The Real Time problem with Christine O’Donnell

By Jason Wright, Editor

Filed Under Races 2010 on Sep 18 

Something tells me there is much more of this to come.

TRENDING: O’Donnell in 1999: I dabbled in witchcraft
Posted: September 18th, 2010 03:05 PM ET
From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

(CNN) – Newly-minted Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell – who already has had to contend with a string of controversial statements she has made in the past – once said she “dabbled into witchcraft.”

Read the rest.

Defenders of O’Donnell have accused the MSM, Rove, even some of us here at PD of being too harsh on her and not giving her a chance in November. The problem with the multi-race, multi-losing O’Donnell is that she’s a terrible candidate. It has nothing to do with her affiliation with the Tea Party or her criticism of the national GOP. I love upstart, brave, bold, brash candidates, even those who run against their own party. (I ran for the GOP nomination for Congress against an incumbent in 2000.)

I’m a conservative. I believe in conservative philosophy. I believe Reid/Pelosi/Obama are damaging to our country. But I’d take squishy Mike Castle in the US Senate over a lockstep liberal any day. And that, friends, is exactly who’s going to win in Delaware in November.

And to those of you who think it’s no big deal to sacrifice a Senate seat to purify and punish the GOP, it’s time to put your big boy pants on. You’ve given the dems this seat in Delaware for as long as Coons wants it.

Time for the GOP to pull out of this race and go back to their gut instinct. She can’t win.

Comments

  • pdiddy

    do I win a prize for being #100??? free horseback riding???

    • Brian H

      HAHAHA!!! You win Free Health Care, courtesy of the Obama administration and your fellow countrymen.

  • Whodat

    I could not possibly add anything to what anyone has said. I just like revolutions and…

    I want to see this post cross 100. So, c’mon GO give it a go. Red State? Don’t Wait! Cordeiro, here’s yo chance to wear the pants. We are so close…

    • Red State Eddio

      I’m clockin’ in at #98, baby!

      If only my fastball could have gone that high; I coulda been a contenda…

  • Brian H

    The role of political parties, except maybe for Libertarians, is to organize and get people elected to seats. If a candidate, regardless of their positions on issues, cannot get elected it is the responsibility of the political party to not want that candidate to win a primary election that will harm the parties chance of obtaining the desired seat.

    • http://www.wildfiretreasures.com/ Troy La Mana

      Then someone should have driven your point home to the voters in Delaware.

    • Alaina

      Then the political party should have recognized the sentiment of the voters in that election and found someone that the voters would like instead of going with an incumbent just because they’re an incumbent.

    • dw

      If that is the role of political parties, then we don’t need them. The political parties need to learn that politicians are elected to represent the PEOPLE, not the party.

      Oh, and your statement, Brian, just reeks of hypocrisy. If that was the purpose, why is the GOP so against candidates with an R by their names? Once the primary is over (and the PEOPLE have spoken), why is the GOP not getting 100% behind the GOP candidate?

      Can’t have it both ways, Brian…

      • Brian H

        The party organization is getting behind these candidates. Some individual members of the party may be oppositional to one or two candidates but the GOP itself is behind them.

        Again. The entire purpose of political parties is to recruit and organize members around a central platform and attempt to fill offices with members of that party who will be able to execute the platform. The political landscape sometimes forces a party to support candidates who may not represent all of the parties platform positions but can still benefit the overall agenda of the platform.

        • http://www.wildfiretreasures.com/ Troy La Mana

          The party only got behind O’Donnell because of the backlash from their attack on her as soon as she won the primary.

          I wouldn’t call that “getting behind these candidates.”

  • JE

    One of the problems is the entire process has become “us vs them”. Thats what has destroyed the country. All of your elected officials are together. ALL OF THEM.
    As long as you spend your time fighting with each other over the foolishness of wanting your party to win, then politics is just like any other sport and just as foolish.
    And the idea of playing the ‘odds’ that one party will be better than another. In the casino, the house always wins. Why not leave the casino.
    America as you think you knew it is gone. You will not reverse this by voting in republicans. You may slow the descent, but you still are sliding towards the end.

    • Gary Russell

      Wow. What a downer! I’m more of an optimist.
      Its always darkest just before the dawn.
      Time for a little more Reaganesque “morning in America”, my friend.
      America as we knew it may be gone (time marches on – Mayberry will never come back), but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be just as good or better in a whole new way.

      Just not in a government-run, socialist, cradle-to-grave, Obama sort of way.

      • JE

        Actually, gary, i am an optimist. I believe if we quit listening to the party hacks and drop this allegience to party, america can be saved. The party hacks that think electing republicans at all costs will fix this are the pessimists because they believe we can’t correct the problems, only hope for slower decline and that is fine with them as long as they are in power.

