PDA

View Full Version : Elections Tea Party wins in Delaware!


Ugly Duck
09-14-2010, 07:51 PM
Perfect! Its our only hope! The President's party always loses seats in midterm elections. During bad economic times, they always lose big. Dems were set up for disaster... and then along comes the Tea People! Real Republican Castle just lost the primary to anti-masturbation Palin endorsee Christine O'Donnell of the Tea Party in Delaware. Harry Reed was looking at certain defeat in Nevada, and then along comes "Second Amendment Remedy" nutball Sharron Angle of the Tea Party. In Kentucky another Tea Party nutball Rand Paul gets the nomination. Dems might still lose... but their chances of keeping both houses just got rescued & keep getting better with each RWNJ that gets dished up by the righties. From no chance to good chance - more Tea People, please!

SNR
09-14-2010, 07:59 PM
Conway's losing bigtime to Rand Paul.

Also, anti-masturbation? Was there a quote I missed? I'm only asking because it sounds hilarious if it did happen

BucEyedPea
09-14-2010, 08:01 PM
Since when are Palin's choices pro Tea Party? Her branch reps the pro-war crowd. People are tired of that wing outside the R party.

Jenson71
09-14-2010, 08:15 PM
Since when are Palin's choices pro Tea Party? Her branch reps the pro-war crowd. People are tired of that wing outside the R party.

Doesn't seem to be a big deal anymore. If you think a radical change of U.S. foreign policy is part of the Tea Party movement, you're out of touch with the Tea Party.

SNR
09-14-2010, 08:20 PM
Doesn't seem to be a big deal anymore. If you think a radical change of U.S. foreign policy is part of the Tea Party movement, you're out of touch with the Tea Party.This. Ron Paul's life in the tea party movement has been dead since the first Glenn Beck march two summers ago.

With any new political movement you're going to have kooks that can't communicate the words and ideas that will defeat an opponent. Or in the case of Angle, keeping one's fucking mouth shut.

BucEyedPea
09-14-2010, 08:27 PM
This. Ron Paul's life in the tea party movement has been dead since the first Glenn Beck march two summers ago.
It's not dead....he's the inspiration for it at the idea level and his leftover funds too. I'd say not active as a leader. I still get calls and email from his guys. But it's definitely been hijacked by those out of touch with it's original ideas. The Establishment guys. Like Palin. There is division in it right now with either camp saying they won't vote for the other camp's guy. We're still there.

petegz28
09-14-2010, 08:32 PM
Doesn't seem to be a big deal anymore. If you think a radical change of U.S. foreign policy is part of the Tea Party movement, you're out of touch with the Tea Party.

And what would said change be?

Jenson71
09-14-2010, 08:35 PM
And what would said change be?

All that stuff about closing all overseas bases, drastically reducing defense spending, pulling out all interests from the Middle East, ending the war on terror. Stuff like that.

Ugly Duck
09-14-2010, 08:37 PM
anti-masturbation? Was there a quote I missed? I'm only asking because it sounds hilarious if it did happen

O'Donnell was a professional advocate for SALT (Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth). She wants to save people by preventing them from masturbating. Her speal is "Lust in you heart is committing adultery and you can’t masturbate without lust. (When married) you’re going to be pleasing each other and if he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?"

There's gonna be some real exciting speeches on the Senate floor if she gets in...

Jenson71
09-14-2010, 08:39 PM
O'Donnell was a professional advocate for SALT (Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth). She wants to save people by preventing them from masturbating. Her speal is "Lust in you heart is committing adultery and you can’t masturbate without lust. (When married) you’re going to be pleasing each other and if he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?"

There's gonna be some real exciting speeches on the Senate floor if she gets in...

Let's not make it sound like a campaign issue for her. That was something she mentioned on an MTV show about sex in the 1990s. God forbid someone actually stand by the religious doctrines their religious leaders spell out for them.

alnorth
09-14-2010, 08:43 PM
O'Donnell was a professional advocate for SALT (Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth). She wants to save people by preventing them from masturbating. Her speal is "Lust in you heart is committing adultery and you can’t masturbate without lust. (When married) you’re going to be pleasing each other and if he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?"

There's gonna be some real exciting speeches on the Senate floor if she gets in...

yep. O'Donnell is almost as batshit crazy as Angle. New Hampshire should have been an easy pickup (just as NV should have been a sure win), but the GOP is toast in that state if she's carrying the banner.

BucEyedPea
09-14-2010, 08:46 PM
yep. O'Donnell is almost as batshit crazy as Angle. New Hampshire should have been an easy pickup (just as NV should have been a sure win), but the GOP is toast in that state if she's carrying the banner.

Not necessarily gonna go the way you think in NH. The guy who won has the backing of the Manchester Union which is respected.

No one knows how it's all gonna end either.

alnorth
09-14-2010, 08:50 PM
No one knows how it's all gonna end either.

Well sure, but this is not an early primary. She's verifiably down by at least 11 with a few weeks left. PPP is hinting that their poll tomorrow will show her getting utterly crushed with Coons getting closer to Joe Biden re-election numbers territory. If this was an early primary it would be different, but coming back from double-digits (or perhaps big double digits?), as a pretty far-right conservative, in Delaware... that just about cant be done. This state is gone.

BucEyedPea
09-14-2010, 08:52 PM
Well sure, but this is not an early primary. She's verifiably down by at least 11 with a few weeks left. PPP is hinting that their poll tomorrow will show her getting utterly crushed with Coons getting closer to Joe Biden re-election numbers territory. If this was an early primary it would be different, but coming back from double-digits (or perhaps big double digits?), as a pretty far-right conservative, in New Hampshire... that just about cant be done. This state is gone.

Just saying, look what happened in the NH primary with that surge in the final week. No one expected THAT!

alnorth
09-14-2010, 08:57 PM
Just saying, look what happened in the NH primary with that surge in the final week. No one expected THAT!

I simply can not believe that O'Donnell is capable of winning as a far-right conservative, in one of the most liberal states in the northeast, without seeing a poll at least showing her about tied. Not only do none of the polls show her within striking distance, she's not even in the ballpark. (and before someone tries to point at Chris Christie, he's very moderate on the social issues, otherwise he never would have won in NJ.)

Ugly Duck
09-14-2010, 08:58 PM
That was something she mentioned on an MTV show about sex in the 1990s.

She was the freakin' President of the anti-masturbation organization... of course she mentioned it on MTV - the bigger the platform, the better for any advocacy group. When one is the President of an organization dedicated to preventing people from committing adultery with themselves, they'll take any TV gig to spew their speal.

And they don't like her in Delaware: "Castle had a 95% chance of winning in November, but the odds of the GOP winning the seat with Christine O’Donnell as the nominee have sunk to 16%. By nominating O’Donnell the Tea Party sliced the GOP’s odds of winning the Senate almost in half from 30% to 16%. Tonight’s Delaware exit polls revealed that O’Donnell has a 29% approval rating. Only 31% of voters think O’Donnell is qualified to hold office, and 44% of Castle’s voters will be backing the Democrat Coons."

http://www.politicususa.com/en/o-donnell-palin

alnorth
09-14-2010, 09:09 PM
more commentary

"I'm sad to say the Delaware primary results tonight are straight out of Harry Reid's dream journal," said prominent Republican strategist Mike Murphy of the O'Donnell win.

alnorth
09-14-2010, 09:33 PM
NRSC will not fund O'Donnell in Delaware. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/sep/14/nrsc-will-not-fund-odonnell-race-delaware/)

The GOP appears to have informally given up on Delaware with tonight's "win" by O'Donnell.

Fox News is reporting that the National Republican Senatorial Committee will not be supporting Ms. O'Donnell's candidacy, as they have deemed her to be "unelectable." Ms. O'Donnell will have to rely on her own fundraising and help from the Tea Party.

Some whispered grumblings floating out there, something like "let Palin and the tea party support her"

Ugly Duck
09-14-2010, 10:02 PM
[/URL]

The GOP appears to have informally given up on Delaware with tonight's "win" by O'Donnell.

This is so great... Republicans are committing political suicide by splintering off into the wacko Tea Party. Dems should start funding more Tea Party candidates to drive more nails in the coffin.

Taco John
09-14-2010, 11:03 PM
This. Ron Paul's life in the tea party movement has been dead since the first Glenn Beck march two summers ago.



Not hardly. It's true that the Neo-cons have done a great job of muddying the waters and running interference with the core of the movement, but this is all just for show right now and it all works in Paul's favor for 2012. Not that I think he'll win the nomination - no. But he'll have his moment on the stage during the debates, and there's going to be a lot of energy behind his campaign. That's when the real battle for the Republican soul will take place. Right now, there is truly only one tea party candidate that matters: Rand Paul. The rest aren't worth noting except that they're giving democrats a hard time despite being on the fringe.

Taco John
09-14-2010, 11:06 PM
This is so great... Republicans are committing political suicide by splintering off into the wacko Tea Party. Dems should start funding more Tea Party candidates to drive more nails in the coffin.

Republicans don't have a say in the splintering except to try and corral it with Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin rallies where they promote small government and big miliarty and call it "Tea Party."

FAX
09-14-2010, 11:09 PM
So, I guess the Splooge Party candidate didn't do very well in Delaware?

No run-off or anything?

FAX

Ugly Duck
09-14-2010, 11:15 PM
Republicans don't have a say in the splintering except to try and corral it with Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin rallies where they promote small government and big miliarty and call it "Tea Party."

What I meant was that the Tea People usta be Republicans, but have splintered off after the Bush disaster and the popular election of a "Kenyan Muslim fascist socialist that is trying to destroy the country."

SNR
09-14-2010, 11:19 PM
O'Donnell was a professional advocate for SALT (Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth). She wants to save people by preventing them from masturbating. Her speal is "Lust in you heart is committing adultery and you can’t masturbate without lust. (When married) you’re going to be pleasing each other and if he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?"

There's gonna be some real exciting speeches on the Senate floor if she gets in...Man, women who stick to their religious principles are sooooo hot.

Umm... I need to use the bathroom. Brb.

Ugly Duck
09-14-2010, 11:28 PM
Man, women who stick to their religious principles are sooooo hot.

Umm... I need to use the bathroom. Brb.

Better check with O'Donnell first... you might have to divorce yourself if you commit adultery with yourself.

alnorth
09-14-2010, 11:49 PM
Doing some more reading about her. This is great. Just fricken great.

In one corner, former governor, 9-term US rep, very highly popular, approval rating over 65%, virtual lock to take a senate seat and support McConnell as majority leader.

In the other corner, we have a crazy lady who founded and led an anti-masturbation advocacy group for years, and has otherwise only worked as a marketing executive. Never elected to anything, but did run for senator as a fruitloop unknown candidate twice before, the only time she made it to a general statewide election she was crushed by 30 points. She is no longer unknown, polls say the voters are aware of her but her disapproval rating is very high in the mid-40's, with an approval rating in the teens. So within that state she is now a fairly well-known candidate who the people of Delaware do not like. Oh, and she also once had a $11,000 tax lien.

The crazy people come out in force to pick the candidate behind door #2. Yee-haw. As Karl Rove said today, "this is not a race we're going to be able to win"

Direckshun
09-14-2010, 11:49 PM
Check Delaware for Dems.

alnorth
09-14-2010, 11:56 PM
in the "yeah, I saw that one coming" department:

A Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) campaign source confirmed to The Hill late Tuesday that the longtime congressman will not be endorsing Christine O'Donnell

That isn't irrelevant, because as mentioned earlier, he is very popular (among moderate voters who were aced out of voting in the primary, anyway) and 44% of republicans who voted for him said in the exit polls they would vote for the democrat rather than for O'Donnell.

alnorth
09-15-2010, 12:01 AM
In more positive news, the tea party candidate (who was ahead quite a bit early on) appears to have lost in New Hampshire (which is good in a blue state, vs red states like KY and AK) as more precincts rolled in. Kelly Ayotte will likely be the nominee, and the polls say she will have a better shot at beating Paul Hodes in November.

