative.The dude was pro carbon cap trading.
Please don't lecture me about who is really serious about this stuff when you consider electing a mess like Castlea win just because he calls himself a Republican while voting like he's a Democrat.

Posted by: cackfinger at November 04, 2010 07:06 PM (Elbt6)

1214 It's a stretch to call Christine O'Donnell "principled."

This is a misdirection at best. You know what KG meant. CO 's positions are closer to his principles. If you treat this as a silly exercise to win some debate points, then it is really sad.

Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 07:07 PM (UEE89)

1215 CO 's positions are closer to his principles.

I didn't actually say that.

I was speaking in general.

Posted by: KG at November 04, 2010 07:08 PM (2pDBV)

1216 1264
It's a stretch to call Christine O'Donnell "principled."


Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 07:04 PM (U+goV)
And Castle is? Nice straw man.


Posted by: KG at November 04, 2010 07:05 PM (2pDBV)
Nope. But if your argument is that she was the choice for people who value "principle", maybe she should actually have some. She's a professional candidate who used campaign money to pay her rent, lied about her education, and slimed her primary opponent as a closet homosexual. Oh, and that's after she sued a conservative think tank for gender discrimination. Her list of career accomplishments is also blank. So this idea that she was somehow a true conservative worth getting excited about is ridiculous.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 07:09 PM (U+goV)

1217 1266
It's a stretch to call Christine O'Donnell "principled."

This
is a misdirection at best. You know what KG meant. CO 's positions are
closer to his principles. If you treat this as a silly exercise to win
some debate points, then it is really sad.


Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 07:07 PM (UEE89)
I'm saying I don't believe in her "positions." I think she's wanted to be elected for a long time and would say or do just about anything to make it happen.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 07:11 PM (U+goV)

1218 So this idea that she was somehow a true conservative worth getting excited about is ridiculous.


Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 07:09 PM (U+goV)
More straw men.My point was very specific, and yet you go off on tangents.

Posted by: KG at November 04, 2010 07:12 PM (2pDBV)

1219 OK, fast forward to 2012. Given the positions stated above, should we support a conservative challenger in the primary against perma-rino, but almost certain winner, Olympia Snowe of Maine?

Seems like a similar situation.


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 04, 2010 07:13 PM (BTyMb)

1220 1270
So this idea that she was somehow a true conservative worth getting excited about is ridiculous.


Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 07:09 PM (U+goV)
More straw men.My point was very specific, and yet you go off on tangents.


Posted by: KG at November 04, 2010 07:12 PM (2pDBV)
You point is what again? That Christine O'Donnell appeals to people who value principles over power?If you say so. I don't find her to be a principled human being so I don't see how she's the choice for principled voters.(And, BTW, you were just criticizing Drew for being condescending but that point is pretty condescending.)

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 07:15 PM (U+goV)

1221 She came off as a flakey loon and an attention whore, possibly a scam artist (and verdict is still out, she may very well be all those things)-- and then people who might have voted for her remembered her past.
Plus, she ran a shitty campaign that probably left some people wondering if she seriously wanted to win (or just get some attention and money), which turned voters off. Come on, Coons? The ads practically wrote themselves on that slimeball -- a good campaign with a good canidate would have won.
Unfortunately between O'Donnell and Castle together you couldn't even come up with half a decent candiate, let alone one whole good one. Meh, can't win them all, and perhaps it's a blessing in disguise neither got it. Live and learn.

Posted by: unknown jane at November 04, 2010 07:16 PM (5/yRG)

1222 How do you know that Castle won't pull a Crist or Murkowski? He is in his 70s. This may be his last term. If he choose to screw us in the next 6 years, what can we do? Castle can do a lot of damage to the Rep brand, esp with cap and trade!
Posted by: LAI at November 04, 2010 06:58 PM (UEE89)
I'm seeing all this garbage and wondering: where is the evidence? Moderate =/= traitor.

Posted by: Paul at November 04, 2010 07:16 PM (DsHk0)

1223 Fail.

Removing Mike Castle from the Senate is a victory in and of itself.

Having the media spending almost all their energy on one Senate candidate, an even bigger victory.

Putting fear into the heart of co-opted, career politicians makes it a trick shot.

O'Donnell winning would have been merely a bonus.


Being the anointed "Republican" candidate is no longer enough. Take note for 2012, we aren't done yet.

Posted by: MlR at November 04, 2010 07:17 PM (bXmuq)

1224 1271
OK, fast forward to 2012. Given the positions stated above, should we
support a conservative challenger in the primary against perma-rino, but
almost certain winner, Olympia Snowe of Maine?

Seems like a similar situation.




Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 04, 2010 07:13 PM (BTyMb)
Depends on who the "conservative challenger" is. I don't think we should just rally behind whoever shows up in primary season touting themselves as the most conservative choice. We should vet our candidates.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 07:19 PM (U+goV)

1225 Re: Snowe - I'd say yes, we should support a conservative challenger to her, assuming that person has strong credentials, and ideally has had success winning an election of some sort in Maine before.

I wouldn't support a conservative challenger to her just because they were conservative though. If they're going to be to the right of most of Maine's electorate, they'd better be a strong candidate.

Posted by: Arrico at November 04, 2010 07:20 PM (KLpqk)

1226 You are trotting out a lot of straw men drew. Don't think we don't notice the misdirection. Here is the thing: we get that you and others don't like O'Donnell, fine, but this incessant hammering on her and on those of us who aren't negative about her grates. It's not enough to be proven that DE voters as a whole won't accept O'Donnell, you have to get in that last dig, that last poke. You seem to be incapable of simply letting it go.
Posted by: KG at November 04, 2010 06:49 PM (2pDBV)
If it grates, good, it's supposed to. We (or at least me) are not going to let this go until Levin, Limbaugh, Palin, and all the other populist "anti-elitist"multi-millionaires admit they fucked this up big and apologize, and most imporantly admit they learned their lesson, and vow not to do it again.

Posted by: Paul at November 04, 2010 07:21 PM (DsHk0)

1227 Snowe - I'd say yes, we should support a conservative challenger to her

Don't say shit about it here, though.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 07:21 PM (UBQGM)

1228
It's fun to rant and rave, you aren't constrained by those pesky fact things.
Thanks for the condescension.
But how do you explain his vote against stimulus and ObamaCare?
You know who else opposed ObamaCare? John McCain. That doesn't make him any less a saboteur. In fact, both John McCain and Lindsey Graham have much better lifetime ACU ratings than Castle's 52%.
At any rate, the problem is largely not the voting pattern, but the internal politics of the party and the establishment of a ruling social structure. I don't see any evidence that Castle is not a collaborator.
How do you think Coons would have done on those 4?
And it would have stuck to the Democrats because Coons is a Democrat. Do you honestly have no understanding of the power of brand? When people think Democrat, they need to think "Karl Marx." When people think Republican, they need to think "Thomas Jefferson." I want clear distinction between the parties in the minds of voters. You just want warm bodies in seats, apparently.

Posted by: Muppet Fart at November 04, 2010 07:22 PM (sW09Y)

1229 1275
Fail.

Removing Mike Castle from the Senate is a victory in and of itself.

Having the media spending almost all their energy on one Senate candidate, an even bigger victory.

Putting fear into the heart of co-opted, career politicians makes it a trick shot.

O'Donnell winning would have been merely a bonus.


Being the anointed "Republican" candidate is no longer enough. Take note for 2012, we aren't done yet.