    • pdiddy

      je, where are you from?

  • http://www.sotr.us Cordeiro

    Well. At least I can rest assured the PD crowd does not come to this forum without pants.

    • David Kaiser, Editor

      Pants on the ground, pants on the ground…

  • http://www.politicalderby.com/ Jason Wright, Editor

    I don’t get the thinking that we sacrifice a seat in 2010 for a better shot in 2012. Not having control of the senate the last two years gave us a health care takeover that will take generations to undue, if ever. It gave us deficits like nothing we’ve ever seen and liberal judges with lifetime appointments.

    Why does one seat matter in 2010? Because it could be the difference in what additional damage The One can bring to pass.

    I understand 2012 is a big prize. But we have equal branches for a reason, and what matters NOW is 2010 and control of Capitol Hill.

    • http://www.wildfiretreasures.com/ Troy La Mana

      Nobody can honestly say Republicans had anything to do with Obamacare. As long as they drive that point home it is a plus that the Dems held all the cards.

  • Alaina
  • Gary Russell

    A lot of intense disagreement on here – not necessarily a bad thing.

    Let me say again: I don’t claim that O’Donnell is a great, or even good, candidate. But, if I lived in Delaware, I’d definitely vote for her.

    Let me ask this…
    Has there been just a bit of over reaction to the Bill Maher thing? As has come out today (less than 24 hours later), the chick was a teenager, and did something stupid that she regrets. Is this the BEST they’ve got?

    I’m aware that there are other statements and/or accusations of concern, but since this thread concerns the “Satan worship”, let’s deal with that. Really, if she dated a moron in high school, did something stupid to impress him, and mentioned it nearly 20 years later on a quasi-political comedy show, but now regrets it and renounces it, is that such a big deal?

    • http://www.wildfiretreasures.com/ Troy La Mana

      No, it isn’t, but it seems some will jump onto any little issue to claim she isn’t a viable candidate.

      It seems to me to be a part of the whole Republican establishment throwing a temper tantrum because they realize that they might not be in control any longer, the people are.

      • David Kaiser, Editor

        The problem Troy, is there are a lot of “little” things cropping up for her, and while some of them like this witchcraft garbage are silly, still others, such as the alleged misspending of campaign money, and her own personal financial woes, have to send a red flag up just a little.

        • http://www.wildfiretreasures.com/ Troy La Mana

          I’m not saying that any of these issues shouldn’t be vetted. What I am saying is some people are making hay about it because their guy didn’t win.

    • David Kaiser, Editor

      At last something in this messy debate we agree on Gary!

      If the Democrats were smart, they’d shy away from using this silly witchcraft garbage. Besides, from the looks of things, there are about a half dozen other issues they can go after her on, without running Wizard of Oz spoof commercials, or having her come out of the ground as The Great Pumpkin or something…

  • pdiddy

    sounds like we need a beer summit here

  • Alaina

    Geez… I know I have been MIA the last few months, but what happened here? Seems we’ve gone way past friendly debate.

    For all the talk here no one has addressed how having a majority or minority over the next years will help us boot Obama, expect David’s Russian war strategy. Apparently I’m not that much of a historian and I’m not a military strategist, but I do know that timing is everything, which was one of the points of my comment.

    I have 2 questions for all of you;
    1. If we win/lose the majority in November, how does that impact the 2012 presidential race?
    2. I think we’re all in agreement that we aren’t in this position soley because of Obama, Reid and Pelosi. We had about 2 decades of poor governing that got us to 2008, 12 of which we had a Republican in the White House and 12 of which we controlled Congress. So tell me, if we continue electing people we might be able to count on, then how do we get people in Congress who will make the right decisions?

    • Brian H

      Great question. It is not 2012 I am concerned with, it is January of 2011 I am concerned with. If the GOP had been able to regain some gravitas in the House and Senate it would put a stop the Obama/Reid/Pelosi aganeda. Right now our government has NO checks-and-balances which is why every single seat matters.

      It seems as though the Pauliacs have taken over the tea-party movement. They have become so accustomed to losing elections (while claiming moral superiority) that I guess they now are willing to destroy the only political party that can stop the Dems. BRILLIANT.

      • Alaina

        I have to disagree here. I don’t think the Dems having one more vote is more important than winning all in 2012.

        I don’t think you, and a few others here, are looking at the big picture strategy. Even if we have the House majority and a tie or one seat advantage in the Senate, I don’t see how that’s going to help us in the grand scheme of things. That’s what I really want to understand here.