This was not a slam-dunk victory for the GOP turned overnight into a loss like Delaware, but at least they still have the edge in NH.

Aries Walker
09-15-2010, 01:06 AM
Doing some more reading about her. This is great. Just fricken great.

In one corner, former governor, 9-term US rep, very highly popular, approval rating over 65%, virtual lock to take a senate seat and support McConnell as majority leader.

In the other corner, we have a crazy lady who founded and led an anti-masturbation advocacy group for years, and has otherwise only worked as a marketing executive. Never elected to anything, but did run for senator as a fruitloop unknown candidate twice before, the only time she made it to a general statewide election she was crushed by 30 points. She is no longer unknown, polls say the voters are aware of her but her disapproval rating is very high in the mid-40's, with an approval rating in the teens. So within that state she is now a fairly well-known candidate who the people of Delaware do not like. Oh, and she also once had a $11,000 tax lien.

The crazy people come out in force to pick the candidate behind door #2. Yee-haw. As Karl Rove said today, "this is not a race we're going to be able to win"
Also, she's been saying for years that she has a college degree, but she actually earned it about . . . two weeks ago.

oldandslow
09-15-2010, 08:16 AM
S.A.L.T.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzHcqcXo_NA&feature=player_embedded

Karl Rove's take...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEfH-maWAKI

Thanks Repubs...I appreciate you letting us keep Nevada and Deleware.

Amnorix
09-15-2010, 09:05 AM
Well sure, but this is not an early primary. She's verifiably down by at least 11 with a few weeks left. PPP is hinting that their poll tomorrow will show her getting utterly crushed with Coons getting closer to Joe Biden re-election numbers territory. If this was an early primary it would be different, but coming back from double-digits (or perhaps big double digits?), as a pretty far-right conservative, in Delaware... that just about cant be done. This state is gone.

She's anti-abortion even in cases of rape. FTW!

Amnorix
09-15-2010, 09:08 AM
The rest aren't worth noting except that they're giving democrats a hard time despite being on the fringe.


In the places where Democrats aren't partying in the streets over them, that is...

Fat Elvis
09-15-2010, 09:16 AM
Doing some more reading about her. This is great. Just fricken great.

In one corner, former governor, 9-term US rep, very highly popular, approval rating over 65%, virtual lock to take a senate seat and support McConnell as majority leader.

In the other corner, we have a crazy lady who founded and led an anti-masturbation advocacy group for years, and has otherwise only worked as a marketing executive. Never elected to anything, but did run for senator as a fruitloop unknown candidate twice before, the only time she made it to a general statewide election she was crushed by 30 points. She is no longer unknown, polls say the voters are aware of her but her disapproval rating is very high in the mid-40's, with an approval rating in the teens. So within that state she is now a fairly well-known candidate who the people of Delaware do not like. Oh, and she also once had a $11,000 tax lien.

The crazy people come out in force to pick the candidate behind door #2. Yee-haw. As Karl Rove said today, "this is not a race we're going to be able to win"


Am I the only person who finds the bolded text ironic?

ClevelandBronco
09-15-2010, 09:59 AM
Am I the only person who finds the bolded text ironic?

Probably not. I've run across many people who don't know how to use the word "ironic" properly, so I'd guess that you're not alone.

BucEyedPea
09-15-2010, 10:00 AM
I don't care about the marketing part. People of any profession should be able to represent. There have been artists, priests and doctors in congress since the beginning and that was the intent. I'm not so hip on professional politicians or just lawyers. Her advocacy group is bizarre and hurts her but if it was a private one and not a public one then I don't care. So long as the person will fight what's going on up there.

alnorth
09-15-2010, 10:09 AM
As promised, here's a new Delaware poll from PPP.

PPP 9/11-9/12, 958 LV, margin of error +/- 3.2%
Coons (D) +16 - Coons 50%, O'Donnell 34%

diving into the numbers:
O'Donnell favorable 29%, unfavorable 50%
Coons favorable 31%, unfavorable 33%
"Do you think O'Donnell is fit to hold public office?" No, 49-31
Republicans for Coons - 25%

If Castle would have won instead:

PPP 9/11-9/12, 958 LV, margin of error +/- 3.2%
Castle (R) +10 - Castle 45%, Coons 35%
Democrats for Castle - 30%
Independents for Castle - 45%, against 27% for Coons

“A small group of Delaware Republicans most likely cost their party this seat and any chance at gaining control of the Senate last night,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “What has looked like an easy Republican win the entire cycle now looks like an easy one for the Democrats.”

Thanks tea party!

If you dont like PPP, here's Rasmussen from a couple weeks ago.
Rasmussen 9/2, 500LV, margin of error +/- 4.5%
Coons (D) +11 - Coons 47%, O'Donnell 36%

alnorth
09-15-2010, 10:14 AM
Just checked Cook, he didn't waste any time. Today he shifted Delaware from likely republican, 4 notches to the left, all the way to likely democrat. For a guy who usually is cautious and slow to update his race handicapping, that is pretty huge for him.

Marketing consultant Christine O’Donnell’s upset of Rep. Mike Castle in last night’s Republican primary puts this open seat, which should have been an easy pick up for the GOP, out of their reach. While the primary provided Democrats with enough fodder to bury O’Donnell, from her personal finances to dubious claims she made in a lawsuit against a former employer, the reality is that Delaware is a Democratic-leaning state where Democrats have a 17-point advantage over Republicans in voter registration. Democrats also have a strong candidate in New Castle County Executive Chris Coons, who saw his fortunes turn 180 degrees over the course of a few hours last night.

National Republicans harbor no delusions that they can make O’Donnell a viable candidate, issuing a terse one-sentence statement from National Republican Senatorial Committee Executive Director Rob Jesmer congratulating O’Donnell on her win. It is clear that the NRSC has no intention of playing in Delaware and will put their resources into more winnable races. With Delaware off the board for the GOP, the possibility that they can net the 10 seats needed to win the majority becomes significantly harder. While it is still mathematically possible, winning Delaware was an important part of the equation.

BucEyedPea
09-15-2010, 10:21 AM
Castle voted for Obamacare

Castle voted for Stimulus

Castle voted for Cap and Trade

Delaware was already going to be a Democrat seat. Now it actually has a choice.

____

So who the hell cares! The other R was just the same as a D.

Taco John
09-15-2010, 10:22 AM
What I meant was that the Tea People usta be Republicans, but have splintered off after the Bush disaster and the popular election of a "Kenyan Muslim fascist socialist that is trying to destroy the country."

Even that isn't accurate.

alnorth
09-15-2010, 10:32 AM
So who the hell cares! The other R was just the same as a D.

Bullcrap. Coons will vote for Reid as majority leader. The majority leader can ensure that a lot of legislation you'd like to see never even gets a vote, and that the senate can only vote up or down on liberal legislation all day.

Castle would have voted for McConnell as majority leader. NOTHING else he may or may not do is more important than that. With the majority, the GOP leader can prevent legislation from even getting a vote.

Maybe Castle would have then voted against the party on a few issues, but without his vote for the leadership, you only ensure that legislation you might like to see never even gets a hearing or a chance to be voted on.

It cuts both ways, there are moderate democrats you can pick off to replace these occasional snowe and castle defections, but you dont even get the chance to try if the leader is Reid.

Taco John
09-15-2010, 10:39 AM
In the places where Democrats aren't partying in the streets over them, that is...

Like I say, I only care about one candidate right now: Rand Paul.

Republicans losing elections doesn't bother me at all - in fact, I'm very OK with it. They deserve to lose elections. It's like I said before: we didn't get to the point we are at right now because the Democrats compromised their principles. Republicans losing elections in what would otherwise be slam dunk states should go a long ways towards sending the message to the establishment about getting back to basics.

alnorth
09-15-2010, 10:45 AM
Like I say, I only care about one candidate right now: Rand Paul.

Republicans losing elections doesn't bother me at all - in fact, I'm very OK with it. They deserve to lose elections. It's like I said before: we didn't get to the point we are at right now because the Democrats compromised their principles. Republicans losing elections in what would otherwise be slam dunk states should go a long ways towards sending the message to the establishment about getting back to basics.

I like Rand Paul, and in a state like Kentucky he's a good candidate to support. However, there are simply not enough Kentuckys to win the Senate. The dems have no problem giving hall passes to a few moderate or slightly conservative democrats in states like Nebraska to vote their beliefs, because when you control the leadership you decide what gets voted on.

If the GOP has 45 ideologically pure senators, all they can do is ensure that nothing much gets passed. They cant actually accomplish a damned thing. The democrats do not have to allow a vote on anything the "purified" GOP wants. If the GOP has 51 senators, of which the large majority are "pure" along with a few moderates, they may not win every single vote and their moderate members may piss them off every so often, but they can ensure that only their bills get voted on.

patteeu
09-15-2010, 10:50 AM
Since when are Palin's choices pro Tea Party? Her branch reps the pro-war crowd. People are tired of that wing outside the R party.

OutOfTouchPea

patteeu
09-15-2010, 10:51 AM
OutOfTouchPea

Doesn't seem to be a big deal anymore. If you think a radical change of U.S. foreign policy is part of the Tea Party movement, you're out of touch with the Tea Party.

I guess mine was a repost. Jenson71 is correct. All that schooling seems to be paying off for him.

Taco John
09-15-2010, 10:55 AM
If the GOP has 45 ideologically pure senators, all they can do is ensure that nothing much gets passed. They cant actually accomplish a damned thing. The democrats do not have to allow a vote on anything the "purified" GOP wants. If the GOP has 51 senators, of which the large majority are "pure" along with a few moderates, they may not win every single vote and their moderate members may piss them off every so often, but they can ensure that only their bills get voted on.

This is perfectly fine with me. I don't want the current crop of republicans to "accomplish a damned thing." Ensuring that nothing much gets passed is as much accomplishment as I want from them.

Two years of gridlock will go a long ways towards repairing the economy.

patteeu
09-15-2010, 11:03 AM
The Ugly Ducks of the world will tell you that sexual issues are unimportant aspects of a politicians life if its just cheating on your wife with a star-struck intern in the oval office who is less than half your age, but if a candidate thinks masturbation is wrong, it's suddenly a burning issue of supreme importance.

Psyko Tek
09-15-2010, 11:14 AM
Perfect! Its our only hope! The President's party always loses seats in midterm elections. During bad economic times, they always lose big. Dems were set up for disaster... and then along comes the Tea People! Real Republican Castle just lost the primary to anti-masturbation Palin endorsee Christine O'Donnell of the Tea Party in Delaware. Harry Reed was looking at certain defeat in Nevada, and then along comes "Second Amendment Remedy" nutball Sharron Angle of the Tea Party. In Kentucky another Tea Party nutball Rand Paul gets the nomination. Dems might still lose... but their chances of keeping both houses just got rescued & keep getting better with each RWNJ that gets dished up by the righties. From no chance to good chance - more Tea People, please!

only when they pry it from my cold dead hand

Amnorix
09-15-2010, 11:29 AM
The Ugly Ducks of the world will tell you that sexual issues are unimportant aspects of a politicians life if its just cheating on your wife with a star-struck intern in the oval office who is less than half your age, but if a candidate thinks masturbation is wrong, it's suddenly a burning issue of supreme importance.

I think those of us who care about minimizing so-called morality laws worry far less about how a politician conducts him or herself in their own lives than we do what policies a politician may try to enforce as law to regulate the conduct of others.

alnorth
09-15-2010, 11:36 AM
This is perfectly fine with me. I don't want the current crop of republicans to "accomplish a damned thing." Ensuring that nothing much gets passed is as much accomplishment as I want from them.