Posted by: MlR at November 04, 2010 07:17 PM (bXmuq)
Well, Mike Castle was never *in* the Senate, so I don't know if we needed to "remove" him. If you're actually happy about six years of Coons voting in the Senate, then good for you.And the media certainly didn't put "all" their focus on O'Donnell. They were also able to pick off Angle and probably Miller in Alaska. So it's not like COD helped us win other races by taking the heat off other candidates.And I also doubt other politicians are more afraid of primary challenges now. From now on, every politician challenged in their primary can just bring up the disastrous COD campaign as a reason NOT to go with the primary challenger.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 07:23 PM (U+goV)

1230 We (or at least me) are not going to let this go until Levin, Limbaugh,
Palin, and all the other populist "anti-elitist"multi-millionaires
admit they fucked this up big and apologize, and most imporantly admit
they learned their lesson, and vow not to do it again.

Sometimes, being full of yourself and full of shit are indistinguishable.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 07:24 PM (UBQGM)

1231 to me it was Castle's fault for not campaigning hard enough in September. He thought she was a joke.

Posted by: lorenU at November 04, 2010 07:25 PM (ZMeaC)

1232 DrewM would support pol-fucking-pot in a "blue state" as long as there was a "R" after his/her name.

The rest of us have a line in the sand where the person is not merely a moderate, but they're a fucking facade.


I think Christine O'Donnell's problems were obvious, but they are obviously a red herring here.


Its the reason I'm so pissed off.


I don't want DrewM telling me that I have to take a knee and suck his cock over his Mike Castle position just because Christine O'Donnell was a fucking idiot.


Its the logical fallacy of the false choice. Just because most of us can agree CoD's negatives were easily exploited, that does not mean we have to get excited about Mike Castle. When you tell me I have to dilute the Republican brand, and permit Castle to supply "bipartisan" cover for policies I LOATH just so you guys who work in politics can enjoy the job perks that come to your wallets when there's a numeric Republican majority, I get fucking angry.


There are other alternatives: First, in any election year you define the "cut off" for as moderate as you can stand, and you ERR on the side of conservatism. We don't need doctrinal "purity," but you have to at least be a conservative. Anyone who can vote for a national take over of health care is not conservative. Period. Anyone who can vote for cap and tax is not conservative. Period. Anyone who votes to massively increase the size, scope and reach of the federal government IS.NOT.CONSERVATIVE.

SECOND, you can conclude, as I have, that some states are too fucking liberal and that they deserve what they get. In those states you run the sanest conservative you can find. Maybe he or she is moderate, but they better be conservative.


What DrewM and the rest of you statistic-monkey guys who obsess over numeric control don't get is that the ONLY REASON we got the wave, is that the Democrats could not blame this shit on the Republicans. THERE IS A BENEFIT TO MAKING LIBERALS "OWN" THE POLICY RESULTS OF THEIR DECISIONS.

So, yeah.... Christine O'Donnell may have been subpar. Whatever. It doesn't mean Drew was right about Castle. IN fact too much support of guys like Castle do more damage to the ability to move conservative policy than 1000 CoD's would

Posted by: GonJaMa at November 04, 2010 07:25 PM (nTd0a)

1233 I see... assholes...

Posted by: That kid from The Sixth Sense at November 04, 2010 07:27 PM (PMGbu)

1234 I think Coons has 4 years to vote with the socialists.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 04, 2010 07:27 PM (LLZiU)

1235 1278If it grates, good, it's supposed to. We (or at least
me) are not going to let this go until Levin, Limbaugh, Palin, and all
the other populist "anti-elitist"multi-millionaires admit they fucked
this up big and apologize, and most imporantly admit they learned their
lesson, and vow not to do it again.

Posted by: Paul at November 04, 2010 07:21 PM (DsHk0)
Exactly. The "anti-elitist" elitists will never admit that they got involved when they shouldn't have and the result was a train wreck.The anti-COD talk is grating because people don't like hearing that they were fooled by a self-promoting professional candidate with no real accomplishments under her belt at the age of 40. It's the same buyer's remorse Obama's fans are feeling right now but don't want to admit.

Posted by: robviously at November 04, 2010 07:27 PM (U+goV)

1236 I'd rather have a Democrat because I know he's going to act like a Democrat than a Republican that acts like a Democrat. I'd like to be able to tell the difference.
And what good is it having an (R) in the seat if he's going to vote like a (D) anyway? Just bragging rights, and that ain't worth a shit. It only means that the (R)'s get to share the blame.
Why is it that some people refuse to understand that?

Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde at November 04, 2010 07:28 PM (7Y12r)

1237
If it grates, good, it's supposed to.
You know what? I hope my position grates on you too. You're just the sort of person I like to annoy the hell out of.
We (or at least me) are not going to let this go until Levin, Limbaugh, Palin, and all the other populist "anti-elitist" multi-millionaires admit they fucked this up big and apologize, and most imporantly admit they learned their lesson, and vow not to do it again.
You're in for a long wait. Have fun with it.

Posted by: Muppet Fart at November 04, 2010 07:28 PM (sW09Y)

1238 Great idea for a thread. I'm so glad we had to hash this out for the hundred and billionth time. Fucking genius.

Posted by: Geronimo at November 04, 2010 07:31 PM (Vt+Kg)

1239 Great idea for a thread. I'm so glad we had to hash this out for the hundred and billionth time. Fucking genius.

Heads-Bacon Thread
Tails- Shit Storm

Tails won.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 07:33 PM (UBQGM)

1240 The MSM touted a Rino Senator’s support for Obamacare as "bipartisan support" and thats because Olympia Snowe cast the lone
Republican vote for the Senate Finance bill, she reaffirmed her place
as a "power player on Capitol Hill.”

This is why we need to dump as many Rino's as possible...they are on balance....a negative.



Posted by: pam at November 04, 2010 07:33 PM (h8R9p)

1241 Well, he coulda fooled me with his attacks on O'Donnell.
Karl Rove hates Bush!

Posted by: garrett at November 04, 2010 07:33 PM (NuEHe)

1242
Exactly. The "anti-elitist" elitists will never admit that they got involved when they shouldn't have and the result was a train wreck.
What, you mean the primary voters of Delaware? I've got news for ya, pal: there's only one person who got O'Donnell nominated and that person was Mike Castle.
The anti-COD talk is grating because people don't like hearing that they were fooled by a self-promoting professional candidate with no real accomplishments under her belt at the age of 40.
To be fooled, you have to be involved. I wasn't. I watch this as a bystander in a far-distant state. Perhaps you should take it up with the residents of Delaware?

Posted by: Muppet Fart at November 04, 2010 07:34 PM (sW09Y)

1243 And had we nominated Castle and had he won we would have the exact same vote on a lame duck cap and trade bill as we have now but by a guy with a fuckin R after his name.
Maybe if the establishment doen't want to be primaried and pilloried they would stop nomminating 70 year LIBERALS to run.
Oh and as to "nya nya nya nya I told you so bullshit". You can go fuck yourself but first you will blow me.

Posted by: Bill N at November 04, 2010 07:42 PM (ctvKN)

1244 Rino's (like Dems) typically call people who just disagree with them...foolish.

As if anyone on planet earth could be fooled, considering the MSM, the DNC, and the RNC dug in every Tea Party candidates trash...going back 30 years.

Too bad the Rinos didn't work that hard with Obama, or ANY Dems in my lifetime, but again, that is par for the course with elitests.