        If we have the majority in both the House and the Senate, we aren’t going to have enough of the majority to bypass Obama. So, in two years we will have broken all of our promises because we won’take significant changes to the budget, we may or may not be able to get tax cuts through, we won’t be able to repeal healthcare and the economy likely won’t have improved much and may actually get worse. Obama and the Dems will have a lot of ammo that they shouldn’t have going in to 2012. Obama may suck as a President, but he’s proven to be brilliant in campaigns. I don’t want to give him anything extra in 2012.

        To me, O’Donnell is a blessing in disguise. Her loss will betterposition us for 2012 and we get to teach the GOP a little lesson in the meantime.

        So please explain to me why this one seat is the end of the world.

        • AWB

          I am sympathetic to this argument, Alaina. My personal preference as I’ve stated before would be to make Obama and his party try to come up with great accomplishments over the next two years with a razor thin majority. I think if they’re reduced to a small majority in both houses, that would be optimal, as we should be able to stop anything really crazy with Blue Dog Dems.

          That said, at some point, the GOP has to start articulating a positive agenda and stop simply saying “no” to Obama. I think they should say no because his agenda is a disaster, but that in and of itself is not a policy.

      • Alaina

        Oh, and I think everyone here knows by now that I support the Tea Party and I’m not a Pauliac

  • David Kaiser, Editor

    I want to mention here that the Tea Party is a vocal and very motivated faction, that has obviously done a great job of getting disaffected people to support candidates the various national groups endorse.

    We have absolutely no evidence to support the theory that she’s won anything more than Tea Party supporters and other conservative-leaners in Delaware.

    Here’s some numbers I found online:

    Delaware Population: 885,000

    Registered Voters: 621,000 (70% of population)

    Registered Republicans: 183,000
    (29.4% of registered voters)

    GOP Primary Turnout: 57,000
    (31% of registered Republicans)

    O’Donnell votes: 30,561
    (only 16.7% of Registered Republicans)
    (only 4.9% of all registered voters)

    • Red State Eddio

      Is Delaware’s primary open to all, or closed to just party members?

  • German Observer

    Already wearing my pyjama-pants, here is some thoughts:

    I find it funny that your main concern about O’Donnell is her electability and the apparently lost senate. With little exceptions nobody seems to say “gosh, Republican or not, I don’t want to see a person like this in the senate”. This is esspecially stunning as otherwise you put personality and values pretty high in the criteria to judge about politicians.

    In a way I can’t see much differences between O’Donnell and Palin. And that is part of why it is so difficult to take a certain branch of conservatives serious. It does harm to the conservative cause that they pretty often chose persons as their figureheads, which belong much more to a sanatorium than to a political stage.

    I’m curious how the financial support of the National Republicans to the O’Donnell-campaign will work out. Given the efforts they took to avoid her as a candidate this reminds me of “they voted aginst her, before they voted for her”. This might easily backfire during the running campaign, as it becomes difficult to pretend O’Donnell was solely an issue of Deleware. With the support of the National Republicans it might become easy for the Dems to say “see, this is the type of candidates the GOP supports”.

    • Gary Russell

      “belong much more to a sanatorium than to a political stage.”

      So…anyone whose views you disagree with should be locked up?

      Interesting view…

      • AWB

        I don’t think GO wants to lock them up personally. :-) It’s just that these people bizarre behavior correlates more closely with the behavior you would expect of residents of such institutions than with what you would expect of political statesmen.

        Is it too much to ask for conservatives who think and live consistently according to their own ideology and positions?

    • AWB

      I agree with your comment, GO (e.g. “I find it funny that your main concern about O’Donnell is her electability and the apparently lost senate. With little exceptions nobody seems to say “gosh, Republican or not, I don’t want to see a person like this in the senate”. This is esspecially stunning as otherwise you put personality and values pretty high in the criteria to judge about politicians.”). See my comment above to that effect.

      I don’t really want her in because she lacks character and I am convinced that having her vote will not make up for the harm that she would do to the conservative cause as one of its elected representatives.

    • German Observer

      AWB, I noticed your post and had you in mind, when I used the phrase “with little exceptions”.

      I’m glad to hear a voice here, which dislikes O’Donnell for theobvious reason, but you are not rght regarding the sanatorium. Of course I would like to see them locked in personally. Even if Gary doesn’t believe so, I am absolutely ready to respect people with opposing views. Bush Sr., McCain, Romney, Guiliani and others are politicians whose opinions I don’t share, but whom I can easily respect as representatives of a certain political philosophy. Palin and O’Donnell lack the personal background, style and intellectual power to be taken serious. They discredit the conservative cause.

      • Gary Russell

        Herr G.O.