Two years of gridlock will go a long ways towards repairing the economy.

well, by "not accomplish a damned thing", I mean non-budget bills, new laws, etc. How about budget bills? The filibuster does not exist there and the dems do not have to allow your amendments to be voted on.

If the dems control the leadership, they bring their tax increases, increased spending, etc to the floor and vote it up or down. If the GOP controls the leadership, they bring their tax cuts, disciplined spending, etc to the floor and vote it up or down.

Perhaps the GOP moderates may force you to trim some tax cuts or spend a little more, but at least you start at "perfect" and you gradually work your way to "less than perfect, but it can pass". With the dems you start at "Wow... this is just total crap" and you can only hope to fight and work your way towards maybe "ugh, this still sucks".

patteeu
09-15-2010, 11:38 AM
Bullcrap. Coons will vote for Reid as majority leader. The majority leader can ensure that a lot of legislation you'd like to see never even gets a vote, and that the senate can only vote up or down on liberal legislation all day.

Castle would have voted for McConnell as majority leader. NOTHING else he may or may not do is more important than that. With the majority, the GOP leader can prevent legislation from even getting a vote.

Maybe Castle would have then voted against the party on a few issues, but without his vote for the leadership, you only ensure that legislation you might like to see never even gets a hearing or a chance to be voted on.

It cuts both ways, there are moderate democrats you can pick off to replace these occasional snowe and castle defections, but you dont even get the chance to try if the leader is Reid.

With the House likely to be in Republican hands, I think you're overblowing the value of a slim majority in the Senate. I think it's possible (maybe even "likely") that the Republicans will be better off in 2012 (and only slightly less capable of impacting the direction of the government between now and then) if the dems retain the Senate. Between the House and the Senate filibuster, Republicans should have plenty of power to block noxious legislation. The biggest problem that I can see is if Obama gets another chance to nominate a SCOTUS justice, but they'll still be able to filibuster if necessary and I don't think the democrats would dare to no nuclear and destroy the filibuster after having been pummeled at the polls this November.

The other factor is that if Reid retains his seat and continues on as majority leader, he's already a built-in villain for Republicans to target.

ROYC75
09-15-2010, 11:44 AM
Coons will vote for Reid as majority leader.

That's racist !:D

patteeu
09-15-2010, 11:49 AM
I think those of us who care about minimizing so-called morality laws worry far less about how a politician conducts him or herself in their own lives than we do what policies a politician may try to enforce as law to regulate the conduct of others.

Is there really any reason to worry that this lady will champion an anti-masturbation law? Come on.

alnorth
09-15-2010, 11:57 AM
Between the House and the Senate filibuster, Republicans should have plenty of power to block noxious legislation.

You are not nearly ambitious enough. "Blocking their bills" should not have been the biggest priority. The GOP can block most bills with just 45. If they have the majority, the GOP now has a chance to start passing THEIR bills instead of playing defense. Sure Obama might veto a lot of them, but he might not be president after 2012, and this limited window of installing moderate republicans in blue states probably wont last.

To put it another way:

Dem majority next year,

Dem leadership: "hey folks, we have these 6 liberal bills to vote on. What say you?"
Senate: "We'll pass this one and that one, but no to the other 4. How about these 2 conservative bills?"
Dem leadership: "no, we dont have time to debate that."
Senate: "awww"

GOP majority next year, reverse of the above.

Pitt Gorilla
09-15-2010, 11:59 AM
only when they pry it from my cold dead hand:D

Ugly Duck
09-15-2010, 12:07 PM
The Ugly Ducks of the world will tell you that sexual issues are unimportant aspects of a politicians life if its just cheating on your wife with a star-struck intern in the oval office who is less than half your age, but if a candidate thinks masturbation is wrong, it's suddenly a burning issue of supreme importance.

Although I am flattered, methinks you give me too much credit. Thats all far too complex for me. I just figured folks would wanna know what a freakin' nutball she is...

"Let he who has never masturbated cast the first vote!" - O'Donnell, Republican candidate

ROYC75
09-15-2010, 12:10 PM
Fox is reporting the RNC will back O'Donnell in Delaware.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/15/republican-establishment-pledges-support-odonnell-infighting/

alnorth
09-15-2010, 12:37 PM
http://pintofstout.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/money_burning.jpg

edit: I just read further on the details. They are giving a token amount of money for campaign expenses. This is a PR move to publicly kiss, make up, and keep donors happy. They are not likely going to independently support O'Donnell with ads, like they are for Rand Paul for example, another tea party candidate who will probably win. As long as the race stays close, the NRSC will probably spend millions in states like Kentucky.

Taco John
09-15-2010, 12:43 PM
well, by "not accomplish a damned thing", I mean non-budget bills, new laws, etc. How about budget bills? The filibuster does not exist there and the dems do not have to allow your amendments to be voted on.

If the dems control the leadership, they bring their tax increases, increased spending, etc to the floor and vote it up or down. If the GOP controls the leadership, they bring their tax cuts, disciplined spending, etc to the floor and vote it up or down.

Perhaps the GOP moderates may force you to trim some tax cuts or spend a little more, but at least you start at "perfect" and you gradually work your way to "less than perfect, but it can pass". With the dems you start at "Wow... this is just total crap" and you can only hope to fight and work your way towards maybe "ugh, this still sucks".


I'm not expecting genuine change to happen overnight, and the establishment republican's idea of a small victory and my idea of a small victory are two different things. As far as who controls the congressional leadership, I don't care who controls it until the right executive is in place. Gridlock is gridlock. Tying the hands of congress while America continues to have the conversation about the proper role of government is just fine with me.

vailpass
09-15-2010, 12:44 PM
only when they pry it from my cold dead hand

:D

patteeu
09-15-2010, 12:47 PM
You are not nearly ambitious enough. "Blocking their bills" should not have been the biggest priority. The GOP can block most bills with just 45. If they have the majority, the GOP now has a chance to start passing THEIR bills instead of playing defense. Sure Obama might veto a lot of them, but he might not be president after 2012, and this limited window of installing moderate republicans in blue states probably wont last.

To put it another way:

Dem majority next year,

Dem leadership: "hey folks, we have these 6 liberal bills to vote on. What say you?"
Senate: "We'll pass this one and that one, but no to the other 4. How about these 2 conservative bills?"
Dem leadership: "no, we dont have time to debate that."
Senate: "awww"

GOP majority next year, reverse of the above.

I'd rather hold the line over the next 2 years and then go on the offensive after a POTUS win in 2012 than generate a bunch of vetos over the next 2 years and help Obama win a second term. Unlike the House, there's just not that much difference between a slim dem majority and a slim Republican majority in the Senate. Certainly not as much real difference as there would be a difference of perception by the voting public. If I could choose to either have a slim Republican majority in the Senate or a slim dem majority, I'd take Republican control, but I just don't see it as being nearly as big a deal as you do.

alnorth
09-15-2010, 03:01 PM
I'd rather hold the line over the next 2 years and then go on the offensive after a POTUS win in 2012 than generate a bunch of vetos over the next 2 years and help Obama win a second term. Unlike the House, there's just not that much difference between a slim dem majority and a slim Republican majority in the Senate. Certainly not as much real difference as there would be a difference of perception by the voting public. If I could choose to either have a slim Republican majority in the Senate or a slim dem majority, I'd take Republican control, but I just don't see it as being nearly as big a deal as you do.

You are also presuming this sort of opportunity comes every year. As far as Delaware goes, this was it, Coons is now the senator until he dies or retires.

If you do have this political environment every 2 years then sure, you dont have to care about moderates anymore, but every year wont be 1994. 2006's and 2008's will happen again. You will have years where conservative or moderate democrats pick off open races in red states and then sit their fat ass in that seat enthroned forever. When you get a chance like this, you steal those blue seats away to balance out what you might lose in nebraska, alaska, etc.

This is more than just the next 2 years. If you want a long-term GOP senate majority that has some insulation to absorb losses in bad years, you need to get seats wherever you can get them. If you can get 55 or 60 republicans then you can pretty much ignore people like Castle and Snowe. When you have a bad year with a republican president, then you need those guys to hang on to majorities.

Say a republican is president. People will forget about Obama vetos by 2016 or 2018, but you might have needed a Castle in DE to keep control of congress 1 or 2 decades from now when you can actually do something about it.

In football terms this is like kicking that field goal when you are 4th and long down 14-zip in the 2nd quarter. (We are going for it with O'Donnell and will probably turn the ball over on downs) Sure those 3 points mean nothing now, but they could win you the game later.

SNR
09-15-2010, 03:09 PM
Although I am flattered, methinks you give me too much credit. Thats all far too complex for me. I just figured folks would wanna know what a freakin' nutball she is...

"Let he who has never masturbated cast the first vote!" - O'Donnell, Republican candidateYeah. That position makes her appear crazy to a lot of people. She'll have to beat off a lot of criticism

chiefsnorth
09-15-2010, 03:10 PM
Her winning the primary was said to be impossible just a month ago. If the tea party groups can get her the funding she can win.

The Republicans will take the House back easily. That should be enough to gut most of the more dangerous things Obama and his minions will try.

2012 should still be about how Democrats won 2 election cycles in a row promising to fix the economy, and today it's even worse.

Obama only has a chance to stay in office if there is some kind of dramatic turnaround in the economy. People are sick of his window dressing act and his all talk/no results tenure thus far.

I am happy that the RNC is getting the yellow slapped off their teeth even if it costs this seat. If someone wearing an R is still going to vote for things like the stimulus bill, who needs them anyway?

alnorth
09-15-2010, 03:16 PM
Her winning the primary was said to be impossible just a month ago. If the tea party groups can get her the funding she can win.

no, she really cant. 2 years ago she was crushed by 30 points. She will be crushed again this year. She is a nutty far-far-right wing candidate in one of the bluest states in the country.

About half of likely voters polled say they do not like her. Not that they aren't sure about her, not that they dont know who she is, but that they do know who she is and disapprove of her. She is so highly disliked in this very, very blue state that a quarter of republicans intend to cross party lines and vote for the democrat.

You could dump $100 Million on this state and she would still not win.

chiefsnorth
09-15-2010, 03:25 PM
Oh well. The rest of the post still stands either way. He was rated the least conservative of all House republicans. He voted in favor of cap and trade, his record on immigration is abysmal, he was for all the bailouts... He is public enemy #1 as far as RINOS go.

He will not be missed. What are we really losing here? He may wear an R, but you can't depend on him in important votes.

BucEyedPea
09-15-2010, 03:26 PM
You are also presuming this sort of opportunity comes every year. As far as Delaware goes, this was it, Coons is now the senator until he dies or retires.
So it's a blue state. They were hopeless anyways.

BucEyedPea
09-15-2010, 03:28 PM
Sure Obama might veto a lot of them, but he might not be president after 2012, and this limited window of installing moderate republicans in blue states probably wont last.

What you refer to as moderates are liberals like Castle who wouldn't really pass true R legislation anyway. He was not a moderate he was a liberal. The R party has enough of them.

alnorth
09-15-2010, 03:29 PM
What are we really losing here? He may wear an R, but you can't depend on him in important votes.

We are probably losing control of the senate. His vote for McConnell as leader means more than anything else he might do or not do. If you control the senate, liberal bills dont even make it out of the committee room to get a vote.

Years from now when we have a republican president, we may possibly be losing the ability to keep the senate if we have a bad year. The democrats are not retarded enough to turn down the chance at a conservative democrat in states like Nebraska and Alaska, and they were able to get WAY MORE done the last couple years than they ever would have if had they imposed purity like we are now.

BucEyedPea
09-15-2010, 03:29 PM
What I meant was that the Tea People usta be Republicans, but have splintered off after the Bush disaster and the popular election of a "Kenyan Muslim fascist socialist that is trying to destroy the country."