Posted by: pam at November 04, 2010 07:42 PM (h8R9p)

1245 I wouldn't support a conservative challenger to her
just because they were conservative though. If they're going to be to
the right of most of Maine's electorate, they'd better be a strong
candidate.



Posted by: Arrico



However, the mere fact that they have a challenger from the right helps keep rinos from going left, at least until the primary is over. Look how Mccain was kept pinned down until his primary was over. Sure, he started to go all mavericky as usual afterward, but if not for the attack from the right, he could have very well signed on to an amnesty or something equally unpleasant this year. We had a fairly solid Republican in his seat, at least for a few months.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 04, 2010 07:42 PM (BTyMb)

1246



>>And then proceeded to bash the Tea Party in an interview with a
German Magazine. He thinks people in the Tea Party are nothing but
stupid backwoods yokels that need a refined intelligent leader like him
to direct them properly. I don't really care that much for O'Donnell, but Fuck Karl Rove...

Rove is a classic DC elitist, displaying contempt for any nominee who has not been properly blessed and indoctrinated by party elders. IF this bum hosts Rush again, Limbaugh will have lost a listener...I'm sure THAT will cost Rush some sleep! His behavior has been predictable and disgraceful. Until clowns like Rove have been removed from the Republican party, it will continue to suffer losses due to lack of trust by voters.

Rove is our enemy. He is responsible for Grover Norquist getting CAIR into the Whitehouse... Rove is our enemy. He is now undermining the Tea Party, meaning the American People!

Posted by: sickinmass at November 04, 2010 07:46 PM (1rflU)

1247 #1288 wroteI'd rather have a Democrat because I know he's going to act like a Democrat than a Republican that acts like a Democrat. I'd like to be able to tell the difference.
And what good is it having an (R) in the seat if he's going to vote like a (D) anyway? Just bragging rights, and that ain't worth a shit. It only means that the (R)'s get to share the blame.
Why is it that some people refuse to understand that?


I think a lot of these Castle supporters have jobs in the "political adviser" realm.

I think they're a lot more utilitarian than they let on.
I think if the Senate takes an "R" majority, they get more payment, respect, and stature than they do now; and that is their goal rather than actually moving policy.

One more thing: Another area where the liberal in R clothing folks kill us is on moving the window of acceptable political thought.
You get enough of these idiots like McCain, Snowe, Collins, Castle, etc., and suddenly its a lot easier for liberal democrats IN OTHER AREAS to label basic conservatism "out of the mainstream."

Posted by: GonJaMa at November 04, 2010 07:47 PM (nTd0a)

1248 1279 Snowe - I'd say yes, we should support a conservative challenger to herDon't say shit about it here, though.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 04, 2010 07:21 PM (UBQGM)


Word.

Posted by: Count de Monet at November 04, 2010 07:53 PM (2g2ex)

1249 Being the majority party allows all sorts of vile
shit to be spiked by the committee chairmen and never see the light of
day. If it takes a RINO to produce that majority, so be it.If you can't see the obvious advantages of being in the majority position, then you're blind.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 04, 2010 03:56 PM (jqIg1)
Cause that worked so well for us in the past...

Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde at November 04, 2010 07:58 PM (7Y12r)

1250 After pounding away on this topic for 7-1/2 hours, perhaps its time for a break. Like go peek at the other side's post-election recriminations threads.

Posted by: Count de Monet at November 04, 2010 07:59 PM (2g2ex)

1251 After pounding away on this topic for 7-1/2 hours,
perhaps its time for a break. Like go peek at the other side's
post-election recriminations threads.

Posted by: Count de Monet at November 04, 2010 07:59 PM (2g2ex)
Oh, why?!? I missed all the good stuff, damn that working for a living!

Posted by: GGE, Poo Flinging Moron at November 04, 2010 08:01 PM (7Y12r)

1252
Cause that worked so well for us in the past...
Yep. PA's argument falls flat because the RINOs ALWAYS end up in positions of power, like committee chairmanships. The inside-the-beltway social club literally runs Washington. Once those people are in your party, they invariably end up controlling it.

Posted by: Muppet Fart at November 04, 2010 08:02 PM (sW09Y)

1253
Oh, why?!? I missed all the good stuff, damn that working for a living!
Yeah, I rarely comment here because most of the good threads are posted during the day, while I'm at work. And by the time I get home, they're dead.

Posted by: Muppet Fart at November 04, 2010 08:03 PM (sW09Y)

1254 I'm not gonna read all the comment because it's over 1300 (!) already (Jesus!). Drew, I agree with the post, and thank you for saying it.

And now hopefully Christine O'Donnell will go get a real fucking job for the first time and maybe someone else, maybe (probably?) Mike RINO Castle, can run a decent campaign and WIN in two or four years whenever the other seat comes up, because a RINO is still a RINO and not a liberal Democrat.

And Muppet Fart: Mitch McConnell, John Kyl, John Thune, and many (most?) committee chairs are NOT RINOs. Your argument would work if it were true, but it's not. If we had the majority in the last two years, there would have been NO Obamacare.

Posted by: Beth at November 04, 2010 08:11 PM (5NfIh)

1255 #63: Seriously, fuck Christine O'Donnell. I might have considered voting for Chris Coons had I lived in Delaware. Ultimately I'd have held my nose, but for god's sake people she really was that bad. Not even just as a candidate, but as a person with serious character issues - you guys can vote however you please, but I personally don't think it's appropriate to send near-criminal serial liars to the U.S. Senate regardless of how reliable a vote for my party I think they'll be.

THIS ^^^^
(although I'd never consider voting for Coons - but I might have considered not voting at all, maybe)

Posted by: Beth at November 04, 2010 08:13 PM (5NfIh)

1256 I can't believe this shit is still going on.

For all of those morons that claim COD almost cost Toomey his Senate seat:

To: Pennsylvania Tea Party/Grassroots Leaders
From: Martin Gillespie, Regional Director, American Majority Action
Date: November 4, 2010
Subject: Tea Party Movement’s Impact on Pennsylvania’s Elections

The tea party movement and its message had a very favorable impact on Tuesday’s elections throughout Pennsylvania. The full exit poll of Pennsylvania voters from Tuesday’s election is available at: http://elections.msnbc. msn.com/ns/politics/2010/ pennsylvania/senate.

Interestingly—despite Republican victories with Pat Toomey and Tom Corbett’s statewide races, five congressional seats swinging to the GOP from the Democrats, and the GOP reclaiming control of the Pennsylvania state house—Pennsylvania voters on Tuesday had a decidedly more
negative view of the Republican Party than the Democratic Party:

• Republican Party (41% favorable, 54%unfavorable)—13% negative rating.

• Democratic Party (48% favorable, 49% unfavorable)—1% negative rating.

This data demonstrates that Toomey, Corbett and other Republican wins were in spite of—not because of—the Republican Party’s brand approval rating with Pennsylvanians.

In contrast, the Tea Party movement was viewed favorably by a plurality of Pennsylvania voters—with a net image rating better than either political party:

How do you feel about the Tea Party movement?

• 39% support, 35% oppose, 24% neutral—4% positive rating.

Perhaps the most encouraging part of the data, which proved that the tea party movement’s message successfully penetrated as a winning message statewide, was that Pennsylvania voters believed that government is simply doing too much:

Which comes closer to your view?

• Government should do more to solve problems--43%.
o (These voters favored Sestak, 77% - 23 %.)

• Government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals--53%.
o (These voters favored Toomey, 80% - 20%.)