        Sarah Palin lacks the personal background, style and intellectual power to be taken seriously?
        She discredits the conservative cause?

        And you’d like to see her locked up in a sanitorium?

        Why stop there? Maybe you should take everyone who thinks like her, put them on railroad cars, ship them to a camp……

        • Brian H

          GO is sharing his opinions about the American political climate based on his “observations” from an outsiders perspective. Although I have had numerous disagreements with GO I appreciate his participation and interest in American politics…if only more of our citizens took such an interest.

          It is not fresh, silly, and a rude cliche when to use references to WWII Germany as a way to take a cheap-shot at GO because of a disagreement. GO does not have to respond and answer for the 60 year old actions of his govt. I know I don’t want to have to answer for segregation, Tuskegee, Jim Crow, the KKK.

          • German Observer

            Thanks Brian!

            Though this much more qualifies the sender, than it does qualify me, I find it pretty insulting quite often to be put close to Nazi-ideology (for the record: I am born in 1970, my mother was born in 1942, my father is not from Germany).

          • Gary Russell

            Not a cheap shot at all, Brian.

            “German Observers” comments that dissenters to his opinion were inferior and should be locked up are EXACTLY related to the Nazis.

            You compare it to yourself (or myself, as a Southerner)not wanting to have to defend Jim Crow, KKK, and other racist groups, and rightfully so – IF we had made comments that echo the racist sentiments of those groups. Neither of us have done so. But, GO’s comments did hold an eerie similarity to his country’s not-so-distant political past. I actually found his comment deeply troubling for that reason.

            Therefore, not a cheap shot at all.

  • Red State Eddio

    And in the interest of full disclosure, I was a teenage werewolf…

    Here’s the Question nobody is bringing up:

    Why oh why is little ol’ Delaware, a state nestled firmly in the “moderate” north & east-coast mentality of the Republican party, deciding to throw caution into the wind and elect such an “unelectable” candidate by 6 points over the King of Del?

    Why would “moderates” suddenly wake up and decide, “Oh the heck with it–I’m gambling on a loser” if there was not something behind the scenes moving and shaking things up?

    They either thought A) she was electable, or B)were moved by a larger context that is shifting in tectonic fashion the assumed boundaries of most “normal” elections. I’m thinking B more than A.

    I mean it’s not like the state is full of Whodat’s & Troy’s, driving rusty pickups with gun racks and rebel flags hanging from the window. This is a latte drinking, brie-eating crowd. The U of Del is arguably as liberal an institution as Hahvahd – and yet this county voted for O’Donnell over Castle.

    I have lived in Delaware. I can tell you that most of the people in the state live in the northern county (there’s only 3). Lower Del is known as ‘slower Del’ for a reason – there are more chickens than people per square mile. That northernmost county is actually a suburb of Philly – and the suburbs of Philly are now trending Republican with a guy like Pat Toomey, who is the most conservative candidate in the entire country, riding the wave.

    So Mike Castle was not sailing with the wind at his back. Then pulling a Coakley and sleepwalking through your campaign didn’t help any.

    So why would moderates up and revolt with such a wildcard candidate? I think this spells the intensity of feelings people have about the direction of the country. Peggy Noonan, a moderate herself, said it well – “There’s a sense that dramatic action is needed, and a sense of profound urgency. Add drama to urgency and you get the victory of a tea party-backed candidate.” Castle as a half-answer did not satisfy. People wanted someone who’d promise the full answer, and O’Donnell, for all her faults, did it.

    It might not have been a safe move; but then again, we’re not in safe times.

    • Gary Russell

      Very well thought out, RSE!

      I see you’ve worn your big boy pants, too.

      • Red State Eddio

        You betcha! Or are those my Depends??

    • http://www.wildfiretreasures.com/ Troy La Mana

      I do not have a gun rack and I only fly the American flag. Delaware is a Mid-Atlantic state and could even be considered a Southern state since Maryland is.

      Forget about viability or electability. To save the country you have to vote for the candidate that mirrors your values, period. If enough people do that then it doesn’t matter what the pundits say.

      Voting for the lesser or two evils is what got us into this mess.

      • Red State Eddio

        Well, I was guessing with the gun rack. But IF you did have a truck…? :-)

        No, Delaware could never be southern. Had family on the DelMarVa peninsula, and all the rebel sympathizers in the ‘War Bet the States’ were from MD, not Del. Union territory firmly.