Actually they were libertarians and Indies who felt the two party system was broken. It started under Bush—not after. And BEFORE Obama. I was there. I donated too.

alnorth
09-15-2010, 03:32 PM
So it's a blue state. They were hopeless anyways.

dems can win in red states, too. They just have to wait for a year when the public hates republicans, then they lock in those gains in states they were not supposed to play in for decades. We can't win in blue states without accepting moderates. We are effectively saying we will voluntarily refuse to compete in blue states while the dems scramble for any and every vote they can get in every state.

If you want permanent powerlessness and never have the opportunity to advance anything you might want for the rest of your life, by all means, run nutty unelectable candidates in blue states.

BucEyedPea
09-15-2010, 03:43 PM
dems can win in red states, too. They just have to wait for a year when the public hates republicans, then they lock in those gains in states they were not supposed to play in for decades. We can't win in blue states without accepting moderates. We are effectively saying we will voluntarily refuse to compete in blue states while the dems scramble for any and every vote they can get in every state.
What I am saying is that there's not much difference between the two parties anymore. They may talk the talk but they don't walk the walk. At least the Ds are honest about what they really are.

If you want permanent powerlessness and never have the opportunity to advance anything you might want for the rest of your life, by all means, run nutty unelectable candidates in blue states.

We already have that and it began under Bush. Wake up and smell the coffee people have not been happy with the direction of this country for ten years now. Many are fed up with both parties.

I think it's naive of you to think after the spending spree Rs went on under Bush that they would advance anything I'd want. Nope! I am too aware to think that's gonna happen. I await for the collapse instead. If we don't pull in a Napoleon then we can start over.

chiefsnorth
09-15-2010, 03:47 PM
We are probably losing control of the senate. His vote for McConnell as leader means more than anything else he might do or not do. If you control the senate, liberal bills dont even make it out of the committee room to get a vote.

Years from now when we have a republican president, we may possibly be losing the ability to keep the senate if we have a bad year. The democrats are not retarded enough to turn down the chance at a conservative democrat in states like Nebraska and Alaska, and they were able to get WAY MORE done the last couple years than they ever would have if had they imposed purity like we are now.

Normally, ok. But conservatives are in dire straits. We have the most destructive government in American history, and the RNC doesn't have a leg to stand on because they have become a centrist party and are complicit in out current predicament.

The GOP has been served notice that they had better not find themselves in bed with Pelosi and Obama or they are painting a target on their backs. There's no use voting for people who help on a coupe of votes but drag the country left on major issues.

We can end all of this and work together just as soon as the RNC stops trying to position itself with Castle, McCain, Snowe, Collins, Graham, Steele, etc. That is not a party I wish to support.

We are working within the system to send them a wake-up call before the RINOs give Obama another term to make this country into China lite

go bowe
09-15-2010, 05:26 PM
The Ugly Ducks of the world will tell you that sexual issues are unimportant aspects of a politicians life if its just cheating on your wife with a star-struck intern in the oval office who is less than half your age, but if a candidate thinks masturbation is wrong, it's suddenly a burning issue of supreme importance.so what's wrong with a girl half your age?

in my case, that would be an old woman of 31...

BucEyedPea
09-15-2010, 05:35 PM
It's divided between the Palinites and the Paulians. This explains it well, imo.

This morning on NPR, Jonathan Rauch of the National Journal was analyzing the Tea Party as a deliberately leaderless, non-hierarchical movement. Its people are not interested in political power as such, he said, but in changing people’s minds about big government.

This, I thought, is the libertarian revolution.

But as long as the Tea Party is mired in Republican abstractions like the budget deficit, while accepting and even promoting the empire and the police state, it will not really effect those in power.

Still, the heart of the Tea Party is libertarian, in concert with its leaderless, ultra-decentralized organizational principles. Broadly speaking, the Tea Party is split between the Palinites and the Paulians. Indeed, the first Tea Parties, anti-tax like the original, were held by Ron Paul in 2007, and he has influenced many subsequent developments by his example. As a real libertarian, he has never sought to be a top-down controller of a movement, or a country. Instead, he has put the ideas of libertarianism and Austrian economics in the lead.

Rauch reported on a sociologist who predicted the leaderless structure cannot last, and either the Tea Party would go out of existence, or it would end up having offices, a leader, and a staff in DC, the graveyard of principle.

A Tea Party activist responded, “He would say that, wouldn’t he? He’s a traditionalist.” Certainly taming the leaderless opposition is what the regime desperately wants. But the Tea Party should have a leader, said Rauch, so if some nut waves an ugly sign at a rally, the leader can say, “‘That man does not represent us,’ and excommunicate him.” Such wavers are often agents provocateurs, of course, who seek to demonize the resistance.

As Rauch in effect confirmed, the regime much misses the role of CIA agent Bill Buckley, who controlled the then-monolithic conservative movement. A dissident? Expel him! And indeed Buckley excommunicated such ideological tendencies as the Birchers, the Randians, and–most importantly–the Rothbardians. Anyone who questioned the CIA, the national security state, perpetual cold and hot war, the morality of nuclear war, or global hegemony for the US government was to be crushed. Maximum Leader Buckley was successful for a time in enforcing the party line, but like others tossed out and then smeared, Murray Rothbard more than survived, and today his ideas–anti-Fed, anti-empire, anti-power elite, pro-capitalist–shape the Paulian Tea Party and the liberty movement worldwide.

Palin’s mentor Bill Kristol, on the other hand, seeks to enforce the CIA-Pentagon line, in the Buckleyite tradition.

In this fight, the election of candidates cannot be the ultimate goal. It is our formerly suppressed ideas, inculcated in such men as Murray and Ron, that matter. Many other Rothbardian intellectuals like Hans Hoppe, Walter Block, Tom DiLorenzo, Tom Woods, Joe Salerno, Mark Thornton, and David Gordon have taken up the banner. We even have a TV star-intellectual, Andrew Napolitano. With their help, and despite the neocons, the leaderless, non-violent opposition to DC, is roiling the regime. More and more of us are withdrawing our consent, the one deadly,non-violent threat they face. It is the role of LRC to stoke this rebellion. Thanks to all of you who make that possible. And what a great time to be alive!

We have much work to do, but so much to look forward to. Fighting the bad guys by changing hearts and minds is not only essential to all we believe in, indeed to the future of our freedom, prosperity, and civilization, it is a heck of a lot of fun. Let’s roll!

UPDATE from Darren McPhilimy:

The Tea Party is not “an organization” as such despite the efforts of some people to co-opt the idea and infiltrate it from the top down. And it is just those people whom the media picks up on because it finds it impossible to report on the story without presenting it in a collectivist context. Neither the government nor the media has the ability to think in terms of individual actors (except as scapegoats). Each of us is invisible to them: they will never see “you” or “me,” they can only see “us” as members of one special interest group or another.

And that is why the media and scavenging politicians will never truly corrupt the Tea Party. The Tea Party only exists as a vehicle for individuals to voluntarily and temporarily associate in joint objection to government action. Any Tea Party faction that espouses specific candidates or proactive policies can only degrade and deteriorate as no individual politician or socialist cause (either welfare or warfare) can sustain the real passion of the Tea Party which is incumbent on standing up and shouting “No!”

No to taxation — no to tyranny — no to slavery.

That's it in a nutshell.

Taco John
09-15-2010, 05:41 PM
Fox is reporting the RNC will back O'Donnell in Delaware.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/15/republican-establishment-pledges-support-odonnell-infighting/

I figured they would have to. Even if it's burning money, it would be more detrimental to the overall Republican effort to turn their back on this candidate, and give people a reason to start promoting a third party to run against them.

alnorth
09-15-2010, 05:59 PM
This whole DREAM act controversy is a timely example of just how important the Senate leadership is, and why you dont just throw away seats that could lead to a slim majority. Hell, in many ways I usually feel that congress is more important than the presidency. The president cant create a damned thing, all he can do is halt legislation. When you have the congress you decide what laws get sent up.

A lot of people are pissed and grumbling about it, but Reid has the power to jam the DREAM act into a defense authorization bill. He's the senate leader. In an election year where you might not want to vote against the military, and given many moderates might like to vote for the DREAM act anyway, it is going to be close. I doubt it will pass, but it is still a possibility that a week or two from now we'll suddenly have a mini-amnesty for a lot of illegals.

"Yeah, but Castle might be the sort of republican who would vote for it, so what good is he!" Well, if the GOP has the senate leadership because of him, something like the DREAM act never even makes it out of committee and no one even gets the chance to vote for garbage like that. There are some conservative dems who dont like it, but thats just tough sh**, because the dems have the leadership. If McConnell was the senate majority leader, the DREAM act is dead regardless of whether the senate may want to pass it.

Back to football terms, having a good defense is OK, but you really want the ball. Rather than hoping we can block every single thing the dems might want to throw out there, I'd rather put their offense on the sideline and see if we can jam something through.

alnorth
09-15-2010, 06:01 PM
I figured they would have to. Even if it's burning money, it would be more detrimental to the overall Republican effort to turn their back on this candidate, and give people a reason to start promoting a third party to run against them.

They actually aren't, really. This is a PR move so that the GOP talk radio cheerleaders can quiet the grumbling without looking too deep into the details. They are handing over a token 40 or 50 grand to help pay campaign expenses to make people happy and shut up about it. They aren't actually stupid enough to dump millions via advertising into a race they cant win like they will on behalf of competitive candidates like Rand Paul.

BucEyedPea
09-15-2010, 06:06 PM
This whole DREAM act controversy is a timely example of just how important the Senate leadership is, and why you dont just throw away seats that could lead to a slim majority. Hell, in many ways I usually feel that congress is more important than the presidency. The president cant create a damned thing, all he can do is halt legislation. When you have the congress you decide what laws get sent up.

A lot of people are pissed and grumbling about it, but Reid has the power to jam the DREAM act into a defense authorization bill. He's the senate leader. In an election year where you might not want to vote against the military, and given many moderates might like to vote for the DREAM act anyway, it is going to be close. I doubt it will pass, but it is still a possibility that a week or two from now we'll suddenly have a mini-amnesty for a lot of illegals.

"Yeah, but Castle might be the sort of republican who would vote for it, so what good is he!" Well, if the GOP has the senate leadership because of him, something like the DREAM act never even makes it out of committee and no one even gets the chance to vote for garbage like that. There are some conservative dems who dont like it, but thats just tough sh**, because the dems have the leadership. If McConnell was the senate majority leader, the DREAM act is dead regardless of whether the senate may want to pass it.

Back to football terms, having a good defense is OK, but you really want the ball. Rather than hoping we can block every single thing the dems might want to throw out there, I'd rather put their offense on the sideline and see if we can jam something through.

Well, I would too. But it ain't gonna happen so I don't understand your point in persisting on it. Unless you're here to say the Rs are fools for nominating this candidate. That's not going to change anything either.

On the other hand I read that the Dream Act can also be exploited by out of state residents for resident rates at some state colleges by just living their for 6 months. I think it's the illegal alien route that many don't know how to work the loophole. I'd love to see lots of Americans abuse it scandalously just to get rid of it. Then we can take advantage of a crisis. * flashing evil grin *

alnorth
09-15-2010, 06:14 PM
Unless you're here to say the Rs are fools for nominating this candidate.

Pretty much. This is lingering frustrated rage at those who claim to be members of the tea party in Delaware. (I dont know who actually are legit tea-partiers anymore, seems like the far-far-right dittoheads and Hannity listeners are trying to steal the label) The Delaware tea partiers were short-sighted idiots for throwing away a perfectly good seat and perhaps the senate leadership on behalf of an unelectable looney-tune. (who also has lingering ethics questions on how she may have spent campaign money in 2008)

I think I'm pretty much done raging about it now. I was hopeful of seeing the dems lose the senate. That hope is now basically dead, and we'll be playing defense for two more years. Time to move on.