In conclusion, the tea party movement’s core message of limiting the size and scope of government was able to successfully frame the choice for Pennsylvanians to the benefit of conservative candidates like Pat Toomey. This messaging was critical, as Republican candidates
not only went into this election with a 1.2 million deficit statewide among registered voters but also with a twelve-point negative image rating compared to the Democrats. These results prove that in order to maintain and grow their success in future elections, the Republican Party and its candidates in Pennsylvania should not only tolerate but embrace the tea party movement’s core message of less government and greater individual freedom.

Posted by: Ed Anger at November 04, 2010 08:17 PM (7+pP9)

1257 because a RINO is still a RINO and not a liberal Democrat.

The hell you say...
If it waddles like a Democrat and quacks like a Democrat, it's a Democrat no matter what party it lies about belonging to.
And that's the entire point.

Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde at November 04, 2010 08:17 PM (7Y12r)

1258 Perhaps we should distinguish between Christine O'Donnell the person vs. Christine O'Donnell the idea.
Christine O'Donnell the person is a flawed lying attention whore. Not only would she have lost in any blue state, she would have lost in any purple state, and maybe in some red states too (Alaska? North Dakota?). That's just bcause of her character and who she is, not about her politics. I would vote third-party, or not vote at all,before I'd vote for her.
Christine O'Donnell the idea is, as I understand it, great - she represents RINO-hunting, getting rid of the RINOs who vote for liberal positions but because they wear an R on their chests, the Republican brand as a wholeget the blame for the consequences. Perhaps even the Castle-defenders can agree on this - when the sh*t hits the fan, we don't want to be the ones caught holding the bag. We want the Democrats to suffer the blame for the failure of liberal polices.
But we have to be smart when we go RINO-hunting. Here, we killed the RINO but we didn't get anything for it. Next time when we get RINO-hunting we have to make sure we can pull it off successfully. Christine O'Donnell was not the correct 'weapon' for this hunt. So if we want to go RINO-hunting again with Graham or the Maine sisters or whatever, we have to be more circumspect. That's mainly why it was such a bad idea for a gaggle of outsiders, Palin included, to descend upon Delaware and push O'Donnell so heavily. They were going RINO-hunting without a safari guide (i.e., a local view of how to pull it off in the "jungle" of Delaware).

Posted by: chemjeff at November 04, 2010 08:22 PM (RY/Dc)

1259 Hey Drewyou and others on this sitebacked a certain candidate up in Alaska who is going to lose to a fucking write in! You really think you have any credibility when it comes to your opinion on quality candidates.

Posted by: TorchestoRome at November 04, 2010 08:24 PM (eb0gS)

1260 I don't have time to read 1300 comments, but has anyone answered my question from #298?

How did the vote tally break down along male-female lines?

Posted by: rickl at November 04, 2010 08:31 PM (hZFhS)

1261 Cause that worked so well for us in the past...Yes, by all means let's give up the majority. Maybe the Republicans should renominate Pelosi. Who needs the majority? We might do something bad. better let the Dems run it.

Posted by: Chris in Va at November 04, 2010 08:32 PM (uCjoj)

1262 New thread. Pelosi as Boogeyman to mock.

Posted by: Count de Monet at November 04, 2010 08:33 PM (2g2ex)

1263 I think a lot of these Castle supporters have jobs in the "political adviser" realm.
Heaven forbid people make a living attempting to - you know -get people who care about the country elected.

Posted by: Chris in Va at November 04, 2010 08:35 PM (uCjoj)

1264 Yep. PA's argument falls flat because the RINOs ALWAYS end up in positions of power, like committee chairmanships.

That doesn't have to happen. Seniority based assignments aren't written in stone.

All that's needed is to have leadership with cajones to put them in their place.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 04, 2010 08:37 PM (tG35L)

1265 Hey Chris, I meant to ask you, did you get your RNC check in the mail on time this week? The bastards were late with mine again. I swear to God, I'm starting to wonder just how many more of these damned posts I need to throw up here before I start getting more payment, respect, and stature than I do now. Fucking RINOsNot sure anyone gets RNC checks these days. Bit of a fundraising err...issue over there..
Unfortunately my check got crossed with the ones from O'Donnell for Senate...so it actually ended up as a donation requestarriving in an package marked postage due.

Posted by: Chris in Va at November 04, 2010 08:42 PM (uCjoj)

1266 In Aug 2009 Pat Toomey said Marco Rubio "is a nice guy BUT HE CAN"T WIN"

Well Rubio won with greater margins than Pat Toomey (who barely squeaked by in a state he had already won a House seat)

And Rubio won BIG,while yourRuling Class ECHO CHAMBER tried to shove Crist up- your asses.

AND DIPSHIT FUCKINGWORTHLESS MORONS-Chris Christe endorsed Meg Whitman was slaughtered by a dope-smoking, LSD-fried FUCKING HIPPY

Posted by: Susan at November 04, 2010 08:44 PM (yCMSY)

1267


In Aug 2009 Pat Toomey said Marco Rubio "is a nice guy BUT HE CAN"T WIN"

Well Rubio won with greater margins than Pat Toomey (who barely squeaked by in a state he had already won a House seat)

And Rubio won BIG,while yourRuling Class ECHO CHAMBER tried to shove Crist up- your asses.

AND DIPSHIT FUCKINGWORTHLESS MORONS-Chris Christe endorsed Meg
Whitman was slaughtered by a dope-smoking, LSD-fried FUCKING HIPPY



Posted by: Susan at November 04, 2010 08:44 PM (yCMSY)
Your point?

Posted by: Ed Anger at November 04, 2010 08:48 PM (7+pP9)

1268 Obtuse, darling, obtuse.

Posted by: Susan at November 04, 2010 08:56 PM (yCMSY)

1269 Sadly, Xtranormal.com is down right now, but this video pretty much sums up the entire Christine O'Donnell campaign. I don't know when it'll be available to to watch it, though. :/
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7140347/

Posted by: Beth at November 04, 2010 09:00 PM (5NfIh)

1270 Morons, Moronettes, please! I think in the midst of all this fighting over little details, we're losing sight of what's really important.

The fact is, Christine O'Donnell is still welcome to come to my house and be the Senator of my heart.

Please, Christine? I'm very, very lonely here...

Posted by: Genetic Tunder at November 04, 2010 09:03 PM (3Y3D/)

1271 The real point to my message is this Moron Club is as stale,skanky and smelly as thepetrified shit cloggingBill Maher's piehole.

Morons, what's it like to be so fucking Kweel?

Posted by: Susan at November 04, 2010 09:06 PM (yCMSY)

1272 Okay, more seriously now...
I think her campaign was ultimately a good thing, for many reasons which have already been cited in the 1300+ previous posts.

And the fact is, the Democrats sure seemed to think she was going to win, too. Look at all that they poured into supporting Coons right at the end there. Obama and Biden stumped for him every day. Millions of dollars poured in for him at the last minute. The local TV station refused to air her ads durng time she'd bought. Coons actually started to wind up the fraud machine on the afternoon of Election Day.

With all that going on, I don't think it was exactly insane for a lot of us to think O'Donnell really had a chance at winning.

Posted by: Genetic Tunder at November 04, 2010 09:10 PM (3Y3D/)

1273 "I think a lot of these Castle supporters have jobs in the "political adviser" realm.

I think they're a lot more utilitarian than they let on.

I think if the Senate takes an "R" majority, they get more payment, respect, and stature than they do now; and that is their goal rather than actually moving policy.

Posted by: GonJaMa at November 04, 2010 07:47 PM (nTd0a)"

THIS.