  • AWB

    What’s troubling to me in all this discussion is the use of completely unsubstantiated rumor as “evidence.” Castle was a lifelong Republican who had deep reservations about the Obama agenda as a whole although he admittedly did not vote against everything. Yes, he voted for cap and trade, but he voted against the Health Care fiasco, for example. Can’t say the same about my “Blue Dog” Democratic rep (Joe Donnelly, IN-2) despite his allegedly moderate views and pro-life stance. In short, Castle is clearly not a Marxist. Even most Democrats don’t really fit in that category if you look at what a “Marxist” really believes, it’s just that they support policies that could lead us down a slippery slope in that direction.

    Furthermore, when it’s “our guy” (or gal as the case may be), facts against them (such as O’Donnell’s history of bizarre statements, financial irregularities, testimony against her by former staff, etc.) don’t seem to bother us (I here use “us” loosely), as Jason pointed out in replying to Troy. I agree that we want the most conservative person possible in these posts (as Jason and Krauthammer argue, to give two examples), but we also have to ask if this person’s record and behavior is going to bring credibility or harm to the conservative cause. I’m happy to have people who engage in strange and even bad behavior as supporters (preferably silent ones) of the conservative cause because every vote helps. However, it’s a huge problem to have those kind of people as our representatives and the face of the movement in DC.

    Finally, what also concerns me is the bizarre double standard applied to Castle as opposed to Scott Brown. There was great rejoicing on PD (and by me) when Brown won because he (like Castle) opposed the health care bill. However, he (like Castle) has also supported some of Obama’s legislation. Will we then try to replace him in 2012 in favor some more conservative candidate who (like O’Donnell) has no real chance of winning in the liberal northeast?

  • JE

    Oh, and FYI: if the democrats being in power were the cause of all these problems, republicans would not be struggling to REGAIN power. The republicans caused this mess too. Our debt went nuts with what bush started (multiple wars, medicare drug benefit). Not saying war is right or wrong, just expensive. So the whole ‘democrats are ruining our country’ thing will fly as soon as a republican explains what they are going to do different and why they didn’t do it when they were in power.
    But yeah, o’donnell is a crappy candidate…speaks to just how pathetic both parties are that she WON.

    • Red State Eddio

      Yep. Takes two to tango.

      Two quotes from a Telegraph article:

      1) A US Army veteran and father of five lamented the high level of taxation in Ohio. “One party didn’t do that,” he said. “Two parties did that. One was complicit with the other.” The aim for the November election, he told the group, should be to “stop the bleeding” by defeating as many liberals and RINOs as possible. “Then we’re going to watch these new people that we put into office and make sure they don’t turn into knuckleheads like the old people.”

      2) Another person spoke about how “Republican royalty” did not realise how independent the movement was. “This is their last chance. If they get in and screw it up, we’re bolting. They’ll find that this dog won’t hunt.”

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8010919/Tea-Party-insurgents-prepare-to-seize-power-in-2012.html

    • http://www.politicalderby.com/ Jason Wright, Editor

      I don’t disagree with you, the GOP did help create this mess. Absolutely. But this is an odds game, and the odds are better with the GOP in charge.

      Sure, the GOP has a bunch of RINO’s, a term used so frequently it’s pretty much lost its meaning. But wouldn’t you rather have your heroes, Coburn, DeMint, Kyl, Thune, etc. in the MAJORITY?

      Honestly, this debate is mind numbing. I almost wonder if the voices of dissent (who cares if she O’Donnell loses) are toying with us. The logic that losing that seat (and others like it) is better than winning with a moderate is beyond naive. It’s dangerous.

      • Brian H

        Glad to see someone else has a mind that grown numb from this conversation. Dangerous is the appropriate word.

  • JE

    Let’s see:
    1. Castle has been reported to have already been considering a change to democrat after the election.
    2. This lady is a very flawed candidate but i find it funny that the republicans are all ticked at tea party people for beating their boy and they should put ‘big boy pants on’ yet when the tea party people lost in the last election, it was the tea party people who should ‘grow up’ then too. Sounds like the republicans need to grow up and quick blaming the ‘astroturf’ for their incompetence.
    3. This lady may not have a chance. She may be flawed. I mean, her chances of being elected are probably up there with the chance this country would elect a freshman senator with no executive experience and who sat in a racist church for years to the white house over a clinton. Yeah, americans are soooo predictable that we should only keep party hacks on the ballot.

  • Alaina

    I do have my big girl pants on and, although Tea Party candidates are a great way to put a little fear in the establishment and remind them who’s boss, I’m much more focused on the long term strategy (e.g. 2012).

    As discussed in previous posts, I think the best strategy is for the Dems to keep a slim majority (slim enough that we can serve as roadblocks when needed). We won’t be able to turn around the economy, repeal healthcare or fulfill any of the promises that we’re running on with Obama in office (unless we have a super majority, which I don’t forsee happening). Let the Dems own the disasters through 2012 and then we’ll be in much better position to take the House, the Senate and the White House and make good on our promises to put the country back on track.