BucEyedPea
09-15-2010, 07:04 PM
Pretty much. This is lingering frustrated rage at those who claim to be members of the tea party in Delaware. (I dont know who actually are legit tea-partiers anymore, seems like the far-far-right dittoheads and Hannity listeners are trying to steal the label)

Pretty much. There's the Palinite wing being used by Bill Kristol . That would include Hannity and the Fox crowd. Then there's the Paulians which is the libertarian and paleo-con wing. Kristol is exploiting it and he needs the Evangelical wing for his agenda in the ME. So it's been hijacked by the establishment Rs from the top down. The Paulians are anti-war and empire. Complete opposites...although it's not really as homogenous as the media tried to make it out to be. There's other assorted types that are also not pro-war.

Taco John
09-15-2010, 07:54 PM
This whole DREAM act controversy is a timely example of just how important the Senate leadership is, and why you dont just throw away seats that could lead to a slim majority. Hell, in many ways I usually feel that congress is more important than the presidency. The president cant create a damned thing, all he can do is halt legislation. When you have the congress you decide what laws get sent up.

A lot of people are pissed and grumbling about it, but Reid has the power to jam the DREAM act into a defense authorization bill. He's the senate leader. In an election year where you might not want to vote against the military, and given many moderates might like to vote for the DREAM act anyway, it is going to be close. I doubt it will pass, but it is still a possibility that a week or two from now we'll suddenly have a mini-amnesty for a lot of illegals.

"Yeah, but Castle might be the sort of republican who would vote for it, so what good is he!" Well, if the GOP has the senate leadership because of him, something like the DREAM act never even makes it out of committee and no one even gets the chance to vote for garbage like that. There are some conservative dems who dont like it, but thats just tough sh**, because the dems have the leadership. If McConnell was the senate majority leader, the DREAM act is dead regardless of whether the senate may want to pass it.

Back to football terms, having a good defense is OK, but you really want the ball. Rather than hoping we can block every single thing the dems might want to throw out there, I'd rather put their offense on the sideline and see if we can jam something through.


To use a football term, I'd rather have "the right 53." The path to the "right 53" isn't easy. Sometimes you have to take a step back to make two steps forward. Gridlock is a success to me right now. I will only vote for Republicans that I believe in. The ones who I don't think pass muster, I will abstain on. What everyone else does is up to them, but I know that there is a very large contingent of the tea party who take this position based on the many political discussions I've been in.

It's like I've said before, and will say it again: we didn't get to where we are today because the Democrats compromised on their principles. And the last thing I'm interested in is seeing the creation of a red-dog republican contingent.

Taco John
09-15-2010, 07:59 PM
They actually aren't, really. This is a PR move so that the GOP talk radio cheerleaders can quiet the grumbling without looking too deep into the details. They are handing over a token 40 or 50 grand to help pay campaign expenses to make people happy and shut up about it. They aren't actually stupid enough to dump millions via advertising into a race they cant win like they will on behalf of competitive candidates like Rand Paul.


If this story is to be believed O'donnell just raised $500k in a single day (http://www.huliq.com/10164/christine-odonnell-abstinence-makes-gop-heart-grow-fonder). The Republican establishment might just be irrelevant to whether her campaign gets funded or not.

Taco John
09-15-2010, 08:04 PM
Very interesting. Her website indicates that she's raised just shy of $800,000 today. When I visited her site this morning, she had a goal of $50k. I just went there now, and her current goal is a cool $1,000,000.

I can see why the Republican establishment has reversed course on her.

http://christine2010.com/


(her website effing blows, by the way)

Taco John
09-15-2010, 08:11 PM
If the Republican establishment is bitter about this, wait until the presidential campaign gets underway. It aint gonna be candidates like McCain and Romney who are going to get the enthusiastic support.

alnorth
09-15-2010, 09:56 PM
If this story is to be believed O'donnell just raised $500k in a single day (http://www.huliq.com/10164/christine-odonnell-abstinence-makes-gop-heart-grow-fonder). The Republican establishment might just be irrelevant to whether her campaign gets funded or not.

That is actually bad news. 500 grand was just lit on fire by some people who may have otherwise thrown it to candidates who may have a chance to win, like in KY, CA, AK, etc. The longer this sinking ship of a campaign is news, and the longer some people delude themselves into believing a far-right conservative can win in Delaware, the more money that will be thrown away into that black hole.

alnorth
09-15-2010, 09:58 PM
Very interesting. Her website indicates that she's raised just shy of $800,000 today. When I visited her site this morning, she had a goal of $50k. I just went there now, and her current goal is a cool $1,000,000.

I can see why the Republican establishment has reversed course on her.

http://christine2010.com/


(her website effing blows, by the way)

ya, give it a couple months, after she raises and spends 7-8 million or whatever and still loses by 18%. You'll see just how important money is for a candidate whom half the likely voters actively say they do not like.

alnorth
09-15-2010, 10:01 PM
To use a football term, I'd rather have "the right 53." The path to the "right 53" isn't easy. Sometimes you have to take a step back to make two steps forward. Gridlock is a success to me right now. I will only vote for Republicans that I believe in. The ones who I don't think pass muster, I will abstain on. What everyone else does is up to them, but I know that there is a very large contingent of the tea party who take this position based on the many political discussions I've been in.

It's like I've said before, and will say it again: we didn't get to where we are today because the Democrats compromised on their principles. And the last thing I'm interested in is seeing the creation of a red-dog republican contingent.

Cool. You and the other 43 senators standing around you can yell and scream while a bunch of liberal dems (enabled by moderate and conservative dems in red states) run your life. You'll be purified and powerless.

Taco John
09-15-2010, 10:12 PM
That is actually bad news. 500 grand was just lit on fire by some people who may have otherwise thrown it to candidates who may have a chance to win, like in KY, CA, AK, etc. The longer this sinking ship of a campaign is news, and the longer some people delude themselves into believing a far-right conservative can win in Delaware, the more money that will be thrown away into that black hole.

I don't know anything about her, and frankly don't care. I'd rather see a Democrat win than an establishment puppet. A Castle win would have been the same thing as a loss to me. Whatever happens from here, I'm satisfied with the outcome at this point. In the long run, the Republican establishment has to react to this in a way that favors my politics.

I don't know anything about this woman. She's served her purpose, and as far as I'm concerned, she's Delaware's problem now.

Taco John
09-15-2010, 10:13 PM
You'll be purified and powerless.

You're mistaking me for someone with something to lose from this outcome.

You just described the status quo ("you'll be purified and powerless"), with the not-unimportant change that the Republican establishment gets a wake up call the next time they try to advance a limp dick somewhere else.

America is undergoing a peaceful revolution, and along the way a few political eggs may need to be broken.

SNR
09-15-2010, 11:55 PM
I don't know anything about her, and frankly don't care. I'd rather see a Democrat win than an establishment puppet. A Castle win would have been the same thing as a loss to me. Whatever happens from here, I'm satisfied with the outcome at this point. In the long run, the Republican establishment has to react to this in a way that favors my politics.

I don't know anything about this woman. She's served her purpose, and as far as I'm concerned, she's Delaware's problem now.Do you think the election of Scott Brown was a good thing?

Taco John
09-16-2010, 01:44 AM
Do you think the election of Scott Brown was a good thing?


Yes. Particularly in the context that he won it in. That win sent a very loud message about where America stood on the health care scheme that the Democrats were trying to pass. For a Republican to win the seat that Teddy Kennedy held onto for so long on an issue that was so near and dear to his heart, in a liberal stronghold... Yes, I think that was a good thing, and I'm glad that the people of MA made that happen, especially at that time when it was a referendum on that one specific issue. The Democrats ended up ignoring the message that MA sent on American's behalf, but that's their problem. What they'll be rewarded with for ignoring the anti-mandate that they were sent will not only come in November, but in subsequent months as the thing is dismantled piece by piece and turned into an even more unworkable pile of dung - a monument to the ineffectiveness of big government solutions.

NewChief
09-16-2010, 06:56 AM
Let the attacks begin:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/16/christine_odonnell_post_primary


2010 Elections
THURSDAY, SEP 16, 2010 07:01 ET
WAR ROOM
What the world has learned about Christine O'Donnell
BY EMMA MUSTICH

AP
We already knew about the claims that political enemies were hiding in her bushes, the $6.9 million gender discrimination lawsuit, and the outstanding campaign debt. None of it stopped Christine O'Donnell from scoring a stunning upset in Tuesday's Delaware GOP Senate primary.

But with that victory, the media spotlight on O'Donnell immediately intensified. Within 24 hours, a steady drip of revelations about her past activities and pronouncements had filled out a fuller picture of O’Donnell and her work as an abstinence crusader, Christian activist and "citizen politician."

Much of the new information reported on Wednesday dates to the 1980s and 1990s, when O’Donnell made the rounds on news programs and late-night TV as a conservative commentator. Back then, she was known primarily as the founder of an ultra-conservative Christian group called SALT (Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth) and as a spokeswoman for the Concerned Women of America and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

Here is what we learned Wednesday about Christine O'Donnell:

In this clip from an MTV program called "Sex in the 90s IX: The Safest Sex of All" (first obtained by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow), O’Donnell and friends from SALT explain their belief that masturbation is the same as adultery:

O’Donnell also spoke to C-SPAN in 1997 about SALT's view of government anti-AIDS spending, saying: "Our position is that there’s a gross -- disproportionate allocation of funds when it comes to the treatment of AIDS." In the same segment, a caller says that contracting AIDS is like "a bank robber getting shot in the head while in the act of committing the robbery." O'Donnell calls this "an excellent point" and goes on to draw a distinction between cancer, which she calls "an act of God," and AIDS, which is "directly connected" to personal behavior:

She was a regular on Bill Maher’s "Politically Incorrect" in the late '90s and early 2000s. The first two videos below are from an 1998 appearance, and the third (in which she sits next to Bob Saget) is from 2001.


In 1996, she challenged the concept of evolution on CNN: "Too many people are blindly accepting evolution as fact. There is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting [creationism]."
She explained her thinking about sex and religion in a 1,400-word Washington Post essay in 1997. In it, O'Donnell describes her experience "pitching abstinence to the young and the restless" with other members of SALT at HFStival, a music festival. "The SALT, as our group is called, was founded by young Christians to help rebuild a moral foundation for Generation X," O’Donnell wrote, adding, "One of our first projects is to distribute stone tablets with the Ten Commandments and encourage public officials to display them in their offices."
In 2003, she expressed her dismay at the idea of coed college dorms, asking, "What's next? Orgy rooms? Menage a trois rooms?"
In 2003, in her role as a spokeswoman for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, O'Donnell led a discussion on the women of the Middle-earth, as represented in J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. She's also wrote about the subject on FreeRepublic in '03. A sampling:
There’s the gentle and hopeful Arwen in whose presence everything becomes peaceful. There’s the tumultuous, restless Eowyn, whose free spirit leads her to triumph over her greatest foe. We have the regal matriarch Galadriel whose strength of mind has created a timeless haven for her people. Finally, there’s Belladonna Baggins, a hobbit who is mentioned in just four lines out of thousands of pages. Yet, it is from her bloodline that Bilbo Baggins inherits his atypical adventurous streak. This whisper of her presence ignites what has become a legend.

During her 2008 Senate campaign against Joe Biden (she lost by 30 points), O'Donnell accused Barack Obama of being "so liberal that he's anti-American":


More Emma Mustich


Have to go to the site to see the videos. I don't think any of this makes her unelectable or anything, but it does raise an interesting point about these dark horse/fringe candidates that are sweeping to victory on the tea party momentum: how many of them have pasts that will make them unelectable once the mainstream media starts digging into them?

BucEyedPea
09-16-2010, 07:17 AM
Have to go to the site to see the videos. I don't think any of this makes her unelectable or anything, but it does raise an interesting point about these dark horse/fringe candidates that are sweeping to victory on the tea party momentum: how many of them have pasts that will make them unelectable once the mainstream media starts digging into them?