"Hey Drew you and others on this site backed a certain candidate up in Alaska who is going to lose to a fucking write in! You really think you have any credibility when it comes to your opinion on quality candidates.

Posted by: TorchestoRome at November 04, 2010 08:24 PM (eb0gS)"

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.

Posted by: tsj017 at November 04, 2010 09:19 PM (vOH26)

1274 I'd vote for Coons before Castle.

Posted by: NY Deli at November 04, 2010 09:24 PM (3RuDB)

1275 And the worst fucking part? You're slandering
good people in defense of a cute grifter with no fucking grasp of
politics, other than where to endorse the contribution check. Not Barry
Goldwater. Not Ronald Reagan. Christine O'Fucking Donnell. Retards.
You're all fucking retards.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at November 04, 2010 05:43 PM (T4kFH)

I knew there was a reason I don't bother to read your infrequent, lame ass posts. Thanks for reminding me.

Posted by: Rocks at November 04, 2010 09:44 PM (AoVGn)

1276 DrewM: DE is so far too the left it would never elect a Conservative.

Ok.

What would it elect?

A Liberal.

Ok.

What would that Liberal do for the GOP?

Help give it a majority.

Would that Liberal help the Democrats?

No! Never!

Oic.


Posted by: eman at November 04, 2010 09:55 PM (5/qO3)

1277 Geesh,I'm glad I was at a wake tonight.

Posted by: steevy at November 04, 2010 09:56 PM (rUBGx)

1278 The voters of delaware chose her during the primary. The Repubicans didn't like it and wouldn't do shit for her, and you people did was deride her.

Posted by: goosey at November 04, 2010 10:00 PM (kgs/Q)

1279 The Castle Gambit only helps the GOP if he does just what Jim DeMnt wants him to do.

Castle was a Democrat time bomb.

Ebola and Joe called him after the primary.

The fix was in.

Castle was programmed to disrupt GOP progress as a GOP Senator or if need be jump to the Dems.

COD at least stopped that plot.

Posted by: eman at November 04, 2010 10:06 PM (5/qO3)

1280 I don't think O'Donnell harmed the campaigns of other Republicans, either.

When Marion Berry was caught with hookers and coke in his hotel room, that didn't hurt HIM, let alone any other Dems. He was re-elected.

When William Jefferson was caught with $90K of bribe money in his freezer, and disabled a Katrina rescue vehicle to retrieve it, that... well, it did hurt him, eventually, but it took a couple of years; he was re-elected and "served" another term in the meantime. Zero effect on other Dems.

When Dick Blumenthal claimed to be a decorated hero in Vietnam, and was proven not to have even served, WELL! That sure didn't hurt him, did it? He still won big over a far better opponent. And I'd say it did no harm to any other Dems, either. Sure, a lot of Dems lost, but can you honestly imagine any of those voters saying, "Yeah, I really wanted to vote for Joe Sestak, but after what that dick Blumenthal pulled, I can't bring myself to vote for any Democrat right now, so I voted for Toomey instead?"

Posted by: Genetic Tunder at November 04, 2010 10:38 PM (3Y3D/)

1281 This is DrewM guy is a smarmy dude.. Too bad he's not a ballot. He needs to go.
I don't think anybody has "lionized" O'Donnel. We just think a flawed conservative candidate beats the hell out of an Obama Republican in Castle.
Any conservative losing sleep over Castle losing may not be all that conservative.Electing a Castle would allow people to think there's no difference b/t the parties. DrewM is not a big picture kind of guy.

Posted by: Matt X at November 04, 2010 10:43 PM (kcNAu)

1282 Hello? Is this thing on?

Posted by: rickl at November 04, 2010 10:43 PM (hZFhS)

1283
All that's needed is to have leadership with cajones to put them in their place.
Of course. And "If I had a million dollars...I'd be rich." The Senate, by definition, is a very static organization and an organization very steeped in the culture of aristocratic entitlement. Now that the real significance of the Senate as the representative body of the sovereign state governments is gone via the 17th amendment—an amendment I'd like to see repealed—I'd like to see it become less "exclusive," but it hasn't happened yet. Among sitting Senators, Jim DeMint stands alone in my mind as the defender of sober Republican government.
I hate to say this, but if Drew's viewpoint prevails, we may have to go Libertarian and never come back. I generally reject third-party efforts as quixotic. But if the Republicans conclusively move away from Jeffersonian principles without remedy, I'm gone. Sorry.

Posted by: Muppet Fart at November 04, 2010 10:48 PM (sW09Y)

1284 Rush asked the question that DrewM has no answer for....what did all the people like DrewM do to help any Republican win? He fucking says he wanted the Republicans to win control of the Senate, but all he did was rundown O'Donnel. You can't have it both ways. You can suggest you are a teamplayer when you are too busy criticicising the candidates chosen by a majority of Republicans.

Posted by: Matt X at November 04, 2010 10:53 PM (kcNAu)

1285 this is all irrelevant, the powers that be in Delaware (both political parties) have tacitly agreed that the Senate seat will remain a Biden seat. in due course, Beau Biden will claim his inheritance and thank the chair-warmer Coons for a job well done. it's the Deleware way.

Posted by: canuk at November 04, 2010 11:03 PM (lJ0X2)

1286 The irony of all of this is Biden is a fucking gaffe machine, and losers like DrewM want to trash O'Donnel all day? I see no evidence that the retards in Delaware give a fuck about "polished" candidates if Biden was good enough.

Posted by: Matt X at November 04, 2010 11:08 PM (kcNAu)

1287 Good fucking luck if you think that unimpressive idiot with no accomplishments should be the model for conservatism moving forward.This blind loyalty and unquestioning support for an idiot is something we laughed at Democrats for with Obama. It's not any more attractive or intelligent coming from the right.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 04, 2010 02:22 PM (HicGG)

Real classy jagoff. You want to know what an unimpressive idiot looks like? Check your mirror.

Posted by: Ronster at November 04, 2010 11:25 PM (9q4PA)

1288 In DrewM's world, Castle is not an idiot, although he would be a rubberstamp for Obama. His own logic falls down on him. Obama's an idiot, but we should have voted for Obama's boy Castle, because O'Donnel an idiot.
I think O'Donnel can make a more logical argument than this.

Posted by: Matt X at November 04, 2010 11:41 PM (kcNAu)

1289 @23 We had a chance to get a moderate-liberal Republican and passed on it. To me, that was tactically stupid.

Wrong! Mike Castle passed on being a conservative. He read the tea leaves wrong. He spent umpty-ump years in the House and compiled a thoroughly left-of-center record. So conservatives in Delaware should just embrace the sonofabitch because it's "tactically" intelligent?

Do you have any recollection at all of a guy named Arlen Specter? That worked out fucking brilliantly.

***

Your analysis is spot on, it is a shame that Specter defeated Toomey in 2010.

Posted by: jbarntt at November 04, 2010 11:42 PM (UNFot)

1290 I wasn't thinking about Castle. It's the Castle supporters that keep whining about DE and O'Donnel. I'm simply responding to them. We are not going to win every election, and I don't know why so many conservative pundits have to go negative after a big election night.The moderates did not win out West, and they were at least moderates. Castle is a leftwinger.

Posted by: Matt X at November 04, 2010 11:48 PM (kcNAu)

1291
That's funny, 'cause it's the O'Donnellistas who just can't seem to get Mike Castle off of the brain...
Who posted this thread then?