    • David Kaiser, Editor

      Ohh, is the old Russian Army strategy of burning and runing until the enemy runs of out of gas/men/courage?

      It worked against Napoleon and the Germans, it should be quite effective against the Democrats!

      ;)

      • Brian H

        Ahhhh…the old scorched earth strategy….Republicans seem to follow this strategy all too well.

        I have a better strategy. Why don’t we sacrifice ALL the seats and simply remove ourselves completely from the political process so we can then take great pride in blaming the Dems when ALL goes wrong. We can then hold ourselves up as being “deep” intellectuals above the party fray and we can scream at the top of our lungs about the inequities of the two party system.

    • Gary Russell

      Very well put, Alaina.

      This was my point, also.
      I’m not saying that O’Donnell is a great, or even good, candidate. But, the defeat of a RINO is rarely a bad thing.

      • Brian H

        It is rarely a bad thing unless it guarantees a victory for a Democrat.

        • Gary Russell

          Which is still sometimes not a bad thing, Brian. As has been said, sometimes you’ve gotta endure a Carter to get a Reagan.

          • Brian H

            I am concerned with the 60 Carters we have in the US Senate. Funny that Chris Christi was not the “conservative” choice in N.J. yet he is being praised by the conservatives as being the kind of politician we need.

            • Gary Russell

              For starters, Chris Christie is a GOVERNOR, not a senator. Bit of a difference in his role.

              Secondly, Christie is very fiscally conservative. As a Republican candidate for governor in New Jersey, he was EXACTLY what THEY needed.

              Your analogy doesn’t work.

              • Brian H

                My analogy was simply based on fact. Christie was not the top choice of the “conservatives”.

                • Gary Russell

                  Your analogy still doesn’t work.

                  You’re comparing a statewide executive branch race to a national Senate race.

                  It didn’t have the ramifications for party control of the Senate or House that we’ve been discussing. As you had just stated, “I’m worried about the 60 Carters in the Senate”.

                  And try telling the Teacher’s Union in NJ that Christie isn’t conservative!

                  • Brian H

                    Again, Gary. I have never suggested Christie is NOT a conservative. Please read my post slower next time. The point I was making is that Christie, the guy who was not the “conservative” darling got elected in a BLUE state and has, in fact, governed quite conservatively. My point was that their are likely other good candidates who have been, or will be, sacrificed by the so called right for not passing what seems to be a “conservative” litmus test.

                    Believe me. I am as conservative as anyone in this forum, but, I recognize that the GOP cannot become the party of the fringe 1%’rs who take pride in losing elections.

                    • Gary Russell

                      Fringe 1% candidates, by definition, do not win their party’s nomination.

                      O’Donnell is not a “fringe 1%” candidate.

  • Brian H

    Jason. You are 100% correct! There is more to politics than being on the right side of some issues. It is just as important to elect quality candidates as it is to elect conservative ones, O’Donnell is simply a bad candidate.

    • http://www.wildfiretreasures.com/ Troy La Mana

      Do you think Castle was a good candidate?
      You would vote for a confirmed Marxist just because there was a R next to his name even though he voted for Cap and Trade among other Obama policies?

      If the answer is yes then the Republican Party has no morals and is doomed to fail.

      • Brian H

        So now Castle is a “Marxist” and not just a “RINO”? Next he will be a devil worshiper…ooops..sorry…that is O’Donnell..but, I digress.

        The fact that Castle had won 12 out of 12 elections in Delaware is proof that he was a good candidate, does that mean I support him on some very important issues? No. I guarantee you Coon will vote for Cap and Trade and will give the Democrat controlled Senate a seat they need to maintain power.

        If Castle voted like Coon 100% of the time I would still support him because the “R” next to his name holds such a high level importance. O’Donnell’s “conservatism” will mean nothing to the US Senate when she is sitting at her house.

        • http://www.wildfiretreasures.com/ Troy La Mana

          Castle is both. He admitted he was a Marxist and since he voted for Obama policies while claiming to be a Republican that makes him a RINO.

          • David Kaiser, Editor

            Honestly Troy, if you think Mike Castle is Marxist, you need to read a little bit more about Marxism.

          • http://www.wildfiretreasures.com/ Troy La Mana

            To be honest, I got mixed up and was attributing what Coon said to Castle. I apologize.

      • http://www.politicalderby.com/ Jason Wright, Editor

        Oh boy. Troy, you and others are completing distorting Castle’s record. He’s a moderate northeast republican, just like many others. Are you going to kick them all out and replace them with democrats? Are you going to kick out Scott Brown because he’s not been 100% with the GOP?