LOL! You do know that at one time someone like Obama was considered fringe—even Reagan to some. That's just Establishment opinion to color them all as "out there."

Just about every candidate has a past. The ones protected by the Establishment who go along to get their perks just don't get exposed. Then the Establishment takes down those that challenge it by digging up dirt even if that dirt wouldn't have a bearing on how they would use govt. For example being anti-masturbation, as if there's gonna be a federal program for it using taxpayer money. Just the association in the press works for sheep though.

NewChief
09-16-2010, 07:27 AM
LOL! You do know that at one time someone like Obama was considered fringe—even Reagan to some. That's just Establishment opinion to color them all as "out there."

Just about every candidate has a past. The ones protected by the Establishment who go along to get their perks just don't get exposed. Then the Establishment takes down those that challenge it by digging up dirt even if that dirt wouldn't have a bearing on how they would use govt. For example being anti-masturbation, as if there's gonna be a federal program for it using taxpayer money. Just the association in the press works for sheep though.

I'm not debating the morality or ethics of the attacks. I'm just predicting a possibility for the trend of TP candidates based on the current political landscape as the "game" is played in America. As for the descriptor of dark horse or fringe.. my main point was to say that they're not traditional politicians (which is a good thing to me), so they haven't been vetted like more traditional politicians. If the Green Party ever becomes a more viable party, then I imagine that the same thing will happen with their candidates (even worse, as many really are socialists or communists).

alnorth
09-16-2010, 08:06 AM
Rasmussen today:

(Race switched by Rasmussen's Senate Balance of Power ranking from "likely republican" to "solid democrat")

9/15, 500 LV, +/- 4.5% MoE
Coons 53%, O'Donnell 42%
O'Donnell: 42% favorable, 54% unfavorable
Coons: 58% favorable, 34% unfavorable

She cant win. Money donated to her campaign would be better spent on Rand Paul's campaign, saving for retirement, buying Big Macs for a few months, etc.

Taco John
09-16-2010, 09:17 AM
I wouldn't donate to her, but I'm happy to see the establishment guy on the outside looking in, and look forward to seeing more of them blocked in 2012.

Cave Johnson
09-16-2010, 09:54 AM
There's an interesting piece on her in today's Times. That woman has enough skeletons to fill several closets.

In no particular order (in addition to the previously mentioned masturbation/rape/normal RWNJ stuff):

-Inaccuracies on her resume about when she graduated college
-Couldn't walk when she graduated this year because of unpaid tuition
-Defaulted on her mortgage in 2008
-$11K tax lien
-Misappropriation of campaign contributions (e.g., rent and personal expenses)

Jenson71
09-16-2010, 09:57 AM
-Couldn't walk when she graduated this year because of unpaid tuition

That's not fair. That's not a skeleton.

BucEyedPea
09-16-2010, 09:59 AM
There's an interesting piece on her in today's Times. That woman has enough skeletons to fill several closets.

In no particular order (in addition to the previously mentioned masturbation/rape/normal RWNJ stuff):

-Inaccuracies on her resume about when she graduated college
-Couldn't walk when she graduated this year because of unpaid tuition
-Defaulted on her mortgage in 2008
-$11K tax lien
-Misappropriation of campaign contributions (e.g., rent and personal expenses)

Well, with the tax cheats in the Obama administration looks they the left has met their match. If ya' can't beat 'em join 'em.
As far as defaulting on her mortgage the Obama administration thinks they should help people like that...as well as its supporters.
Obama refuses to release his college information altogether.
I'm sure there are Ds who've misused campaign contributions....I know they have. But they tried to pin this on Ron Paul too and it wasn't even true.

Otherwise, it sounds like the left is protesting too much because of a classic case of projection.

Cave Johnson
09-16-2010, 10:00 AM
That's not fair. That's not a skeleton.

Why?

It's not a big one, but it does suggest irresponsibility.

BucEyedPea
09-16-2010, 10:01 AM
Why?

It's not a big one, but it does suggest irresponsibility.

One look at Obama's economic and fiscal policies shows irresponsibility is trés chic today.

Baby Lee
09-16-2010, 10:01 AM
Perfect! Its our only hope!

The glee of the gaggle of student who bailed on completing their homework only to receive the delightful news that their teacher had been in a horrible car accident

Cave Johnson
09-16-2010, 10:01 AM
Well, with the tax cheats in the Obama administration looks they the left has met their match. If ya' can't beat 'em join 'em.
As far as defaulting on her mortgage the Obama administration thinks they should help people like that...as well as its supporters.
Obama refuses to release his college information altogether.
I'm sure there are Ds who've misused campaign contributions....I know they have. But they tried to pin this on Ron Paul too and it wasn't even true.

Otherwise, it sounds like the left is protesting too much because of a classic case of projection.

Yeah, I thought about mentioning the whole equivocation, Dems do it too argument, but I didn't want to take away anyone's fun. ;)

No protesting. Just citing facts. Draw from them your own inferences. Mine is this woman is spectacularly unqualified to be a U.S. Senator.

Radar Chief
09-16-2010, 10:04 AM
Interesting to watch this taking place.
We already know more about Christie O’Donnell than we knew about Obama before he was elected to the top office in the land.

Cave Johnson
09-16-2010, 10:05 AM
Interesting to watch this taking place.
We already know more about Christie O’Donnell than we knew about Obama before he was elected to the top office in the land.

How many books has O'Donnell written?

Radar Chief
09-16-2010, 10:06 AM
How many books has O'Donnell written?

Relevance to how the MSM is treating her vs. how they treated Obama?

Cave Johnson
09-16-2010, 10:17 AM
Relevance to how the MSM is treating her vs. how they treated Obama?

Yes. It's not like there's a right wing news network in the MSM to investigate/vet him.

BucEyedPea
09-16-2010, 10:25 AM
Yeah, I thought about mentioning the whole equivocation, Dems do it too argument, but I didn't want to take away anyone's fun. ;)

No protesting. Just citing facts. Draw from them you're own inferences. Mine is this woman is spectacularly unqualified to be a U.S. Senator.

I think 90% of them are unqualified. So she can join the club.

Radar Chief
09-16-2010, 10:25 AM
Yes. It's not like there's a right wing news network in the MSM to investigate/vet him.

Yup, a whole whooping one vs. how many?
But if you want to tell me FOX fell down on the job I won’t argue.

BucEyedPea
09-16-2010, 10:58 AM
Could Christine O’Donnell Be Any Good?
Posted by Lew Rockwell on September 16, 2010 09:38 AM

A candidate hated by Karl Rove, Charles Krauthammer, John Cornyn, the Club for Growth, and Dick Armey’s KochWorks can’t be all bad, can she? ROFLAfter all, she beat a Rockefeller Republican, who had–astoundingly–attacked her for having had financial problems. I think she can win, despite the media, but unfortunately, and perhaps inevitably as a pro-life Christian rightist, she calls for murdering the unborn and everyone else in Iran, and is, in general, a foreign policy neocon.

Cave Johnson
09-16-2010, 12:46 PM
I think 90% of them are unqualified. So she can join the club.

Someone in their 40s who just gradated college THIS YEAR should be voting on matters of foreign policy, financial regulation, and appropriations?

If by some miracle she wins, she'd be nothing more than a front person for special interest groups. That is, even more so than the norm.

patteeu
09-16-2010, 01:13 PM
That is actually bad news. 500 grand was just lit on fire by some people who may have otherwise thrown it to candidates who may have a chance to win, like in KY, CA, AK, etc. The longer this sinking ship of a campaign is news, and the longer some people delude themselves into believing a far-right conservative can win in Delaware, the more money that will be thrown away into that black hole.

You think it's so hopeless, you must be expecting a landslide victory for Coons. How many points do you think the margin will be.

I think O'Donnell has more of a chance than you give her. She'll probably lose, but I'll be surprised if she doesn't close the gap substantially between now and November.

patteeu
09-16-2010, 01:16 PM
Let the attacks begin:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/16/christine_odonnell_post_primary



Have to go to the site to see the videos. I don't think any of this makes her unelectable or anything, but it does raise an interesting point about these dark horse/fringe candidates that are sweeping to victory on the tea party momentum: how many of them have pasts that will make them unelectable once the mainstream media starts digging into them?

I don't think any of that is very damning.

patteeu
09-16-2010, 01:18 PM
There's an interesting piece on her in today's Times. That woman has enough skeletons to fill several closets.

In no particular order (in addition to the previously mentioned masturbation/rape/normal RWNJ stuff):

-Inaccuracies on her resume about when she graduated college
-Couldn't walk when she graduated this year because of unpaid tuition
-Defaulted on her mortgage in 2008
-$11K tax lien
-Misappropriation of campaign contributions (e.g., rent and personal expenses)

That's worse than the morality stuff in the article NewPhin posted, IMO. Compared to the lifestyle of the average politician, I'm not sure it's extraordinary though.

BucEyedPea
09-16-2010, 01:20 PM
Someone in their 40s who just gradated college THIS YEAR should be voting on matters of foreign policy, financial regulation, and appropriations?

That smacks of elitism and snobbery. Our Founders felt that anyone could run for congress. Our congresses have had artists with no degree, doctors and priests. Lincoln was self educated. It doesn't matter when someone gets a degree. Maybe she put if off due to having children and put them first. Obama has funds for mothers to go back to school. What your really saying is you think the grass roots average person sucks and we need Philosopher Kings educated enough to tell everyone what's good for lives. That's actually one of problems. Besides, their staffs do most of the work....our congresscritters don't even read the bills. Next.....

If by some miracle she wins, she'd be nothing more than a front person for special interest groups. That is, even more so than the norm.

Just what do you think Obama is? Or most other politicians.

Jenson71
09-16-2010, 01:24 PM
That smacks of elitism and snobbery. Our Founders felt that anyone could run for congress.

Not quite anyone. Generally, they were kind of elitist themselves.

Lincoln was self educated.

Well, sure, but he was war-mongering neocon who hated the Constitution. And a rapist.

Cave Johnson
09-16-2010, 02:18 PM
That smacks of elitism and snobbery. Our Founders felt that anyone could run for congress. Our congresses have had artists with no degree, doctors and priests. Lincoln was self educated. It doesn't matter when someone gets a degree. Maybe she put if off due to having children and put them first. Obama has funds for mothers to go back to school. What your really saying is you think the grass roots average person sucks and we need Philosopher Kings educated enough to tell everyone what's good for lives. That's actually one of problems. Besides, their staffs do most of the work....our congresscritters don't even read the bills. Next.....

Not exactly. The process was more republic than democracy for a good long while. And Lincoln was an aberration (other than the general presidents).*

She's not married and, as far as I know, is childless. She apparently dedicated her 20's to combating Joycelyn Elders' "scandalous" notion that masturbation might be a good alternative to teen pregnancy.

Since staffs do most of the work anyway, does Basil Marceaux get the BEP stamp of approval?

*I think.

Just what do you think Obama is? Or most other politicians.

As a non-lawyer, you have no concept of how hard is it to become the president of the Harvard Law Review. We can debate whether meritocracy is a good system, but it sure beats letting the irresponsible run the show.

Cave Johnson
09-16-2010, 02:40 PM
That's worse than the morality stuff in the article NewPhin posted, IMO. Compared to the lifestyle of the average politician, I'm not sure it's extraordinary though.

Where's the bright line incompetence test for you, Pat? If the R's ran Basil Marceaux in your district, would you pull the lever for him?

patteeu
09-16-2010, 02:44 PM
Where's the bright line incompetence test for you, Pat? If the R's ran Basil Marceaux in your district, would you pull the lever for him?

What bright line incompetence test? I don't know anything about Basil Marceaux, but whether I'd pull the lever for him depends to some extent on who he's running against.

Cave Johnson
09-16-2010, 02:52 PM
What bright line incompetence test? I don't know anything about Basil Marceaux, but whether I'd pull the lever for him depends to some extent on who he's running against.

How could you have missed this guy..... he's gold.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1hvaeHllwtw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1hvaeHllwtw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

ROYC75
09-16-2010, 03:00 PM
How could you have missed this guy..... he's gold.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1hvaeHllwtw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1hvaeHllwtw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Well, ..... I know he means well but I just have this bad feeling, ya know,like, I mean, Uh, Ok..... what else can be said but :eek:

BucEyedPea
09-16-2010, 03:30 PM
How could you have missed this guy..... he's gold.

But you forgot this corrupt guy....one of yours:

http://firstfriday.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/doddperprockky.jpg


His latest corruption:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/09/chris-dodd-and-his-three-residences-on.html

BucEyedPea
09-16-2010, 03:34 PM
Not exactly. The process was more republic than democracy for a good long while. And Lincoln was an aberration (other than the general presidents).*
I don't see that being a republic or a democracy has anything to do with what I said. For one we're a representational republic....and the Founders wanted regular people to run too.

She's not married and, as far as I know, is childless. She apparently dedicated her 20's to combating Joycelyn Elders' "scandalous" notion that masturbation might be a good alternative to teen pregnancy.
Link?

Since staffs do most of the work anyway, does Basil Marceaux get the BEP stamp of approval?
No....but he could if a commie was running as his opponent.

As a non-lawyer, you have no concept of how hard is it to become the president of the Harvard Law Review. We can debate whether meritocracy is a good system, but it sure beats letting the irresponsible run the show.
That school is still left-wing as hell. But if you're referring to Obama I think his being black may have helped since they like diversity. His family worked for CAI fronts even. They were minions for elite class. So those are his contacts. Elitists right on up through Goldman Sachs.

Cave Johnson
09-16-2010, 03:42 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/us/politics/16odonnell.html?_r=1

BucEyedPea
09-16-2010, 04:10 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/us/politics/16odonnell.html?_r=1

An opinion piece, passing as reporting, from the a liberal paper who has an agenda for left wing policies. Boilerplate stuff.

Why are you so hung up on her when you don't even live in Delaware or would vote R? I mean it's not like all of us agreed she was a decent candidate.

Who cares what she thinks of masturbation anymore than what Franks thinks of anal sex? I mean geesh.... after Obama survived Ayers, and Wright and having little to no experience too. Her biggest problem, after I finally read that, is the financial irregularities. Like I said though she fits in with Dodd and the tax cheats in the Obama administration. Other than that her views are standardly conservative.....against cap and trade, repeal of the HC bill and for a pro-market economic recovery.

alnorth
09-16-2010, 04:15 PM
You think it's so hopeless, you must be expecting a landslide victory for Coons. How many points do you think the margin will be.

I think O'Donnell has more of a chance than you give her. She'll probably lose, but I'll be surprised if she doesn't close the gap substantially between now and November.

Without support, she'll be crushed by 20. With tens of millions of dollars, she'll merely be spanked by 10-15 if she's lucky.

You are massively underestimating the favorability gap here as it relates to making up ground in just 6 or 7 weeks. If she was nominated in April and had Meg Whitman's billions to massage her reputation maybe she'd make it close, but as it is she'll get killed... again. (lost by 30 2 years ago) If this was a "we hate both of these candidates but we are forced to vote for one of them" race it might also be different (again, like the CA gov race, both candidates have high unfavorables) Coons is viewed favorably by almost 60%. He was only losing to Castle because he was up against an even more popular guy. The likely voters like the guy and do not like this tea party nut. Against O'Donnell, he may as well order business cards and make a road trip to Maryland to scout out which office he wants to rent in January.

If you think she wont be thrashed, given the long polling history from multiple polling firms, then you either desperately want to believe she wont lose badly, or you are smoking something illegal.

alnorth
09-16-2010, 04:39 PM
ROFL

wow O'Donnell is a total moron.

appearance on Maher (essentially said, "I would never, ever, ever lie no matter what")

O'DONNELL: A lie, whether it be a lie or an exaggeration, is disrespect to whoever you're exaggerating or lying to, because it's not respecting reality.

MAHER: Quite the opposite, it can be respect.

IZZARD: What if someone comes to you in the middle of the Second World War and says, 'do you have any Jewish people in your house?' and you do have them. That would be a lie. That would be disrespectful to Hitler.

O'DONNELL: I believe if I were in that situation, God would provide a way to do the right thing righteously. I believe that!

MAHER: God is not there. Hitler's there and you're there.

O'DONNELL: You never have to practice deception. God always provides a way out.

O'Donnell is also one of those lunatics who believed Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/odonnell-in-1996-investigate-bill-clinton-for-murder-of-vince-foster.php).

and finally, either out of stupid ignorance or in direct contradiction to her "never lie" mantra, she told Bill O'Reilly that US scientists are cross-breeding humans and mice to create mice with "fully functioning human brains" (http://www.eschatonblog.com/2010/09/heed-her-warnings-people.html).

O'REILLY: Everybody knows that scientists have enough knowledge to clone a human being if they wanted to.

O'DONNELL: Right.

O'REILLY: But they're not, at least not that we know of. And now they're in the monkey realm. And I don't understand, if that's the possibility that people might be cured, why the objection.

Because I never buy the slippery slope.

O'DONNELL: OK.

O'REILLY: I never buy that in a free society because there are — there are checks and balances here.

MORRONE: There are.

O'DONNELL: Bill, if we — if we approach this complicated bioethic issue with our heads in the sand, the other end is in the air.

O'REILLY: My head isn't the sand, Christine. I have the biggest head in the world. There isn't enough sand on the beach in Hawaii for my head to be in there.

O'DONNELL: My point is, we're approaching this issue with the other end in the air.

O'REILLY: No, no, no. Hold it.

O'DONNELL: By their own admission...

O'REILLY: No.

O'DONNELL: ... these groups admitted that the report that said, "Hey, yay, we cloned a monkey. Now we're using this to start cloning humans." We have to keep...

O'REILLY: Let them admit anything they want. But they won't do that here in the United States unless all craziness is going on.

O'DONNELL: They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they're already into this experiment.

O'REILLY: Alright. Doctor...

MORRONE: That's an exaggeration.

Ugly Duck
09-16-2010, 04:41 PM
She'll probably lose, but I'll be surprised if she doesn't close the gap substantially between now and November.

A rare occasion when I agree with patteeu cuz he's just so wrong. Even during the presidential primaries, anybody whose neck stuck out as the frontrunner got chopped off (thats how Obama got in). That principle continues to this day... the masses are in a punishing mood. The gap will close in Delaware, but not enough cuz she's such an extreme TP freak.

"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains." - TP candidate O'Donnell

Oh yeah... Bush tried to warn us about this in his SOTU address.

BucEyedPea
09-16-2010, 04:48 PM
What did you expect, al, she's a devout Catholic. No kind of lying is right in their beliefs, even small lies, because it leads to bigger ones. The Jewish example is frequently used as an example as okay to lie. But the answer to that, is did those Nazi's have the right to that information. No. So if those Jews are in the basement or attic but not in the house you answer it literally. If they ask if there any "Jews here"....you use here literally as right where you are talking to them.

It always amazes me how the most extreme arguments that are like .0125 chance of happening in one's lifetime are used for examples on when lying is okay.

alnorth
09-16-2010, 04:54 PM
What did you expect, al, she's a devout Catholic. No kind of lying is right in their beliefs, even small lies, because it leads to bigger ones. The Jewish example is frequently used as an example as okay to lie. But the answer to that, is did those Nazi's have the right to that information. No. So if those Jews are in the basement or attic but not in the house you answer it literally. If they ask if there any "Jews here"....you use here literally as right where you are talking to them.

It always amazes me how the most extreme arguments that are like .0125 chance of happening in one's lifetime are used for examples on when lying is okay.

thats fine and all, except in the very next breath she also said you never have to practice deception. Lies of omission while knowing full well what they want to know, is not technically a lie, but it is deception. She didn't try to walk the line here, she cheerfully presented herself as if she would tell them "through that hall, second door on the right, up in the attic, probably close to the south end of the structure"

BucEyedPea
09-16-2010, 05:01 PM
thats fine and all, except in the very next breath she also said you never have to practice deception.
Lies of omission while knowing full well what they want to know, is not technically a lie, but it is deception.
No, it's only a deception if that person asking has a right to that information. Right to know is key to deception. If they don't have that right to know, then not volunteering all you know is not deception. Nazi's had no moral right to know based on their aims. What you are saying is that the family who were hiding the Franks in Holland should have told people what they were doing or worse, divulged it to authorities.

alnorth
09-16-2010, 05:23 PM
No, it's only a deception if that person asking has a right to that information. Right to know is key to deception. If they don't have that right to know, then not volunteering all you know is not deception. Nazi's had no moral right to know based on their aims. What you are saying is that the family who were hiding the Franks in Holland should have told people what they were doing or worse, divulged it to authorities.

:spock:

Deception is a really simple neutral word. Motive and whether someone has a right to the information or not is irrelevant. "Deception" coldly analyzes whether you are intentionally trying to cause someone to believe something that is not true, either by directly lying to them, or leading them to believe in a falsehood via other means such as intentionally omitting important information. You can deceive for a good reason, but it is still deception.

Jenson71
09-16-2010, 05:24 PM
What did you expect, al, she's a devout Catholic. No kind of lying is right in their beliefs, even small lies, because it leads to bigger ones. The Jewish example is frequently used as an example as okay to lie. But the answer to that, is did those Nazi's have the right to that information. No. So if those Jews are in the basement or attic but not in the house you answer it literally. If they ask if there any "Jews here"....you use here literally as right where you are talking to them.

It always amazes me how the most extreme arguments that are like .0125 chance of happening in one's lifetime are used for examples on when lying is okay.

??

That's not a Catholic ethical command. That's just more crap you made up.

BucEyedPea
09-16-2010, 06:11 PM
:spock:

Deception is a really simple neutral word. Motive and whether someone has a right to the information or not is irrelevant.
Wrong it is totally relevant. Some things are no one's business. Not answering can be done in more than one way, including using the words literally to actually give an answer that is still true but can be taken more than one way or ambiguous. Or one can just not answer but in the Nazi scenario that can bring one severe punishment.

BucEyedPea
09-16-2010, 06:14 PM
:spock:

Deception is a really simple neutral word. Motive and whether someone has a right to the information or not is irrelevant.
Wrong need to know is totally relevant. It's not exactly a neutral word either—not it's usual connotation. Unless your using it musically or saying how appearances looks due to it's intrinsic nature. Some things are no one's business. Not answering can be done in more than one way, including using the words literally to actually give an answer that is still true but can be taken more than one way or ambiguous. Or one can just not answer but in the Nazi scenario that can bring one severe punishment.

alnorth
09-16-2010, 06:38 PM
Wrong it is totally relevant. Some things are no one's business. Not answering can be done in more than one way, including using the words literally to actually give an answer that is still true but can be taken more than one way or ambiguous. Or one can just not answer but in the Nazi scenario that can bring one severe punishment.

well, ok. I can see we're getting nowhere here.

Telling someone "no, X is not in this house" while in your mind you know X is in the attic, and you also know full well the person wanted to know if X was in the house, attic, or basement and will now falsely believe they are in none of the above based on your answer, that is deception. (I would also argue that it is outright lying because the common meaning of house includes the attic and basement, but we'll pretend it doesn't for this situation)

More importantly, we now know she believes Clinton murdered someone and she wants to protect us from cross-bred mice that have human brains. O'Donnell lives in the middle of crazytown, which the people of Delaware apparently already know given her astoundingly high disapproval numbers.

BucEyedPea
09-16-2010, 06:55 PM
well, ok. I can see we're getting nowhere here.
It leads to harm is why it's not ethical. In the Nazi case there is no harm.