Posted by: Muppet Fart at November 04, 2010 11:50 PM (sW09Y)

1292 The point of the thread was for this jackass to say "I told you so". He seems like he wants to be an Allahpundit or Jim Geraghty clone, but they at least have a sense of humor.

Posted by: Matt X at November 04, 2010 11:52 PM (kcNAu)

1293 You could have me, teabaggers. At least I have an impressive record that greatly pleases well known political pundits like DrewM. Sure I want to raise taxes, pass cap and tax, and support ObamaCare, but hey, at least I don't question evolution theory. That's what matters. And i don't fly around on a broom like that witch you voted for....LOL

Posted by: Mike Castle at November 04, 2010 11:57 PM (kcNAu)

1294 Again, I did not bring this debate back. DrewM did. I'm flogging him with his smug and sloppy logic. I'm tired of hearing about the DE campaign, this website has been obsessed with it and running down O'Donnel. It's become an ego thing for them.

Posted by: Mike Castle at November 05, 2010 12:05 AM (kcNAu)

1295 Tired of the negativity on this website. Here is a good column by Ann Coulter that puts things in perspective:
After Tuesday's election, the fresh new faces of the Democratic Party are ... Harry Reid and Jerry Brown! (Who had the worst election night? Chuck Schumer, who's been waiting in the wings to replace Reid as Senate majority leader. Who had the second worst election night? The people who live below Barney Frank's apartment.) With the addition of new Republican senators Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), Rand Paul (Kentucky) and Marco Rubio (Florida) -- among others -- the average IQ of Senate Republicans has just increased by about 20 points. Also, liberals won't have Sharron Angle to kick around anymore. Now that Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are gone, Keith Olbermann is indefinitely suspending his "Worst Persons of the World" segment. Republicans added two magnificent new black faces to the Congress with Allen West in Florida, who beat sore loser Ron Klein 54.3 percent to 45.7 percent (with 97 percent counted, Klein wouldn't concede), and Tim Scott in South Carolina, who crushed Democrat Ben Frasier, 65-29. Republicans also launched two new Hispanic stars this election: Sen.-elect Marco Rubio from Florida and the new governor of New Mexico, Susanna Martinez. And we got a bonus Sikh -- Nikki Haley, the new governor of South Carolina. MSNBC is still searching for the "Republicans are racist" angle in all of this. The most important outcome of this week's election is that Republicans clobbered the Democrats in the state gubernatorial and legislative races. Next year, state lawmakers draw new congressional districts, determining the congressional map for the next decade. In the past, Democrats have had a 2-1 advantage in congressional redistricting. Not anymore. Tuesday night, Republicans won governorships in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Alabama, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina -- pause, deep breath -- New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, Maine, Iowa and Florida. They also swept the state legislatures. Meanwhile, the Democrats won governor's races in California, New York, Massachusetts, Arkansas and Maryland. Not only are all the Democrats' states losing population, which isn't as important for redistricting, but the Democrats' biggest plum, California -- losing congressional seats for the first time since the '50s -- also approved a ballot measure that will take redistricting out of the hands of the California legislators and turn it over to a Citizens Redistricting Commission. So the Democrats got nothing out of this election. Worst of all, now they're stuck with Harry Reid. Democrats' congressional redistricting dreams weren't the only thing that died Tuesday night. A slew of election myths died -- though I'm sure they'll have to be killed off again in every future election: (1) Election predictions are interesting and give us valuable information. We may as well listen to people on TV give us their guesses on how many jellybeans are in the 10-gallon jar. The only prediction that came true was my prediction that most predictions were worthless. Last week, Charles Krauthammer predicted a pickup of 55 House seats and eight Senate seats -- which, weirdly, was the exact polling average given by Real Clear Politics. For months now, Dick Morris has been assuring Fox News viewers that Republicans were going to take both houses. If only some of that precious airtime had been spent interviewing the great Bill Brady, he would not now be locked in an election recount for governor in Illinois -- Obama's home state and the sixth most populous state in the nation. (2) A "wave" election would give the victory to Republicans in all close Senate races. We had a wave. We had an enormous wave, a tidal wave, a wave that produced more than 60 seats in the House in the biggest party turnover since 1948. But Democrats still won all Senate races that were tied in the polls. The fact that the close races were all in solidly Democratic states had more to do with the outcome than the "wave." Demographics matter, not "waves." (3) Newt Gingrich engineered the 1994 Republican sweep of Congress. All Newt did was avoid standing in front of a runaway freight train in 1994, when Republicans picked up a comparatively paltry 54 seats. We would have done that if Pee-wee Herman had been the face of the Republican Party. This year, with absolutely no Republican or Tea Party leader, Republicans picked up 60-plus House seats. Republican landslides are apparently inevitable whenever Democrats try to turn our health care over to the Department of Motor Vehicles. (4) Tea Party candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell were bad for the Republican Party. Au contraire! Every Republican who won a tightly contested election should be sending a thank-you note to Angle and O'Donnell for taking all the fire from the mainstream media and keeping the heat off of them. Republicans never had a chance to take the Senate, and anyone who knows the difference between California and Tennessee knew that. Most of the Senate seats up this year happened to be in very, very "blue" states. Short of a Republican invasion of the body snatchers, Republicans weren't going to be electing senators from California, New York and Oregon. Acting as if O'Donnell's primary victory dashed Republican dreams of taking the Senate was always absurd -- particularly coming from the people who supported a World Wrestling Entertainment impresario in Connecticut and did nothing to help a Republican who could have won that race. (5) The Republican landslide in the House will lead to a bitterly divided Congress with unimaginable gridlock. The fact that this year's crop of Senate elections was bad for the Republicans means the Senate elections two years from now, and then again four years from now, are going to be fantastic for Republicans. Do you think Claire McCaskill, Jim Webb, Sherrod Brown and Jon Tester of Montana -- all of whom will be facing the voters in two years -- noticed that popular, long-serving Democrat Russ Feingold just lost an election in a much more liberal state than their own? Even Lindsey Graham is going to start voting with the Republicans! (6) Connecticut voters wouldn't mind a World Wrestling Entertainment impresario. Connecticut isn't Minnesota. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with Connecticut knew WWE owner Linda McMahon never had a chance against Dick Blumenthal, a Democrat so repulsive even The New York Times attacked him. Republicans had the ideal Connecticut candidate in Rob Simmons, who lost the primary to McMahon. He had won in liberal districts before, was a graduate of Haverford College and Harvard University, was an Army colonel who served in Vietnam and teaches at Yale. He also never kicked a man in the groin for entertainment. But Simmons didn't have McMahon's money, so Republicans went with McMahon. If, instead of listening to pundits guess how many jellybeans are in the jar, the conservative media had showcased Simmons, he would have won the primary, and today conservatives and liberals would be united in joy over the defeat of Dick Blumenthal.

Posted by: Matt X at November 05, 2010 12:19 AM (kcNAu)

1296 "We had a chance to get a moderate-liberal Republican and passed on it. To me, that was tactically stupid."
A liberal is still a liberal, no matter what letter — D or R — is behind the name. Mike Castle would have been a reliable vote for the Obama Regime's agenda and judges. His Club For Growth rating was 28 percent. A cactus could get 1 out of 4 votes rights.

Posted by: The Underground Conservative at November 05, 2010 12:53 AM (mDHyD)

1297 This thread is epic! Now all we need isone ofGabrielle Malor'sOMG Sheriff Joe is teheeviilll Racist post to keep this flame war going all night long!