        Unlike Coons, Castle talked of repealing Obamacare and voted AGAINST it. He’s talked about making the Bush tax cuts permanent, has voted against federal funding of abortion, and would have been MUCH more likely to vote for conservative judges than liberals.

        I love the energy of the tea party movement, but I’m increasingly concerned that they’re lowering the bar for their candidates because they’ve passed some Tea Party Test.

        If the GOP loses in Delaware and Nevada, for example, it will be because the Tea Party took over the nominating process and nominated ideologically “pure” candidates who have no business being in prime time.

        Reid was primed to lose, and he might yet lose, but it’s a tight race when it didn’t need to be.

        Castle was a lock to win a tough DEM seat for the GOP and hold it for probably 12 years, maybe 18. Instead that seat will stay with the DEM’s indefinitely.

        Once again, this isn’t about ideology, it’s about electability.

        • Brian H

          Great point about Scott Brown. I guess a Mass. liberal in that seat would make some so called “conservatives” more happy.

  • http://www.wildfiretreasures.com/ Troy La Mana

    I just don’t understand the whole issue of “viability”. I could care less what the pundits say. The only one that truly decides if a candidate is viable is the voter. Do I believe the candidate when they tell me they will cut taxes and oppose Obama at every turn. Do I know that the Democrat or the Marxist RINO would support Obama policies? That leaves only one person who would have my vote if I lived in Delaware (unless there was a third party candidate that I could agree with).

    Saving the ills of the country isn’t something that can done with one or two elections. This is going to be a long drawn out process. Republicans will either come to their senses and become true Constitutional Conservatives or the Tea Party will continue to weed out the ones that won’t listen.

  • Gary Russell

    “And to those of you who think it’s no big deal to sacrifice a Senate seat to purify and punish the GOP, it’s time to put your big boy pants on.”

    Currently wearing my big boy pants (though I’ve found that I’m very fond of the ones with the “expanding comfort waistline”.

    However, I’m gonna disagree with you somewhat, Jason. Not so much about Christine – my comment there would be that you can’t judge voters on facts that come out AFTER the election.

    My disagreement is with your implication that voters in a Republican primary should choose electability over issues.

    If we all felt that way, Ronald Reagan would have never been elected President in 1980.

    And we would have nominated John McCain in 2008.
    Wait…we did. How did that turn out? Crap!

    • Brian H

      Ronald Reagan served two successful terms as Governor of the State of California, to suggest he was not considered “electable” is absurd.

      • David Kaiser, Editor

        “They laughed at the Wright brothers. Of course, they also laughed at all the people before the Wright brothers, the ones who jumped off cliffs frantically waving their wooden wings or clutching their propeller beanies.”

        - David Eddie in response to someone who basically said the same thing Gary just did.

        • Brian H

          HA!! That is so true. Good one.

      • Gary Russell

        Absurd, Brian?
        I think not.

        My point was simple, but I’ll type it slower this time…

        REAGAN WAS CONSIDERED TO BE TOO CONSERVATIVE TO BE ELECTED NATIONWIDE.
        The safe bet, according to the mainstream GOPers at the time, was to nominate good ole George Bush Sr, because he was more electable than that crazy conservative Reagan. They used Barry Goldwater’s failed candidacy as an example.

        My point, Mssrs. Brian & Kaiser, is that your thinking would have been to nominate GHWB rather than Reagan. How would that have worked out in 1980?

        By the way, Kaiser, is it plagarism, or just coincidence?
        http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?p=795060

        And, Brian…Reagan served two successful terms as governor of California? I never knew that! Thanks for the info.

        Taking my big boy pants back off now, and reaching for the knickers.

        • David Kaiser, Editor

          Gary, I properly attributed the quote to David Eddie, and I find your insinuation quite insulting.

          A co-worker of mine sent me an email dated 9/15 with the quote, if you’d like to see it.

          Sorry if you have no comeback and had to question my ethics.

          • Gary Russell

            David,
            I didn’t question the ORIGIN of the quote. You did properly credit it to Eddie.
            My point was that I had already seen the same quote used to malign anyone who dared argue against Castle. If it was just a coincidence, I humbly apologize.

            The two paragraphs preceding the plagarism comment were my “comeback” (I prefer “supporting statements”).

            • David Kaiser, Editor

              As someone who spent a few years in school to be a writer, you can understand how I could get my back up over what you said.

              It was a coincidence, and forgive the overreaction!

              • Gary Russell

                Sorry, David…the fault was mine – I’m the one who used the “P” word. Regretted it afterwards.

                • David Kaiser, Editor

                  No worries mate :)

    • http://www.politicalderby.com/ Jason Wright, Editor

      I don’t believe it’s all about electability over issues. Not at all. If that were true I would have voted for Obama. I simply think it plays a major role and it’s counterproductive to disregard the ability to win and vote strictly based on issues.

      My neighbor is very smart and very conservative. He is right on all the issues and would vote the way I like. You know what? I think he ought to run for the US Senate against Mark Warner. Why not?

      • Brian H

        Exactly. My brother is also very conservative and also very right on most issues, but, I hope he NEVER runs…he would be a terrible candidate and could not win.

  • http://www.wildfiretreasures.com/ Troy La Mana

    I completely disagree.

    If it is true that she dabbled in Witchcraft I say, So What? Many people search multiple religious theologies before settling upon what works for them.

    If is true that Coon will now win in a landslide then it doesn’t matter if your liberal has a D or a R next to the name now does it? In that case, the state was already lost to a socialist mindset.

    O’Donnel has already raised over a million dollars since winning the Primary. You and I know that the MSN will try to sabotage her campaign and it doesn’t help that the Republicans along for the ride. If she has true conservative values it doesn’t matter to me how she got there.

    • http://www.politicalderby.com/ Jason Wright, Editor

      Troy, of course you disagree. If she were caught robbing a bank and wearing a t-shirt that said “I Eat Live Children for Breakfast” you’d still back her. That’s the political lens you view the world through. The one that still sees Ron Paul as a viable 2012 candidate.

      No one is disputing her “true conservative values” – it’s her viability as a candidate.

      Having “true conservative values” means nothing if you can’t affect change, and you can’t affect change if you can’t get elected, and you can’t (usually) get elected if you’re a flawed candidate.

      My concerns with her have nothing to do with her ideology. It’s about getting elected and the better person doesn’t always win. The better candidate does.

      Google her best quotes and interviews and tell me this isn’t a deeply problematic candidate.

      • http://www.wildfiretreasures.com/ Troy La Mana

        If the Tea Party continues to make strides like this why wouldn’t Ron Paul be considered a viable candidate? Winning is a different story.

        Both Ron Paul and Sarah Palin have been tainted by the MSM. I don’t believe either one has a chance to be the Republican candidate for 2012.

        O’Donnell may have a few flaws, but unlike the establishment Republicans, I see where that would resonate with the electorate. She has gone through some of the same problems that you and I have. She is seen as someone that understands middle class Americans.

        I see it as the conservative candidate will always be better then the RINO (Castle) or the confirmed Marxist (Coon).

        • Brian H

          “I see it as the conservative candidate will always be better then the RINO (Castle) or the confirmed Marxist (Coon).”

          If a candidate can’t win it is completely irrelevant how “conservative” they are.

          It is sad that after everything we are experiencing as a nation you continue to see no difference between a “RINO” and a “Marxist”.

          Possession of the seat is more important than any vote that will be taken from it. If the Dems keep control of the Senate they will continue to own what goes before committees, what gets brought to the floor, and who chairs certain committees.

          About Ron Paul….please tell me you are not serious when you suggest he will be a viable candidate.

          • http://www.wildfiretreasures.com/ Troy La Mana

            That type of thinking is what is killing the country.

            • Brian H

              Actually, the Dems being in complete control of two of our three branches of govt. is what is killing the country. I respect your passion, but, electing unelectable candidates is no solution.

              If O’Donnell is the best we have to offer then we are doomed.

              • http://www.wildfiretreasures.com/ Troy La Mana

                What I should have said is that type of thinking is killing the party.

    • Brian H

      Troy. Honestly. Do you not recognize what possession of that seat means to stopping the Reid/Pelosi/Obama/SEIU agenda?

      • http://www.wildfiretreasures.com/ Troy La Mana

        Castle would not have stopped that agenda.

        • Brian H

          That is true, but, the GOP in possession of that seat, just might.

          • Gary Russell

            ????
            You admit that Castle wouldn’t have worked to stop the libs?

            Doesn’t that kinda push your argument off of a steep cliff, without so much as a little beanie hat to save it?

            • Brian H

              Not at all. My point continues to be that the seat itself is wahy matters most. That seat will likely determine who controls the Senate, who sits on committee chairs, what gets brought to the floor, what gets stonewalled. Several of us have tried to make that clear…it seems to be falling on deaf ears.

              • Gary Russell

                Disagreeing does not equal deaf.

  • AWB

    I completely agree, Jason. Excellent post!

    • Brian H

      I completely agree with your complete agreement. Excellent post to Jason’s excellent post!