Telling someone "no, X is not in this house" while in your mind you know X is in the attic, and you also know full well the person wanted to know if X was in the house, attic, or basement and will now falsely believe they are in none of the above based on your answer, that is deception. (I would also argue that it is outright lying because the common meaning of house includes the attic and basement, but we'll pretend it doesn't for this situation)
They could say they didn't know that....and using a certain definition (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Xak&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&defl=en&q=define:house&sa=X&ei=EbySTLGTBYTGlQel5p2pCg&ved=0CBIQkAE) it could be true. She could say words have different meanings to people the way the left does here.

What if they ask: "Do you have Jews here?" and you use where you're standing for "here." A truthful answer is "no."

If you wanted to be imprisoned for telling the Nazis the truth because you'd be outright lying that's a choice for you to make. So she felt God would guide her. BFD! Non religious people have a hard time with such ideas. So they mock believers. But there isn't anything that wrong or bad about it.


More importantly, we now know she believes Clinton murdered someone and she wants to protect us from cross-bred mice that have human brains. O'Donnell lives in the middle of crazytown, which the people of Delaware apparently already know given her astoundingly high disapproval numbers.
None that is relevant to governance and how she'll vote. Her views are standardly conservative. Her fiscal irregularities are a problem. But then look at the rest of Congress. Or Obama's regime.

patteeu
09-16-2010, 07:16 PM
Without support, she'll be crushed by 20. With tens of millions of dollars, she'll merely be spanked by 10-15 if she's lucky.

You are massively underestimating the favorability gap here as it relates to making up ground in just 6 or 7 weeks. If she was nominated in April and had Meg Whitman's billions to massage her reputation maybe she'd make it close, but as it is she'll get killed... again. (lost by 30 2 years ago) If this was a "we hate both of these candidates but we are forced to vote for one of them" race it might also be different (again, like the CA gov race, both candidates have high unfavorables) Coons is viewed favorably by almost 60%. He was only losing to Castle because he was up against an even more popular guy. The likely voters like the guy and do not like this tea party nut. Against O'Donnell, he may as well order business cards and make a road trip to Maryland to scout out which office he wants to rent in January.

If you think she wont be thrashed, given the long polling history from multiple polling firms, then you either desperately want to believe she wont lose badly, or you are smoking something illegal.

Well, I'm not doing either of those things, but I've already seen some improbable things happen this election cycle and I'm not going to underestimate the unpredictable nature of the current electorate here. I'm not predicting an O'Donnell victory here, I'm just saying you seem over-confident.

Cave Johnson
09-17-2010, 09:52 AM
To answer the last question she poses, it may have something to do with the vagina. Not sure about that.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RzHcqcXo_NA&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RzHcqcXo_NA&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

ROYC75
09-17-2010, 09:59 AM
It comes down to a possible fiscal responsibility vs current corruption.........

Take your pick.

Chief Henry
09-17-2010, 10:14 AM
It comes down to a possible fiscal responsibility vs current corruption.........

Take your pick.




BINGO

BucEyedPea
09-17-2010, 12:21 PM
To answer the last question she poses, it may have something to do with the vagina. Not sure about that.

Ya' know what, someone having an eccentric pov on masturbation is not going to harm anyone. On the other hand Obama's economics harm broadly and are destructive. That's the difference. So if she's going to be fiscally conservative and try to repeal HC, I can live with her eccentricity. This is nothing but a red herring.

Cave Johnson
09-17-2010, 12:29 PM
Ya' know what, someone having an eccentric pov on masturbation is not going to harm anyone.

But it does. When you take away funding for safe sex programs (which acknowledge the reality that teens are going to have sex anyway) and replace them with abstinence programs, the result is less reliance on safe sex methods. And don't give me this link BS, look it up yourself.

Who knows how many babies will be born to unready mothers and have terrible outcomes as the result of being born into shitty situations, in part due to this nutzo's decisions on educational spending.

Cave Johnson
09-17-2010, 12:29 PM
<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.xtranormal.com/site_media/players/jwplayer.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><param name="flashvars"value="height=390&width=480&file=http://newvideos.xtranormal.com/web_final_lo/6f2724d6-c031-11df-b0ce-003048d6740d_15_web_final_lo_web_finallo-flv.flv&image=http://newvideos.xtranormal.com/web_final_lo/6f2724d6-c031-11df-b0ce-003048d6740d_15_web_final_lo_poster.jpg&link=http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7140347&searchbar=false&autostart=false"/><embed src="http://www.xtranormal.com/site_media/players/jwplayer.swf" width="480" height="390" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="height=390&width=480&file=http://newvideos.xtranormal.com/web_final_lo/6f2724d6-c031-11df-b0ce-003048d6740d_15_web_final_lo_web_finallo-flv.flv&image=http://newvideos.xtranormal.com/web_final_lo/6f2724d6-c031-11df-b0ce-003048d6740d_15_web_final_lo_poster.jpg&link=http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7140347&searchbar=false&autostart=false"></embed></object><object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.xtranormal.com/site_media/players/embedded-xnl-stats.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.xtranormal.com/site_media/players/embedded-xnl-stats.swf" width="1" height="1" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed></object>

The Mad Crapper
09-17-2010, 04:17 PM
<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://wwen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><param name="flashvars"value="height=390&width=480&file=http://newvideos.xtranormal.com/web_final_lo/6f2724d6-c031-11df-b0ce-003048d6740d_15_web_final_lo_web_finallo-flv.flv&image=http://newvideos.xtranormal.com/web_final_lo/6f2724d6-c031-11df-b0ce-003048d6740d_15_web_final_lo_poster.jpg&link=http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7140347&searchbar=false&autostart=false"/><embed src="http://www.xtranormal.com/site_media/players/jwplayer.swf" width="480" height="390" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="height=390&width=480&file=http://newvideos.xtranormal.com/web_final_lo/6f2724d6-c031-11df-b0ce-003048d6740d_15_web_final_lo_web_finallo-flv.flv&image=http://newvideos.xtranormal.com/web_final_lo/6f2724d6-c031-11df-b0ce-003048d6740d_15_web_final_lo_poster.jpg&link=http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7140347&searchbar=false&autostart=false"></embed></object><object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.xtranormal.com/site_media/players/embedded-xnl-stats.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.xtranormal.com/site_media/players/embedded-xnl-stats.swf" width="1" height="1" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed></object>

http://www.moonbattery.com/poor-barry.gif

BucEyedPea
09-17-2010, 04:27 PM
But it does. When you take away funding for safe sex programs (which acknowledge the reality that teens are going to have sex anyway) and replace them with abstinence programs, the result is less reliance on safe sex methods. And don't give me this link BS, look it up yourself.
Masturbation isn't real sex. It's stimulation.

Who knows how many babies will be born to unready mothers and have terrible outcomes as the result of being born into shitty situations, in part due to this nutzo's decisions on educational spending.

I think you need to be remediated on sex education. Again, she's not likely to win anything on this. Furthermore, it should not even be a Federal issues. It's local.
If she has standard conservative views she will see it that way. You have nothing to fear except in your own locality which she isn't in.

Put Obama's positions up against hers and his positions are more destructive and across a wider sphere.

ChiefaRoo
09-17-2010, 07:09 PM
Let's see, Vermont has an avowed Socialist as a Senator. Joe Biden is a plagarist and a dork. North Dakota had a guy who had a stroke in officeand was never right again. He stayed in office for years. Robert Byrd died in office after being sick for months if not years. The point is there are reasons why there are 50, err, I mean 100 Senators and 435 Reps. Seriously, if the goal is to have only pedigreed people voted into office then America has gone down a road that I would suspect most of us wouldn't want it to. I was taught that our Reps were supposed to have an element of citizen legislator about them. I think the Republic can survive a n00b Senator or two.

The real issue in Delaware and across the country is do we want bigger Govt. and more and more spending in the public sector or do we want to pass down the American dream that consists of opportunity in the private sector and the concept of American Exceptionalism to our kids?

stevieray
09-17-2010, 08:06 PM
Who knows how many babies will be born to unready mothers and have terrible outcomes as the result of being born into shitty situations, in part due to this nutzo's decisions on educational spending.funny how this is always excluded as part of the equation before someone makes a bad choice, and then becomes the built in excuse for said bad decision

SNR
09-18-2010, 01:24 AM
Let's see, Vermont has an avowed Socialist as a Senator. Joe Biden is a plagarist and a dork. North Dakota had a guy who had a stroke in officeand was never right again. He stayed in office for years. Robert Byrd died in office after being sick for months if not years. The point is there are reasons why there are 50 Senators and 435 Reps. Seriously, if the goal is to have only pedigreed people voted into office then America has gone down a road that I would suspect most of us wouldn't want it to. I was taught that our Reps were supposed to have an element of citizen legislator about them. I think the Republic can survive a n00b Senator or two.

The real issue in Delaware and across the country is do we want bigger Govt. and more and more spending in the public sector or do we want to pass down the American dream that consists of opportunity in the private sector and the concept of American Exceptionalism to our kids?There are 100 senators.

Cave Johnson
09-18-2010, 09:22 AM
Masturbation isn't real sex. It's stimulation.

Candidate Palin-clone McNutjob doesn't apparently understand that, which is the problem. So you really think someone with such extreme views on sexuality is cool with federal funds being used to discuss condoms and STDs?

I think you need to be remediated on sex education. Again, she's not likely to win anything on this. Furthermore, it should not even be a Federal issues. It's local.If she has standard conservative views she will see it that way. You have nothing to fear except in your own locality which she isn't in.

Put Obama's positions up against hers and his positions are more destructive and across a wider sphere.

So there's no federal funding of sex ed? You mean well enough, BEP, but on this one you're completely talking out of your ass.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat5032.html

patteeu
09-18-2010, 09:42 AM
Candidate Palin-clone McNutjob doesn't apparently understand that, which is the problem. So you really think someone with such extreme views on sexuality is cool with federal funds being used to discuss condoms and STDs?

I think there are a lot of ideas in the mainstream of the democrat party that are far more dangerous to our country than that one.

BucEyedPea
09-18-2010, 12:13 PM
Candidate Palin-clone McNutjob doesn't apparently understand that, which is the problem. So you really think someone with such extreme views on sexuality is cool with federal funds being used to discuss condoms and STDs? I actually don't really care because I feel funding for such things is unconstitutional. See the last part of my sig.


So there's no federal funding of sex ed? You mean well enough, BEP, but on this one you're completely talking out of your ass.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat5032.html
Where did I say there was no federal funding for sex ed? I made a case there shouldn't be. That does not prove she would seek funds for programs to not masturbate. I doubt a male dominated institution like congress would go for that. Really, this claim borders on paranoia.

patteeu
09-18-2010, 12:19 PM
I think there are a lot of ideas in the mainstream of the democrat party that are far more dangerous to our country than that one.

Speaking of democrat ideas (and since we're dredging up material from our candidate's pasts), how about the democrat candidate's disturbing introspection in "Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36726.html)."

In the article, Coons, then 21 years old and about to graduate from Amherst College, chronicled his transformation from a sheltered, conservative-minded college student who had worked for former GOP Delaware Sen. William Roth and had campaigned for Ronald Reagan in 1980 into a cynical young adult who was distrustful of American power and willing to question the American notion of free enterprise.

And speaking of Coons and his disillusionment with America, here's another interesting similarity to our current president:

The source of his conversion, Coons wrote, was a trip to Kenya he took during the spring semester of his junior year—a time away from America, he wrote, that served as a “catalyst” in altering a conservative political outlook that he was growing increasingly uncomfortable with.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd rather take my chances with a born-again Christian who dabbled in witchcraft and thinks masturbation is sinful than someone who embraced Marxism and remains at least skeptical of American free enterprise.

ChiefaRoo
09-18-2010, 02:26 PM
There are 100 senators.

Oops.... yeah I knew that.