Posted by: TorchestoRome at November 05, 2010 12:57 AM (eb0gS)

1298 The Club for Growth is a bunch of wingnuts.

Posted by: at November 05, 2010 01:04 AM (kcNAu)

1299 DrewM, call me. I know my lost to that witch keeps you up at nights. I'll read my remarkable accomplishments out loud and you can gush and squeal. I'm your dream candidate, it does not get better than Mike Castle. Jealous teabaggers just jealous.

Posted by: Mike Castle at November 05, 2010 01:21 AM (kcNAu)

1300 It's kind of difficult to get someone to cooperate with you after you've called them a Ruling Class, RINO, elitist, crypto-leftist, cocktail party mingling traitor, ain't it?

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at November 05, 2010 02:01 AM (PmZ9N)

1301 Company was founded by replica handbags Louis Brandt in 1848 in a gucci handbags small town La Chaux-de-Fonds. From replica gucci political and fake louis vuitton economical points replica omega of view, that was a period of trouble. A replica iwc series of revolutions replica tag heuer broke out in all replica breitling parts of Europe. The replica rolex enterprise gucci handbagsrepresented an 'assembly workshop' where luxury rolex wristwatches replica watches were produced. And hublot replica it took Louis Brandt.
Company was founded by replica handbags Louis Brandt in 1848 in a gucci handbags small town La Chaux-de-Fonds. From replica gucci political and fake louis vuitton economical points replica omega of view, that was a period of trouble. A replica iwc series of revolutions replica tag heuer broke out in all replica breitling parts of Europe. The replica rolex enterprise gucci handbagsrepresented an 'assembly workshop' where luxury rolex wristwatches replica watches were produced. And hublot replica it took Louis Brandt.

Posted by: jsdsg at November 05, 2010 02:05 AM (XDiCn)

1302 Is it a lie to tell the truth about Castle? If he's not a RINO and career politician, who the fuck is? The reality is O'Donnel would have been blasted by Castle supporters if she refused to endorse him and he went on to lose to Coons. And he would have "whined" about a lack of unity playing a role in his defeat.

Posted by: Mike Castle at November 05, 2010 02:10 AM (kcNAu)

1303 Castle supporters are like liberals. Liberals have a penchant for accusing us of calling them "pinko commis" even if we never use them that. DrewM and the Castlebots have penchant for accusing us of calling them RINOs even if nobody actualyy calls them that. But hey, there's a reason why you are so defensive about it....you know what Castle is.

Posted by: Matt X at November 05, 2010 02:17 AM (kcNAu)

1304 RE Eisenhower, some people sound better when you read their statements than when you listen tofake watches cheap fake watches fake BREGUET watches replica wristwatch new wristwatch replica cartier wristwatch replica swiss watches AAA swiss watch replica swiss iwc watch fake watches replica hublotthem. Though he was always given grief for the way he said things.

Posted by: jsfsg at November 05, 2010 02:22 AM (XDiCn)

1305 Never mind what I have to say, MIKE THE MOOSE said it for me @243

Posted by: rawmuse at November 05, 2010 02:33 AM (wOt2k)

1306 I did not fuck up anything. A Castle lost was another leftwinger going down.I never expected to win DE in the general. To me, the most disappointmenting senatelosts was WV, where OBama ias below 40% approval, Colorado, and Alaska, if the Rep loses that one.
Regarding DE, I'm not sure why a one city state even gets 1 senator, much less 2. DE should be merged with Maryland. Democrats are picking up 4 easy senate seats due to all the leftwing kooks in these two small irrelevant states.

Posted by: Matt X at November 05, 2010 02:41 AM (kcNAu)

1307 *Mike Castle passed on being conservative*

Christine O'Donnell passed on being sane.

Posted by: Dr. Frasier Crane at November 05, 2010 03:29 AM (oj52M)

1308 cheap ugg boots ugg boots uk
ugg boots sale

Posted by: cheap ugg boots at November 05, 2010 04:08 AM (w/W8K)

1309 As the last commentor on the thread…thre is only 1 thing to say.

\ I win

Posted by: Mallamutt, that was 88 pt.....do not make me break out the big guy at November 05, 2010 09:52 AM (OWjjx)

1310 @ 1363 -- Tranlsation: "The only reason people like DrewM are saying we called them RINOs is because they're RINOs."

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at November 05, 2010 10:29 AM (PmZ9N)

1311 Matt, there's a reason you've Castle on the brain.

It's because you guys fucked up, and you know it.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States Has Dreamed of Screwing Elastigirl Since 2004 at November 05, 2010 02:30 AM

The only reason that Christine O'Donnell was even an issue is because of the GOP elite forcing a ridiculously bad candidate like Mike Castle on the GOP electorate in Delaware. The reason the electorate went with O'Donnell was because they were forced to choose between a Marxist-lite and a newbie. They chose the newbie.

So the blame for Delaware having a choice between Christine O'Donnell and Chris 'bearded Marxist' Coons belongs to the Delaware GOP. Had they been able to come up with a better candidate than Castle, there would have never been a need for O'Donnell.

The message by GOP-voters was clearly sent this election: no more Crists, MurCOWskis, Castles, Scozzofavas, etc. They want better choices. The GOP did not give them to them. So, they decided to take a chance on people like Angle, Miller and O'Donnell.

The result in Delaware was not the fault of O'Donnell-supporters, but the fault of those who gave Delaware GOP-voters the choice of Castle, necessitating someone stepping up to provide an alternative choice.

Lessons to take away from this:

(1) The GOP better provide their electorate with better candidates in order to prevent the necessity for inexperienced candidates to Primary shitty GOP choices.

(2) Conservatives have learned that RINOs/moderates expect them to support their shitty RINO candidates, but will not turn around and support less-than-perfect conservative candidates. RINOs/moderates have shown themselves to be hypocrites who would support a bearded Marxist Democrat over a less-than-perfect GOP candidate, but will turn around and call conservatives "purists" if they choose to do the same and not support a RINO over a bearded Marxist Democrat.

Thus, not only is there a clear divide in this nation between socialists/communists/Marxists/Democrats and conservatives/Republicans, but there is also a clear divide among conservatives: people satisfied with the RINO elite who sneer at principled conservatives and consider them idiotic "purists" and people who will no longer stand for RINOs, as they know a Republican majority with a bunch of RINOs will be as meaningless as Republican majorities in the past made up of a bunch of RINOs.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 05, 2010 10:51 AM (NITzp)

1312 @ 1377 -- So, how come you dumbasses didn't just donate the money straight to Coons instead of creating a slush fund for someone who, you know, sued a venerable conservative institution for sexual discrimination and ran a write-in campaign against a duly chosen Republican nominee only two years prior? I mean, if that's your idea of principled conservatism, it seems you could have done just as well giving your money to the bearded Marxist and at least try to appeal to the influence peddler in him.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at November 05, 2010 11:53 AM (PmZ9N)

1313 Posted by: Walt Gilbert at November 05, 2010 11:53 AM

You keep blaming people who supported O'Donnell, instead of taking responsibility for the Delaware GOP putting forth a horrible candidate. Thus, you're completely missing the point.

Those who supported O'Donnell were not the problem. The problem was the Delaware GOP giving the GOP-voters in Delaware a ridiculously bad DIABLO candidate in Castle.

The reason Coons won is because the Delaware GOP-electorate rejected Castle. Had the Delaware GOP given the GOP-electorate in Delaware a better candidate than Castle, Coons never wins. But the Delaware GOP didn't do so. Thus, in stepped O'Donnell to give the GOP-electorate their only alternative to a DIABLO.

If you want to blame anyone for the Delaware loss, blame the Delaware GOP. Or blame the Delaware electorate, which seems to prefer Marxism to any alternative.

It's the same situation in Massachusetts. The electorate there chose a corrupt POS like Barney Frank over a good candidate in Sean Bielat. Run Sean Bielat vs Coons in Delaware and even Bielat still loses.

The lesson to be learned is that Delaware is a lost cause. They prefer Marxism over anything else. So, let them have it. But let them be represented by a Democrat Marxist instead of a Republican DIABLO.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 05, 2010 12:08 PM (NITzp)

1314 @ 1379
-- So, why didn't you dumbasses just come out and say, "Hey! Screw this Senate seat? We don't need it because the people of Delaware or idiots and we don't want anything to do with them," instead of fluffing for a loser and calling everyone who disagreed with you a traitorous RINO, jock-sniffing cocktail party denizen and lackey of the Ruling Class elite?

If you didn't want the seat, why the hell did you idiots pretend it was so important to get her elected?

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at November 05, 2010 12:14 PM (PmZ9N)

1315 If you didn't want the seat, why the hell did you idiots pretend it was so important to get her elected?

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at November 05, 2010 12:14 PM

Who said people did not want the seat? The reason people supported O'Donnell was because they wanted the seat. The only people who apparently did not want the seat were the people who trashed O'Donnell immediately after she won the Primary, thus guaranteeing that O'Donnell's chances went from slim to none. Had everyone rallied around O'Donnell as they would have around Castle, who knows what could have been different. But, we'll never know, since Castle and his supporters not only didn't campaign for O'Donnell, they came out against her.

The disconnect between many here is that there is a big difference between having a politician with an R after their name in a seat and having a conservative politician in a seat. The people supporting Castle now were the same people bitching about the Republican Congress from 2002-2006 when they weren't legislating fiscally conservative enough for them. Yet, now they turn around and want to go back to having the same RINO GOP majority that they did not like from 2002-2006. That makes no sense.

I think it's clear from this comment thread -- as well as in posts from other right-of-center blogs and comments from many old GOP guard politicians -- that there is a clear disconnect among the GOP-electorate. Some want a majority made up of RINOs and DIABLOs -- the same makeup we had from 2002-2006 that these people didn't like -- and some want a majority made up of mostly conservatives, maybe a few RINOs who hold no sway and absolutely no DIABLOs (ie Castle, MurCOWski, Crist, etc).

The disconnect is between people who want a simple political result (a GOP majority) and those who want an ideological result (a GOP majority which is actually fiscally conservative). We have seen from 2002-2006 what a GOP majority made up of RINOs and DIABLOs can do: nothing. So working towards the same thing now does not make much sense.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 05, 2010 12:35 PM (NITzp)

1316 Well, if you actually wanted the seat, let this be a lesson to you: Don't go around trashing people who have spent their lives in the conservative trenches and then expect them to help you when you do something stupid like propping up a candidate who's a loser out of the gate.

You cooked your own goose. Now dine on it.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at November 05, 2010 12:40 PM (PmZ9N)

1317 Well, if you actually wanted the seat, let this be a lesson to you: Don't go around trashing people

I guess this implies that all those who trashed O'Donnell immediately after she won the Primary did not actually want the seat.

So I guess there's no reason to complain about this at all, since Castle-supporters didn't really want the seat either, otherwise they would have (1) campaigned better for him in the Primary and (2) turned around and campaigned 100% for O'Donnell after she won the Primary. Since they did neither, and went one further and trashed O'Donnell after the Primary, they didn't really want the seat.

Good then, everyone is in agreement. Neither side wanted the seat, since (1) neither side put up a good candidate and (2) those who lost the Primary didn't support the GOP Primary winner (as we are always told is the right thing to do).

You cooked your own goose. Now dine on it.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at November 05, 2010 12:40 PM

If you're speaking to the Delaware GOP, which supported a DIABLO, thus giving the GOP-electorate in Delaware no choice, but to try to find an alternate candidate, then I agree. The Delaware GOP lost this seat the minute they decided to run DIABLO Mike Castle.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 05, 2010 12:50 PM (NITzp)

1318 @ 1383
-- Actually, it implies that the people who trashed O'Donnell immediately after she secured the nomination knew all along she was going to get her ass handed to her, and told you so. And, they tried to tell you were wasting good money on a loser that could have been spent in places where it would have done some good.

But, no ... you dumbasses had to have it your way, and you didn't care who you trashed along the way to get her dead ass propped up so you could make your silly little point and use your infantile little acronyms to trash people who tried to tell all along what was going to happen to your dead-ass, unprinicpled, born loser of a career-campaigner, whackjob candidate.

It's called having the good sense not to throw good money after bad.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at November 05, 2010 12:56 PM (PmZ9N)

1319 I hope no one is actually standing up for the proposition that intelligence, education. and accomplishments are affirmatively BAD things in a candidate. (Esp for Senator.)

I hope no one is saying that.

Because there is a strain of this "anti-elitism" jazz that often sounds very close to exactly that.

Posted by: ace at November 05, 2010 01:17 PM (nj1bB)

1320 The basic lesson to be learned by the Tea Party from this election cycle is that "electibility" is not a dirty word. I don't know what sort of vetting process the Tea Party (of which I am a member) has in place for supporting candidates, but in the cases of Nevada and especially Delaware, it's a rather poor or even non-existant one. Their needs to be serious discussion and introspection among Tea Party members about how to select future candidates for high office. People in the Tea Party alsoshouldn't be shy about offering constructive criticism to their own movement. The simple fact of the matter is that in NV DEwe fucked up. It happens to the best of us.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at November 05, 2010 01:18 PM (b68Df)

1321 The republican machine butchered her in the primary and she had no chance to overcome that.

Posted by: Drew B at November 05, 2010 02:33 PM (Au/5v)

1322 1400 posts about a functioning retard. A lot of our team really have jumped the shark. We are more like the Obamaphiles than we will ever admit.

Posted by: The Arbitor at November 05, 2010 03:41 PM (dejrp)

1323 *Last*

Posted by: CanaDave at November 05, 2010 10:27 PM (XXRI4)

1324 Company was founded by replica handbags Louis Brandt in 1848 in a gucci handbags small town La Chaux-de-Fonds. From replica gucci political and fake louis vuitton economical points replica omega of view, that was a period of trouble. A replica iwc series of revolutions replica tag heuer broke out in all replica breitling parts of Europe. The replica rolex enterprise gucci handbagsrepresented an 'assembly workshop' where luxury rolex wristwatches replica watches were produced. And hublot replica it took Louis Brandt.

Posted by: jsfdsg at November 07, 2010 09:03 PM (ZVzHd)

1325 Knowing that Keith Olberman has a reputation for a bad case of the "shorts" in his wedding tackle fake watches cheap fake watches fake BREGUET watches replica wristwatch new wristwatch replica cartier wristwatch replica swiss watches AAA swiss watch replica swiss iwc watch fake watches replica hublotdepartment, I don't think that Keefum's little Jr. ever got near any woman's "taco" much less Ms. Ingraham's.

Posted by: jsesg at November 07, 2010 09:24 PM (ZVzHd)

1326 This can be a great topic to debate.

Posted by: fake designer handbags at February 28, 2011 08:28 AM (J1BFv)






Processing 0.2, elapsed 0.2288 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0588 seconds, 1335 records returned.
Page size 858 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat