Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at September 19, 2010 05:44 PM (RsgqX)

I'm in.

Well, I guess the real question is this:  Is this blog supposed to be a partisan, take no prisoners blog that works to get the Dems out of office?

Or is it a objective, we report, you decide sort of blog?  Where you cover the news, good or bad.

You can't really have it both ways.

I don't think the problem is with what is covered, but more, how it's covered.

There's a difference between

"Maher presents more highly-edited, out-of-context Christine O'Donnell clips from over a decade ago,"

and

"Here's another reason why Delaware voters were teh stupid to support O'Donnell over Castle."

20 Hello. I have been an occasional visitor to your blog for some time, and I have never felt compelled to comment or jump in on the conversation until now.

You're an a-hole Ace. Good riddance.

You must be a concerned Christian conservative.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sing it, it's a catchy tune.

Save the crazy for when crunch time comes.

If it ever comes.

I voted NO because that was the closest choice that was in the poll to what I think. If there is LEGITIMATE neg info (that has been verified as accurate and contextually correct) then mention it, but so far I'm not finding much here (if any) in support of her, and I'm not finding much if any negative info on Castle or even Coons.

The primary is over, Castle lost. It just seems that the "Big Tent" crowd would rather have an O'Donnell loss than an O'Donnell win, so that is telling me that the whole pragmatism spiel was noting but bullshit from the get go.

I'm now going back to the "purity" side of the isle, as the "moderate" big tent side can't be trusted, or even believed, anymore.

HOCKEN: The press will print any trash these days! A picture of you on top of the Queen with her legs spread *and they call that news!!!*

Now I'm all for posting stuff like that!

Posted by: Mætenloch at September 19, 2010 05:49 PM (vfNQj)

It ain't about covering or not covering negative news. DrewM IMO put up the witch post as an I told you so post.

Her profession is imaging and media relations, yet through her own actions she's provided ass hat Maher miles of video tape in which she looks like a dim bulb loon. 

And that's fine, but we're past that.  Otherwise, we might as well hope she fails.  She's the nominee and I hope she wins - especially against a Marxist.  She wouldn't be the first dim bulb senator from the state.

I really think the whole Delaware issue is divisive and is doing nothing but tearing people apart. At the same time, I recognize the stakes are high and people are just blowing off steam, but is this really the best way to do it? Perhaps energy would be better spent by energizing those who aren't sure about who they want to vote for or if they even want to vote at all.

Another thing that must be said is, since I first started reading AoSHQ in '07, I've never seen shouting of this magnitude, and every screaming fight makes me question how I feel about the site. I mean, I love the bloggers, the people, the humor, but I want to read something that adds and doesn't subtract. So, I'm feeling torn.

Posted by: Y-not at September 19, 2010 05:55 PM (osFsP)

Not this crap again, you don't like her, we get it.

George Bush was a frigging alcoholic until he was 40 for crists sake.

Ultimately, what's said on this or any other blog probably isn't going to do much to sway the opinion of most voters in Delaware, and THEY are the only ones who will be making this decision.  My guess is that they would rather the rest of the country stayed out of this.....

I have really just been wincing over the past week or so at the way that so many otherwise relatively level-headed bloggers have been willing to rip shreds of flesh off of other bloggers for their OPINION on this particular race.  I'm more concerned that otherwise friendly relationships have been irrevocably altered.

It's one race, and while it could be considered important, it's not important enough to be causing this much rancor.  The mood of the country is turning, and the result of this primary was a wake-up call for the GOP establishment.  Even if we lose this race (which wasn't even on our radar until a couple of weeks ago as a possible game-changer), the Republican voters of Delaware have given a HUGE wake-up call to the entire Republican party. 

That's a GOOD thing.....

Listen folks . . . AOSHQ . . . you should proceed with doing what is right and risking the consequences.  However, you are torturing us with your whipsaw approach to the C'OD subject matter with the ping, pong approach.

Take a deep breath . . . For I have a story.

Remember the weird video in the mid 80's circulating around called, Faces of Death . . . it was bizarre and creepy with an even creepier Doctor that hosted it.  OK . . . here's my point . . . in one of the grotesque and provocative episodes . . . there were a bunch of rich Europeans vacationing in some part of Africa seated at a round table with a lazy susan type of rotating disk in the middle of the table with a live monkey in the lazy susan disk.  Each of the seated guests would take turns hammering the head of the monkey as they were all soon to feast on the monkey's brain . . . each of the guests had a mallet and would thrust it on the head of the monkey while turning away claiming oh, eeh, ooh.  But never the less they hammered away.  

For some this will simply be an abstract story of a creepy subject.  For others such as the cerbebral helsman operating Ace, they will understand it to be instructive and give up the mallet and release the monkey . . . for they are beginning to understand that we are really getting tired of them swining the mallet while uttering, eeh, ooh, ah, eeew.  

"Posted by: Chris in Va at September 19, 2010 05:51 PM (uCjoj)"

Yeah, I agree that it's a pretty lame excuse that the trash being posted is coming from Bill Maher, the guy who believes that the American people are too stupid to be trusted with democracy.

And while we're at it, how come Rove didn't insist that Bush respond to Michael Moore's clips? 

It's always someone else's fault, isn't it Georgie Boy?  So, why were you reading "My Pet Goat" while Americans were dying on 9/11? 

Answer, biatch!!! 

Please. If there was an old video of Murkowski saying that you would in conniptions.

If she said the exact same thing?  Wrong.  Still a non-story from an idiotic program.  If Murkowski or O'Donnell said they dabbled in cocaine, yeah, that's a story.  Dabbling in witchcraft?  Who cares?

Posted by: rdbrewer at September 19, 2010 06:02 PM (Q43FA)

You hate bowlers, cheesburger eaters and teen age witches. It's obvious.

But those of us who were against O'Donnell are never going to be wild cheerleaders for you, because we're in the exact situation we tried desperately not to be in, that is, having to constantly defend and spin for a very flawed candidate.

I'm fine with that.  I'm not really an O'Donnell supporter - especially since I don't live in DE - but she is the candidate.  Unity would be nice, but I don't expect blind allegiance.

You hate bowlers, cheesburger eaters and teen age witches. It's obvious.

I wasn't writing about OD.  I was writing about you.  Guess you missed that one, huh?

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 06:02 PM (bZ4G+)

I think you have that wrong, ace.  I'm not going to speak for robtr, but I will speak for myself. 

I did not have a horse in this race, at all.  Neither were "ideal" candidates in my book.  You will find nowhere on this blog where I stated a preference prior to the primary... heck.  I don't think I've even said I had preference after, because I never did.

But when the returns came in I got on the effing CRAZY TRAIN.  Just go with it man.

I wasn't writing about OD.  I was writing about you.  Guess you missed that one, huh?

Posted by: rdbrewer at September 19, 2010 06:06 PM (Q43FA)

Probably, I usually read what you post with disinterest.

"Maher came up with an O'Donnell hologram and fed her lines 12 years ago in preparation for her run for the US Senate."

So that's what you believe Michael Moore did with Bush?

Keep it up, Chrissie.  You're scoring your cause no points.

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 06:02 PM (bZ4G+)"

DING DING DING!!! 

Same for Rush.

Probably, I usually read what you post with disinterest.

But lots of emotion, huh?

The OD supporters need to examine their judgement, not their commitment.  She's the nominee. Block, Deflect, Pary, Counter. 

 But this constant anklebiting over an obviously flawed candidate is tiresome. 

Ask yourself this question: Have you ever been dumb enough to be a panelist on Bill Maher's show?

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 06:09 PM (bZ4G+)

WTF?  So all this Ewok shit was a LIE!

Posted by: The Chicken at September 19, 2010 06:12 PM (RsgqX)

Do you REALLY want to know?

Come on over.

98 I actually don't mind the subject or tone of any of these threads but I do dislike the vitriol on display in the comments among fakey internet friends. 

Brilliant!  If nothing else, the O'Donnell threads bring out the worst in everyone.  The fighting gets tiresome from both sides.  And if I may quote Grand Moff Tarkin:

"This bickering is pointless."

Yeah, it's bitchy, and we shouldn't do it, but you have to make allowance for that fact that we're *fuzzy little humanoids.*

_fify

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 06:02 PM (bZ4G+)

Just for the record. I never commented on her or Castle during the primary. I didn't know anything about her until after she won the primary.

I have never listened to Mark Levin for more than 5 minutes, haven't read his book and the only reason I know he has a position on this is because you and other cobloggers mentioned it.

Sorry to ruin your fantasy. My only point has been that after the election either support her or don't.

The liberals have attacking her covered.

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 06:09 PM (bZ4G+)

Yeah, but can you put the I-told-you-sos on ice until Nov. 3rd?  After the election, there will be plenty of time for one side to rub the other's nose in it.  But until then, the focus ought to be on helping this "unelectable" candidate make the best use of her $1.8 million (and growing) war chest to beat My Pet Marxist.

Admit it, Ace, you'd be okay with eating a little crow on Election Night if it came as the side on a big plate of GOP victory, wouldn't you?

I HATE YOU MATT HASSELBECK!!!

I love him!  (Being a Broncos fan and all.) 

Posted by: Chris in Va at September 19, 2010 06:12 PM (uCjoj)

Haven't you learned by now Chris? Nothing is ever her fault. Sure you may remember way back in the Time Immemorial of last week, when pretty much every single endorsement of CO was prefaced with "even though I know she won't win", but that's just your brain playing tricks on you. Now not only can she win, she absolutely will win, and if she doesn't it's all our fault for not singing her praises and supporting her 110%.

The fact that there's a poll on this is deeply disturbing.

Now onto other business- Who Dey!

Speaking of candidates that we might want to cover, it sounds like Sean Bielat is making Barney Frank hear footsteps - he's got Slick Willie coming in to campaign for him in deep blue Massachusetts.

If we want to do a whole lot of good in a district that just might be thinking that ol' Barney's been in there long enough, maybe someone up in that part of the country can see about how to get together a moneybomb for Mr. Bielat.

I know we'd contribute some Texas greenbacks to get that fraud drummed out of Congress for good......

_{Posted by: Kevin Willis at September 19, 2010 06:16 PM (q7sqg)}

What you talkin' bout, kevin?

Ok, if the liberal media covers O'Donnell, Ace has got to cover her.  In other words, Ace has got to parrot the state run media.  So, you have to help promote the mainstream liberal agenda.

Whose side are you on?  You would rather parrot the liberal media (who destroys conservatives) then conduct some independent analysis.  Reminds of pre-primary when certain blogs were regurgitating Castle team's oppositon research.

I got a better idea.  Let's start a new game.  How many ways can you spell Murcowsci?

I will go first:

MurUCANBLOWski.

Extra points for a Gibson shriek.

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 06:15 PM (bZ4G+)

The problem with having a little heart with the grumbling losers is that the time and energy you spend grumbling is time and energy the team needs you to spend on helping the candidate win.  Okay, you didn't like her before the primary and you don't have to like her now -- but she's the one and only vehicle we have with which to win a US Senate seat in Delaware in November 2010.  There is no use in comparing her to the other vehicle we coulda or shoulda had: absent a time machine, the primary is over and the choice is between O'Donnell and Coons, not O'Donnell and some other ideal GOP candidate.

It would be uncharitable of me to say, "Put on your big boy pants and stop sniveling," so I won't.

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 06:15 PM (bZ4G+)

I strenuously disagree. What I see happening is that because your big tent loser™ lost, you want to tank the winner, even though your actions ONLY help the other side. Is that really your goal? I hope not, but judging on what I see your cob-loggers doing, I'll have to admit that I can't tell the difference. It just makes the pragmatism sermons look like B.S. as you are now not even willing to follow your previous advice.

Unity? Who gives a fuck, you are having your oh-so-moderate tantrum no matter how much it helps the Dems.

So lets cover other races, too.

Yes. Seeing something about the other races would be good. For example, Dino Rossi, will he epically trounce Patty Murray?

Also, and maybe this isn't quite the scope of this blog, but it would be interesting to read about the mood in the elections for state representatives too. It has been mentioned before here in blog posts that Republicans need to start fighting back and winning elections from dog catcher on up, so, how is that going this election? Is there a trend that Republicans are possibly going to take back state legislatures as well?

Hmmm...

Watch football or discuss the Crazy Train, Purists and Rinos.....

Decisions.

I voted "yes" by the way.

Honestly I can't believe this is even a debate.  AOS is supposed to embargo news now?  No thanks. 

This blog has proven what a great place it is by all the debate and argument about this.  No embargos, no banhammers etc. And this coming from bloggers who, like me and a bunch of others were begrudgingly for Castle for strategic reasons and now formally support Crazy Train for Senate (said with loving affection of course).

And the Cowgirls suck.  That is all.

Posted by: Chris in Va at September 19, 2010 06:12 PM (uCjoj) "

So, you're a fucking asshole, fine.  I get that.  You're also incredibly dense, or borderline illiterate.  I haven't said a word about whether O'Donnell is fucking awesome or a doofus.  I don't know her that well.

I do know Bill Maher, and he continues to show himself for the attention-seeking whore he's always been -- "Until she shows up on my show, I'll keep dribbling these things out, bit by bit...."

So, yeah, I know where he's coming from.  And there's nothing illogical about questioning the motives of someone who won't put out the entire transcripts.  And there's nothing illogical about demanding a bit of context to comments made on an intentionally edgy entertainment show, whose entire purpose was to use every trick in their production arsenal to make out right wingers to be as  loony as possible.  And there's nothing illogical about reminding people that this was not some campaign statement made last week, or even a political speech made a decade ago, but a clip from Bill Fucking Maher's show.  The only thing it shows about Christine O'Donnell is that she was rather naive a decade ago, and enjoyed getting on TV a decade ago.

With all your talk about logic and whatnot, you might try exercising a bit of it.

Posted by: Atomic Roach

Holy shit! How the hell did you do that?

I don't know how you can't get that to many of us O'Donnell is a crazy buffoon of a candidate, utterly unqualified for office, and at worst a huckster who has violated the law.

Of course Castle sucked. No one ever claimed he was awesome. I challenge you to find one post stating that he kicked ass. You won't. But he 1) could win & 2) wasn't insane.

Posted by: Chris in Va at September 19, 2010 06:22 PM (uCjoj)

So how does your repeating tirelessly that "O'Donnell is a crazy buffoon of a candidate, utterly unqualified for office, and at worst a huckster who has violated the law" help her beat Coons?  Or are you just making it your mantra because it makes you feel better personally?

Furthermore, Castle's electability is no longer germane, because to be electable you have to win the nomination.  Which, you may have noticed, he did not.

Posted by: bloggers who "suport" wink wink nudge nudge O'Donnell

Don't mind us; we're going to act like we don't know what's in the news.

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at September 19, 2010 06:25 PM (RsgqX)

I'd rather let Christoph back in to tell us how evil Christians are than to hear people bitching about the Delaware debacle.

Good fucking God.

Posted by: Atomic Roach

Holy shit! How the hell did you do that?

Posted by: at at September 19, 2010 06:27 PM (awinc)\

Radiation poisoning.

Yeeeeeeeeeeees. Cry Brady, you little bitch!

_{And pssst.... Colts v. Giants @8:15.}

While we are busy discussing Delaware (which already got a substantial money bomb), other candidates around the country could use our help.  Michigan, for example, has the Bart Stupak seat up and Pelosi is pouring money into the dem candidate.  We could take that seat if the candidate , Dan Benishek, could get some money.  Steele is not doing his job, so we should be.  Talk about Delaware when something comes up, but the rest of the time, HELP THE OTHER CANDIDATES.

It would be helpful to have a 'status page' with a list of all the candidates, their opponents and maybe the state of their war chest...keep it updated on an ongoing basis.

Oh no......I'd rather piss on and then burn my Zach Greinke jersey.

Posted by: Mallamutt at September 19, 2010 06:31 PM (OWjjx)

How bout them Rockies?

Posted by: bloggers who "suport" wink wink nudge nudge O'Donnell

Don't mind us; we're going to act like we don't know what's in the news.

Posted by: commentors who know what's news, and it isn't Coons right now at September 19, 2010 06:28 PM (Q43FA)

Exactly, and thank you for doing your part to keep me out of the news, i truly appreciate it.

George Bush was a frigging alcoholic until he was 40 for crists sake.

George Bush, ya know, actually did something with his life after that. Governing Texas I believe.

Posted by: RINO at September 19, 2010 06:00 PM (uCjoj)

Thanks for making my point.

Yes. Seeing something about the other races would be good. For example, Dino Rossi, will he epically trounce Patty Murray?

Posted by: ParanoidVoterInSeattle at September 19, 2010 06:26 PM (RZ8pf)

Not to open another can of worms, but I have as much disgust for Clint Didier and his "I won't let you play with my toys if I can't make the rules" bitchiness as I have for Mike Castle's "how dare you defeat me" sulking.  Hey Clint: you lost.  Suck it up and support the team.

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 06:34 PM (bZ4G+)

OK.

See how easy that was Ace?

Posted by: Chris in Va at September 19, 2010 06:35 PM (uCjoj)

My question is, does your endless repetition of it make you feel better?  Do you take emotional solace from saying it over and over and over?  I mean, it's not like the rest of us aren't crystal-clear on how you feel.

 In all seriousness, I asked this last night and I think we were sick of talking about it. But seeing that 25% or so people taking this poll said 'no' to any neg. coverage, I'd like to revisit it.

She's new on the scene. She's going to do and say stupid shit in the coming weeks. It's inevitable. Every new kid on the block pol makes rookie mistakes. She will be no different.

Or those off limits too -or- just her casual banter on Bill Maher because (a) it was in the past and (b) we all *hate* him anyway?

I'm still confused and left scratching my head at the standards some of you want the rest of us to abide by.

Not to open another can of worms, but I have as much disgust for Clint Didier and his "I won't let you play with my toys if I can't make the rules" bitchiness as I have for Mike Castle's "how dare you defeat me" sulking.  Hey Clint: you lost.  Suck it up and support the team.

Posted by: stuiec at September 19, 2010 06:36 PM (fgCQL)

Big time.  I have as much contempt for Didier as I do for the Alaskan Merkin.  Diddled could be magnanimous about it and run in 12 against that other non entity Cantwell.  What a dick.

I guess I'm just pleading for a bit of realism as regards human egos -- you're simply not going to find me, or Drew, or Gabe, or etc., taking point on this. We can be good soldiers but we aren't going to be *special forces* soldiers on this, you know?

We lost. Keep that in mind! *WE LOST.* Yeah we have to get over ourselves and move on to what's important but have a little heart about the losers who are still doing a little grumbling.

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 06:15 PM (bZ4G+)

How about this?  Just stop covering O'Donnell completely?  No good news...no bad news.

Posts about here drive people crazy, so just avoid it.

I mean people and families do that all the time, avoiding topics that cause more trouble than they are worth.

Cover Castle, cover any other race.

You've already made it clear you can't cheerlead very vigorously for O'Donnell.  OK, cheerlead vigorously for who you CAN.

No one closes like the Rockies.....not even Marianno.

Posted by: Mallamutt at September 19, 2010 06:37 PM (OWjjx)

It's a shame they don't rub off on the Broncos.  Tulu has been unreal as of late.

The choice should be "news" or "leftiest crap". News fine, but not leftist crap. Old clips from douchebags are fine as long as they are accompanied by text saying that it's an old clip from a douchebag and isn't it funny that they aren't publishing any old clips about Coon's bearded marxist.

How 'bout draw a bearded marxist day?

"In your rant, I noticed you still failed to address whether or not anything is Christine O'Donnell's fault. Which I suppose answer's the question."

I see your reading comprehension problems continue.  Try reading my third sentence again.  I don't know Christine O'Donnell from Christie Todd Whitman.  But I do know Bill Maher.  And I'm figuring you out pretty quickly as well -- at least as regards this topic.

And while you're at it, look up the fucking grammar rules on the use of apostrophes.  I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to make a verb into a possessive before.  Occasional plurals, yes, but never a fricking verb.

It's one thing to be a moron.  We all are.  It's another thing to be a moron who thinks "answers" (vt) needs an apostrophe. 

Even morons have standards.  (Or should that be standard's?)

_{Posts about here drive people crazy, so just avoid it.}

Really? 

We just give her the Michelle Obama treatment because the posts draw out comments from the rabid?

That's bullshit.

Hey, I kept my mouth shut about McCain, I put his sign in my yard, wore his fucking button, knocked on doors, put his bumper sticker on my car and talked him up and Obama down. I hated it but I did it in hopes of saving the fucking country from Obama and the communists. It was less worse fighting in Vietnam or Korea and the goal--stopping the flow of communism--was the same. I didn't like McCain, he had all kinds of issues for me, but I didn't stay home or try to show how cool I was in my hatred of him.

Just remember the goal, and if the post advances the goal, post it or present it in a way that advances the goal.

Can we fly the PeaceBlimp®^{-Where R is for 'retarded'}  over this blog??

I think that would go a loooooong way to healing our DE Senatorial wounds!

Poll

Is Zombie Karl Marx more pumped up about....

A. Talk of Marxism in Delaware

or

B. Talk of his kickass beard in Delaware

Is Zombie Karl Marx more pumped up about....

Can I please go w/a write-in?

(c) that he has a devotee residing in the West Wing.

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 06:45 PM (bZ4G+)

I wish you would enlighten me on that because I am having a pretty hard time figuring out what someone did as a teenager has to do with what she is doing today. I shot at communists with a rifle when I was a teen. I don't do that anymore.

I said O'Donnell couldn't win. Most of you said, "Fine, she can't win, that's not the point, winning is immaterial."

Okay, well if it's immaterial, what's all the anger about now?

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 06:45 PM (bZ4G+)

This x infinity.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at September 19, 2010 06:51 PM (F7bD+)

And a beard!

_{It's not important to be specific.}

Pussy.  I'll be specific. 

She's like having Bristol Palin running for the Biden/Delaware Seat.  Maybe worse as Palin's endorsement of her own daughter would have merit.

Posted by: Serious Cat at September 19, 2010 06:53 PM (bAySe)

Yet you are here....

Insufferable only up to a point eh?

Posted by: fluffy, ready to fap at September 19, 2010 06:55 PM (4Kl5M)

Uh, would it be pron, then? 

Posted by: garrett at September 19, 2010 06:54 PM (pgGw/)

True.  I'm sure Mitttens Romney would as well.  Would Levi's Johnston?

Ace, my son . . . you appear to have much trepidation over your own actions. Some would suggest guilt, and others . . . insecurity.  My son . . . do not be bothered with labels of such feelings . . . for it is all cast in the molten crucible of passion . . . passions of letters in your case with a lust of pride found in your Castle, a man called . . . home.     

And a beard!

Ah ha! I believe I see what you did there. Nicely played, sir!

I wish you would enlighten me on that because I am having a pretty hard time figuring out what someone did as a teenager has to do with what she is doing today.

Being 30 is considered a teenager?

Yay! That means I get to go shoping for Homecoming dresses!!

2 Cute + 2 B = 4gotten!

. _{I shot at communists with a rifle when I was a teen. I don't do that anymore.}

Problem with that is you give the other Commies something to eat.   Best to just wait it out and let them starve.

Oh no you di'int!!!!!

_{ps....not an accurate comparison though -- Bristol's actually had sex}

Posted by: nevergiveup at September 19, 2010 06:58 PM (U5btG)

Boo.  Only because of Pick em.  Otherwise I'd root for the Jets in that one.

the broncs had an easy day today.  Rocks up 6 - 5 in the 7th.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at September 19, 2010 06:56 PM (L8kaT)

Where is Editor?  Do you live in Denver?

_{Posts about here drive people crazy, so just avoid it.}

Really? 

We just give her the Michelle Obama treatment because the posts draw out comments from the rabid?

That's bullshit.

Posted by: garrett at September 19, 2010 06:46 PM (pgGw/)

Huh?  I'm not following you.  And you are a commenter, no offense, just like me.  My above comment was addressed to ace and generally, the cob-loggers.

Posted by: Editor at September 19, 2010 06:59 PM (YX6i/)

Heh.  Yeah, I stand corrected.  I don't mind being wrong if it means a Denver win. I wish I could have watched the whole game.  Down here I've been watching the Red Zone Channel.

At 30, she was recounting something from her past.

And at 30 she didn't have enough sense to think it might not be a story that she'd want to share?? Who in hades volunteers that type of information on national tv?

Posted by: Editor at September 19, 2010 07:00 PM (YX6i/)

I meant Guy Fawkes.

_{Bristol's actually had sex}

That Child Was Immaculately Conceived!

O'Donnell: "I Dabbled Into Witchcraft"
—DrewM.

If you saw only the headline, what would you think?

I'm not gonna speak for ace, but I'd think: "O'Donnell said she dabbled in witchcraft." Which is true. It's not like if it wasn't posted here no one would find out about it. Am I missing something?

I can do light cheerleading. I can attack Coons, who is an asshole.

I cannot defend CO'D against certain charges that I happen to believe, well, I believe what I believe. It's not important to be specific.

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 06:49 PM (bZ4G+)

Then, please, do so.  Do the light cheerleading. Do the attacks.

Look, I know you don't have an investigative staff, so its hard for you to actually do oppo research on Coons.  All you really have to work with it analyzing and spinning the MFM and other bloggers.  And since all anyone is talking about is O'Donnell, yeah, its hard for you to get any grip on Coons.

So maybe go old school.  Put aside the smart analysis and go for the snarky humor.  You know, what sort of D&D character would Coons be?

You're still funny.  Use that tool. 

_{Huh?  I'm not following you.}

I don't think we should encourage the cobloggers and head hobo hunter to skip any snark-worthy news.  Period.

I think they do this with FLOTUS due to her incendiary nature.

Her saving grace is that she's running against a commie who literally never saw a tax cut he didn't like.

who literally never saw a tax he didn't like.

Here's my suggestion on how we can all be "good soldiers:" If you don't like COD, just attack Coons. If you like COD, say nice things about her. Either way, make reasonable, detailed lists of why (1) people should vote for COD or (2) people should not vote for Coons.

Its the piss-and-moan stuff that is driving some readers crazy. We understand the anti-COD folks are upset, we just don't want to see more than, say, a week's worth of pissing and moaning before the anti-COD crowd gets to work electing a a reliable vote against Obama and his policies and legislation.

This assumes you prefer a vote in the Senate against Obama to a COD loss and the ability to say, "I told you she was unelectable." I'm no longer sure about some people here when it comes to that, and that is truly sad.

You may flame when ready.

344 I guess I'm just pleading for a bit of realism as regards human egos -- you're simply not going to find me, or Drew, or Gabe, or etc., taking point on this. We can be good soldiers but we aren't going to be *special forces* soldiers on this, you know?

We lost. Keep that in mind! *WE LOST.* Yeah we have to get over ourselves and move on to what's important but have a little heart about the losers who are still doing a little grumbling.

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 06:15 PM (bZ4G+)

You're kidding right? Man up.

Posted by: Mætenloch at September 19, 2010 07:09 PM (vfNQj)

"I let Satan into my Realm"  ( IYKWIMAITYD )

Jeez Mareez, can we taped off with the COD stories?  Let her get a campaign going and then cover the issues, etc

Otherwise this place will start to look like CBS online with a lotta cussing

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 07:12 PM (bZ4G+)

That's because it's not intramural anymore!  Now were up against a common enemy.  We're just asking you to play like it.  That is all. 

Again, I didn't have horse in the primary race, until it was decided by the Delaware voters.

Posted by: Jeff at September 19, 2010 07:15 PM (+5uxG)

Look at the bright side, you will have someone you can relate to in the Senate!

334 Ace

< Ace, in all seriousness my friend - This is why I always stick by AOSHQ with or without the infighting.  You are reasonable . . . always thoughtful and reasonable at the end of the day . . . or week.

Just keep staying honest to what you believe and feel . . . it's gotten you where you are at after all.

The dems are bastards and this is truly it . . .

Later,

Journolist

but the day after she will still be a flake ...  a conservative GOP flake ...

Do conservative GOP flakes vote with Pelosi/Obama? Because, in the end, that's all that matters.

She can be a fucking loon if she votes correctly and BTW that's what the dem's say about their crazy-asses in the senate and in the house and as despicable as it is, they are right.

OK, I think I got it.

Anyway, earlier I said this blog needs to decide it it wants to be openly for ousting the Dems.

Or is it looking to just be funny, regardless of who it zings?  Is it looking to objectively report news are provide commentary, and let the chips fall where they may?

I'm pretty sure ace is primarily for ousting the dems.

And my suggesting was that based of the feelings of him and the co-bloggers and this audience, perhaps it would best to avoid O'Donnell posts.  So we wouldn't have a mini civil war, and instead could unite to oust the dems everywhere. 

I don't think we should encourage the cobloggers and head hobo hunter to skip any snark-worthy news.  Period.

I think they do this with FLOTUS due to her incendiary nature.

Posted by: Palinisto! at September 19, 2010 07:08 PM (pgGw/)

OK, I think I got it.

Anyway, earlier I said this blog needs to decide it it wants to be openly for ousting the Dems.

Or is it looking to just be funny, regardless of who it zings?  Is it looking to objectively report news are provide commentary, and let the chips fall where they may?

I'm pretty sure ace is primarily for ousting the dems.

And my suggesting was that based of the feelings of him and the co-bloggers and this audience, perhaps it would best to avoid O'Donnell posts.  So we wouldn't have a mini civil war, and instead could unite to oust the dems everywhere. 

(sorry about the double post)

Ace & Mætenloch,

Post whatever you want.  I just find this interesting that RSCC, Rove, Krauthammer, Ace, Powerline, Weekly Standard, NRO...and the list goes on.

This was ATTACK & DESTROY as soon as the returns were in.  A bunch of baby's throwing their toys out of their pram.

Just made a personal list of WHO not to get into a foxhole with. Being shot in the back is not one of my fondest desires.

If I was of generous spirit I could just chalk it up to a difference of opinion, yet one of my personal rules is give someone precisely as much benefit of the doubt as they give to others.

There seem to be 3 questions which should be 1.) the IRS Lien, 2,) the forclosure and maybe 3,) the mattress.

As to the IRS lien, I was a tax accountant for over 25 years, and prepared 8,000+ tax returns.  My experience is 75+% of liens are placed in error. So, professionally, until all the facts are available, not much here IMHO.

The forclosure deal I don't know anything, yet it was interesting that on Friday, the Washington Post, had a big expose about rampant errors in forclosure, in Prince Georges County, MD.

Lastly, I admit a $500+ mattress looks damning.  Much worst then the multitude of Congress Critters who put their family members on salaries (some 6 figures) in their campaigns and PAC's.

The most interesting component of this matter to me is finding out just HOW MANY on the right side of things really, really support Cap & Trade and the DISCLOSE Act. Again babys throwing their toys out of the pram.

Regards,

jeff hey, way to go with bringing everyone together!

I'm pretty far away from a social conservative. I am however aknowledging we have millions without jobs because of the Left and softys giving into the left  screwing our country, Are you gay? i don't care! you smoke pot ? 

 I don't care! what i care about are my kids having jobs and feeding the grandkids. the only social issue  I have in common is pretty much abortion,However  I do have a problem with partial birth abortions and Republicans did too That decided me. Fiscal responsibilty? hah   Bush loving and defending our country YES

People in Delawre that happened to be Republicans voted for Her, , srsly i don't get why everyone is helping tress her up.

I voted McCain, i didn't feel horrid , you guys picked him and I wanted us to win. what the heck is going on here, It's done! Why is this NOW an argument? it's already Done!

But no, I cannot LIE ABOUT IT.

Is this so hard to understand? IT IS HARD TO LIE ON A DAILY BASIS. Sometimes, sure. I can lie.

Some people are proposing what I find to be the most absurd we-don't-care-if-it's-true-just-say-it-anyway spin imaginable, like "It's not news if a Senate candidate says she kissed a witch on a blood-strewn Satanic altar."

I cannot lie that much . Sorry.

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 07:20 PM (bZ4G+)

So don't lie for her.  Attack Coons.  Stop posting negative information about O'Donnell.

To use a sports metaphore, a foot ball team has many differnt players and rolls.

Some are quarterbacks.  Some play offense, some play defense.

Then you have the cheerleaders.

And the towel boys.

And the offensive and defensive coachs.

Pick your roll / position, and then do the best you can with it.

If you don't want to squeeze your body into a sequined bikini and wave pom-poms for O'Donnell, fine don't.

Become that 350lb defensive line backer hopped up on steroids and pudding pops and tackle Coons.

You do that and no one will give a shit that you ain't "cheerleading for OD"

After 5 days of this I have changed my mind. O' Donnell is terrible, there is no way she can overcome the insurmountable 11 point lead he opponent has. It doesn't matter that she has $1.9 Million and her opponent only has $150,000.

She was a teen age witch and that's a game changer.

I am also going to give the communism thing a second look as well. I could have been wrong about that too. The Chinese seem to be doing ok.

Now, I have to run to the store. I am out of Eye of the Newt and need some for the dinner I am making.

Later.

Yes, I see it coming. I know what that sort of mentality is capable of. In order to avoid ever confessing error a scapegoat, and Immanuel Goldstein, will be created.

This.  Taking responsibility for any mistake that might pan out won't happen.  It never does for people like that.

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 07:27 PM (bZ4G+)

I hope you're not generalizing, here.

Hey, perhaps for now we should consider sheathing our swords.  Ace is speaking his mind - a mind that has drawn 91M viewers to the greater cause. So its not like he's working for the other side now is it?

And besides, there will be plenty of time to bolo punch Drew in electronic format later on over something.  

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 07:29 PM (bZ4G+)

Uh, I have to go sit down, now.  This is not the Ace of Spades HQ that I thought it was.

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 07:37 PM (bZ4G+)

Because, why do you have to put such a story up? That I think is the point... I mean, I don't really see much reason for doing so since the MFM are going to parade that shit night and day.

Regarding comment #408, OK, do you think it is a bona fide skelaton for the 20% of the undecided voters?

Honestly, I don't think it is.  Especially if it is spun right.

Dabbled in witchcraft vs. hey, went on a few goofy dates with some nerdy kid who thought he was a witch.  What can I say?  I was young, dumb and ready to vote for someone like Coons at that time.  Sorry.  I grew out of that a long time ago.  Like almost 20 years ago.

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 07:40 PM (bZ4G+)

Yes, we disagree on this, straight up.  I'm exactly the "type" of voter they would hope it would freak out.  I'm a hardcore evangelical.  Guess what?  I find her stories of redemption and growing up to be credible... because it's my story.

But *I* am not going to decide this. 20% of undecided voters will

And those 20% largely vote on tone, advantage MFM wing.

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 07:40 PM (bZ4G+)

Yeah, there's some truth to that.  My worry is that she is kinda flakey.  So yeah, she's gotta figure out a way to deal with it. 

But if she's already joking about it, she's halfway there to beating this thing.

So.

When are you going to unleash your bezerker fury on Coons?

Flakey? McCain, that called his wife a slut in fornt of other? Flakey for illegal immigration while against it! Flakey? much bigger than being a stupid young adult,

i voted for McCain for our greater good, because We were asked too! and it was better than Obama!

The negative stories, no, don't boycott them.  What chaps my ass is the hysterical shirt rending going on every time one comes out, accompanied by the shrill denunciations of the Tea Parties for derailing a perfectly functional party machine.  Nope - I'm not saying you're doing that, I'm referring to the statements of other pundits, many of whom I had previously thought were level headed.

The party machine is the problem.  If O'Donnell goes down in flames, it won't be because the Tea Party is wrong.  And it won't justify handing over the keys to the gatekeepers and elitists who have screwed the nation and betrayed the principles it was built upon.

Fuck them.  All of them.  Maybe they can take out O'Donnell, but we are coming after every one of those bastards.  Every single one is in the crosshairs.

Give me everything you know about O'Donnell.  But spare me the doomsday hands-to-the-face prognostications about something like a college girl who was into witchcraft.  That just makes her sexier, not less electable.

The poll is f-ing retarded.  Nobody seriously objects to be informed, we're objecting to the spin that it's somehow gonna doom her when it gets out that she dabbled in eye-of-newts and bat hairs. 

Because, why do you have to put such a story up? That I think is the point... I mean, I don't really see much reason for doing so since the MFM are going to parade that shit night and day.

Oopsie, I posted as Nancy Pelosi, but it's me. 

ace:Tell me how much cocooning you require and I'll tell you if I can comply

How about this?  You tell me how much ripping on Coons can I handle?  I'll let you know up front: quite a bit.

In fact, how about a deal:  For every kick-ass post that tears Coons a new ass and generates comments along the lines of "right on ace!  You showed him!" and "LOL!!"--you can post one that explains all of your doubts and concerns about O'Donnell.

What do you say?

One for one trade.

Posted by: Y-not at September 19, 2010 07:55 PM (osFsP)

Really? You see equivalency there?

Is it really so much to ask that we support our people and hit theirs, and let them do their own dirt? We will already be seeing the dirt elsewhere, so the argument about cocooning is a strawman. It's just why does it need to be here?

this is frustrating I know we all want to win. Delawre voted for Her. Help her win.

I find it absurd that when the chosen candidate isn;t chosen we have pundits shrieking at the top of their lungs how screwed we voters are. Like we arent' allowed to have an opinion. How about dragging all the dirt out on Castle? if not than Hey our real combatant Coons?

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at September 19, 2010 06:03 PM (zgZzy)

Actually, I've thought that the most notable part of this particular story was who is supposed to care.

I think that there is a narrative out there about conservatives and by extension "Tea Partiers" that I think was best crystallized for me by Ace quite some time ago.

They really think that conservatives are like the fictional townspeople from the movie 'Footloose' who wanted to ban dancing!

I can hear it now...

"Wait 'till those superstitious rubes get a load of this!  Their Tea Party candidate is a witch!"

I mean, I've got my problems with anybody that dabbles with being a Wiccan but I will have to admit that it stems less from any sort of a fundamentalist zeal than it does an inherit allergy to even the faintest dusting of hippiedom and an intolerance for rampant silliness.

ace: We at AoSHQ have passed on seven and printed one but you are demanding a "bad vibes free zone."

That's called "cocooning," demanding that your media shield you from stories you might not like.

What are you?  Are you the objectively objective media?

Or are you a partisan blogger, looking to oust as many Dems as possible?

Seriously, what is it?

Just to lighten the mood in this thread, please read the 2nd to last sentence in this obit.

I love postmortem FU's!

You know who else have been controversial??

..Angle and Kirk

Let's fucking burn their asses too. I mean there is a principle involved here

Posted by: Mætenloch at September 19, 2010 07:58 PM (vfNQj)

I am not calling for an embargo, I am asking for the reasoning behind putting up all these negative stories about her. We are already aware of that, and as ace has been saying in this thread, those stories aren't going to hurt or help her with us. So why put any story up then?

It just seems a bit weird to me. I am NOT calling for an embargo.

Ace, honey, as someone who has raised 3 teenaged daughters, I am here to tell you that the "Satanic altar" that you are referencing was - seriously - nothing more than a concrete slab that someone rubbed ketchup on.

This was done when she was in high school or early college, right?  She's a looker now, and I'm willing to bet that she has always been a looker.  I GUARANTEE you, the kid who told her that he was trying to seduce her on a Satanic altar was just saying whatever he thought would sound edgy enough to get into her pants.

Given that it probably happened in the late '80s/early 90's, he had a better than average shot.....

Everybody agrees that we have to be careful with unvetted candidates, because of the increased risk that something will blow up in our faces.  

You can't warn people about that and then "see, i was right" when O'Donnell witch history comes to light, because that's not dynamite.  I suspect most people rightly shrug their shoulders and chalk it up to a young impressionable girl interested in the mystic powers of something dark and forbidden.  Hell, what young sexy girl worth her salt isn't like that?  When I run office, it might just come to light that I masturbated incessantly to buxomy Japanese girls when I was 15 to 40.  Okay, I'm 42, so 42.

This is nothing.  And not because I think so, but because Americans will think so.      

It is what you are demanding, a full embargo on all negative CO'D stories. We at AoSHQ have passed on seven and printed one but you are demanding a "bad vibes free zone."

So were those seven stories that you passed on along the same lines as the "witchcraft" one, or were they bad enough that they would change peoples' minds?  Because I'm thinking if the MSM had worse stories than this one, they already would have run with them.....

If you pass on WORSE stories, then yeah, that's a problem - we need to know what's going on.  However, those should have come out BEFORE the primaries.

Posted by: steevy at September 19, 2010 08:11 PM (yYZ5z

That's been my premise,  Why is everyone Hot that people are saying hey , we're sick of you jerks sneering from above at us peons,  Looky here, This is you if you don't represent Republican ideals.  So we end up the ass's? Because we say nope no  more?

I love postmortem FU's!

Epic.

I voted no, because O'Donnell topics bring out obvious sore loser Castle supporters/staff. And that brings out the Kool-Aid drinking O'Donnell supporters.

Why repeat this over and over?

Posted by: Mætenloch at September 19, 2010 08:10 PM (vfNQj)

No, I have asked this about other candidates too, this isn't about O'Donnell. Before the primary, such stories are fine, but after it their value lessens a fair bit.

Look at it this way: I live in CA, so stories about Fiorina prior to the primary, positive or negative, were of interest, but I wouldn't be any interested in any such stories after the primary because I am planning to vote for her against Boxer regardless. Obviously, I'd never vote for Boxer even if some dirt came to light about Fiorina, unless of course such dirt was super damning, but that's not likely.

So, I guess my point is that negative stories about O'Donnell after the primary are really besides the point, and it just strikes me as a slight waste of bandwidth.

"But I would only expect your support of Castle to be perfunctory. I wouldn't expect you to be a rah-rah spin-it-to-win-it cheerleading sort of support.
Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 07:29 PM (bZ4G+) "

There's a small but subtle difference between perfunctory support and outright attack.  Maybe a 1 or 2% difference.

Regards,

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 08:14 PM (bZ4G+)

Dude, you're putting words in my mouth.  I thought you were talking about stories that HADN'T yet been put out there, yet. 

And, I've not said anything about spinning anything. 

And of course everyone is talking about it.

You're having a conversation with someone else while replying to me.

I'm not reading all 500+ comments.

If Bill Maher has anything damaging on O'Donnell, he's not going to keep it to himself whether she's stupid enough to go on his show or not.  He's a lying liberal whore and he'll do what he can to get his pathetic show ratings and harm anyone to the right of him.

And this website should not be censoring itself beyond any information its writers don't feel like sharing.  Making any particular subject/person taboo is just silly.

Incidentally, so what if O'Donnell said she was a witch at one point in her life?  I'm far more inclined to pull my vote for a Twilight fan. Why gosh and golly, she did something dumb and popular for a while.  Name me ONE woman, anywhere, who hasn't.  I bought a pair of leg warmers and I wore them once; it's why I've never run for political office lest the explanations haunt me forever.

Is she a witch NOW?  No?  Then BFD...and I'm sure she made a POINT on that particular show about reasons why you shouldn't be a witch that Maher, for some reason, edited out. Hmmmm....why do ya think he woulda done that?

Dance, my little puppets...dance

mwa-ah-ah

>>>Or are you a partisan blogger, looking to oust as many Dems as possible?

With what ed?

An army of Morons?  Unified in purpose an action?

WTH?

I think that you simultaneously under and over-estimate the power of this blog.

I like to read a good argument.

That's what gets ME going to actually do something on the local level.

If I wanted Rah-Rah, I guess I'd have had Red State in my bookmarks ever, or I'd have bothered reading RS McCain more often in the last 9 months or so.

There are tons of people who post and comment here who are way smarter than I am and I love that about this site.

But chest beating and RAH-RAH?

Kind of a turn off, actually.

(I am a killer phone banker, don't piss me off.)

Been scouring the site for those promised anti-Coons posts.

Sidebar.

What I find baffling is the lack of intellectual curiosity of some that keep repeating the media spin without actually trying to learn the facts.

She was not 30 when she "dabbled" in witchcraft.   She spoke of it then, but it was actually when she was in high school.   Quite a lot longer than 10/11 years.   There are actually parts of that so-called 'witchcraft' vid, that allows you to put it into context, but why bother?   

There are coherent arguments to the BS about foreclosure of her house, but why actually look into that?   FYI, what happened in her case happens to a hell of a lot of people.       

The "Citizens Watchdog Group" that is accusing her of misappropriating campaign funds is a progressive, George Soros funded group.   Oh, and did you know that she actually announced her plans to run in this race last freakin' spring?    Why would we need to ask any questions about that?

There is much more that could be brought to light, but why do that?   I mean if it was somebody that everyone liked in this race, and the same kind of BS was being splattered all over the net, we'd all just repeat the spin, and never do anything to counter it.    Right?

Is being a D&D fan also a game changer?  That pretty much taints the entire male nerd population.  Coons is a marxist (a log) yet we're supposed to get the vapors over the R candidate's mote?

mcdonell isn't the candidate i care about, what i care about is she won, now we push her over the finish line.

The people did something risky, ok yep they did.

We gripe and gripe about our party not standing up for  Ideals, and when Some go and Vote  outside the party line BOOO.,  but for a candidate (i'm sure this was to make a point) about those old guys that won't listen or hear us. everyone is frantic.

go after coons, Rubio wasn't a Winner either, look at him now! or brown. not perfect? nope but what is is they HAVE to listen, become more representative of Republican ideals.

yes sometimes i know reach across the iale is necessary, but it's been way  jerk offs and we are done if we don't make them be responsible.

So, do any of you guys know why she was ever, ever on TV?  She was not an expert, a pundit, a politician, or a politico. 

I voted no in protest of the poll itself. The question should have been should Ace of Spades cover ODonnell news in a positive manner, neutral manner, or in a continued snarky manner. I vote positive, but I can live with neutral. But the Odonnell posts have mostly been snarky including the "Delaware Morons" one.

If Odonnell loses by a few points I will look to Karl Rove and others as responsable for this loss.

Just my take.

Wtichcraft, wicca, new age bullshit, are not the same as satanism.

From that "Politically Incorrect" clip, it sounded like the point O'Donnell wanted to make was that Wicca and Satanism ARE the same things, which is the position of fundies.  I remember seeing her on this show because she was, way back when I watched it, and whenever she was on there she was talking about religion.  But, as I mentioned, Maher edited out any point -- and will continue to do so -- to make her look bad.

So, do any of you guys know why she was ever, ever on TV?  She was not an expert, a pundit, a politician, or a politico. 

She was one of the handful of conservatives who would go on Maher's show back in the day.  Now that's being used against her, which will hopefully teach us all a bit of a lesson.

Posted by: Georgia O'Keefe...my penis...bla bla bla at September 19, 2010 07:38 PM (WmBF6)

You see, not worrying about what others think is excellent advice in a great number of life situations. Elections are not one of those.

So, do any of you guys know why she was ever, ever on TV?  She was not an expert, a pundit, a politician, or a politico. 

She was the founder and president of a religious group called SALT (can't remember what it stands for) and she did the usual "raising awareness" stuff for the group and it's religious causes which led her to washington and tv etc.

Suck it up people!  Everybody here does know that the "Culinary Institute of America" passes secret "recipes" through the comments on this smart military blog, right?

"Turkey trots to water where is the ravishing goat, repeat, where is the ravishing goat all the world wonders."

Posted by: CoolCzech at September 19, 2010 08:56 PM (tJjm/)

"Turkey trots to water where is the ravishing goat, repeat, where is the ravishing goat all the world wonders."

Okay, this is what I think happened on that "Politically Incorrect" show, because I seem to remember seeing that episode...

The subject was witchcraft.

O'Donnell, who's a fundie, equated it to Satanism.

Someone said she didn't know what she was talking about.

O'Donnell claimed she knew something about Wicca because she participated in it for a while in high school.

If you'll look, she herself equated being a witch with Satanism in that clip when she talked about the Satanic altar.

Incidentally, O'Donnell was not a Christian until college.  I remember her saying that on another "Politically Incorrect" show.

Posted by: CoolCzech

Where there is the one, there is the other.

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 07:40 PM (bZ4G+) "

Have to agree with you Ace.  $14 trillion debt is so passe, Obamacare, sorry thats passe also.  Taxes, nobody cares.

ALL these supposed experts, Republican experts, are a pox on our house.  Have you talked to any voters.  I have many Democrat clients here in Maryland, it's interesting to listen to them talk.  Their vibe is anti-Democrat.  Will they vote that way?  I have my doubts, yet...

You may prove correct, BUT in the current environment these issue's which burden your soul aren't very important to people who have lost their job, or fear losing their job.

Regards,

And 'all the world wonders' was actually padding, and not part of the message.

Jeebus, can't anybody here play this game?

Deety at September 19, 2010 08:36 PM (aVzyR)

Deety, in many of his comments, ace has said over and over that he will not "cheerlead" for O'Donnell.

And as far as I'm concerned, that's fine.  Don't.  I mean, you don't want to have to do something that is odious to you.  It makes things no fun and all.

So since as far as I can tell, ace is also very much in the business of getting as many Dems out of office as possible, if he's going to write about Delaware, do it in a way that makes him happy.

Write crazy-ass posts bringing the retard funny agains Coons.  Or just mild posts noting something like "Coons:57-O'Donnell:43  Five weeks to go in Delaware.  Pudding futures considered."

Or don't write anything at all about it.  Write about other races. 

But this whole thing of ace getting into these long ass arguements with commenters over whether or not ace is going to cheerlead is just unseemly.

For fuck's sake, this never ends well.

I mean really, when's the last time that arguing with commenters turned out well?

1 blogger VS 100 angry commenters? 

It just ends up first angering ace, then wearing him out, feeling depressed and reduced in stature.

Which ain't cool.

I just talked to some relatives that I have in Delaware that I haven't spoken to in a few years.    Their reason for voting to oust Castle?    They felt it was the first time they had a chance to.    When he was in the House, they never really had a choice.    They hate him, and they say many others do, too.    Called him a dim in Repub clothing.

They know it's an uphill battle with Christine, but they are all fired up, and frankly, are more than a little pissed at all the garbage slinging.   That's how they see it.    Garbage.

Jeez, people, give them a chance.

I think that you simultaneously under and over-estimate the power of this blog.

Deety at September 19, 2010 08:36 PM (aVzyR)

Well, the power of this blog got me and three other people to travel together from CA to Nevada to campaign for McCain in the days prior to the election. Not Rush.  Not Levin. Not Hannity or FOX or the GOP or McCain.

Do I overr estimate the power of this blog?  I don't think so.  But maybe I do.  It's possible.  But what I do do is respect the hell out of it.

Hell, there are moron meet-ups going on all over the country.  I've been to two of them.

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 07:48 PM (bZ4G+)"

So finally the truth.  You didn't win and out go the toys from your pram.

BTW, where did you post stuff on Angle?  Maybe I missed it.

Regards,

Have we seen any stories about Mark Kirk embellishing his military record on Ace's site?  Possibly being gay?  I mean the media is covering it.   So why not Ace?

If Ace has to cover the media, why not these stories instead of everything O'Donnell?

I would prefer folks cover the candidates they favor and ignore the ones they don't.  I am all in favor of RINOs backing Kirk.  That would free the conservatives to support Buck, Angle, Toomey, Rubio, et al.

mpurinTexas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at September 19, 2010 09:14 PM (xMKKV)

Since I'm not sure what the difference or distinction is that you are trying to make here is, I'm gonna chalk it up to being a hearty "right on ed!" and we can call it even.

"I just talked to some relatives that I have in Delaware that I haven't spoken to in a few years.    Their reason for voting to oust Castle?    They felt it was the first time they had a chance to.    When he was in the House, they never really had a choice.    They hate him, and they say many others do, too.    Called him a dim in Repub clothing.

They know it's an uphill battle with Christine, but they are all fired up, and frankly, are more than a little pissed at all the garbage slinging.   That's how they see it.    Garbage.

Jeez, people, give them a chance.

 Posted by: Steph at September 19, 2010 09:06 PM (nbzzk)"

Steph, Ace thinks there morons because they didn't follow his advice, their fair game to attack.

Regards, 

I'm kinda curious why anybody is taking Bill Maher to be some sort of bastion of acuracy.  You know that he is editing the clips for his own partisan leanings.

Also, what is the cutoff age for consideration of candidates actions??  I would like to know because my daughter is a freshman in H.S, and want to make sure that she doesn't do something silly and immature now just in casse she wants to run for office in the future. 

Also, what is the cutoff age for consideration of candidates actions??  I would like to know because my daughter is a freshman in H.S, and want to make sure that she doesn't do something silly and immature now just in casse she wants to run for office in the future. 

"How many of you didn't hang out with questionable folks in high school?" she asked fellow Republicans at a GOP picnic in southern Delaware on Sunday.

"There's been no witchcraft since. If there was, Karl Rove would be a supporter now," O'Donnell jokingly assured the crowd."

_________________________

Question: Why bother to embellish on this account of the incident? If this is all AP has to say about it, why, oh  why can't we just let it go? And move on?

"How many of you didn't hang out with questionable folks in high school?" she asked fellow Republicans at a GOP picnic in southern Delaware on Sunday.

"There's been no witchcraft since. If there was, Karl Rove would be a supporter now," O'Donnell jokingly assured the crowd."

_________________________

Question: Why bother to embellish on this account of the incident? If this is all AP has to say about it, why, oh  why can't we just let it go? And move on?

"How many of you didn't hang out with questionable folks in high school?" she asked fellow Republicans at a GOP picnic in southern Delaware on Sunday.

"There's been no witchcraft since. If there was, Karl Rove would be a supporter now," O'Donnell jokingly assured the crowd."

So she was in high school? Not even college? We're judging candidates on what they did in high school?

WTF, ace is throwing a fit about witchcraft in high school?

I just gotta laugh.

OK - so after three hours since I last read the thread, I went to church, went shopping (picked up a 12 pack of Bud for 6.99 by the way) ate a grilled cheese sandwich . . . oh and read on Drudge how team Obama may be soon slamming the tea party in negative advertising.   

And . . .  here we are beating our chests on a candidate in DE who was duly nominated by a fraction of WE THE PEOPLE to represent them in the Republican party.  

Ace . . . I think its time for a Haiku challenge or something.  

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 07:25 PM (bZ4G+)

Don't believe it can? How about it's from a show 10 years ago that was purposely provocative and they statement is about a time years before that. It's not only not career ending it's for curiosity's sake at best.  Is practically the entire congress supposed to answer for the stupid crap they did when pledging their frat or sorority? 

What good does it do? It places it in context instead of treating it like she just was just out with Alistair Crowley last Saturday night. 

Oh and by the way none of that is even spin. It's the truth. Is asking you to mention the whole truth when the MFM won't such a lot to ask?

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 10:14 PM (bZ4G+)

There is one thing I don't think your taking into account regarding her chances of winning.

There have been 6 weeks of red on red bashing while coons got a pass and was able to sit back and tell everyone how great he is.

He was only able to get ahead by 11 points. That's over now and she has more money.

Son of a biatch.  I just read the latest on Gateway.

We better stop with the intellectual autoeroticism here and start focusing.

Can we perhaps as Johnny Mercer wrote: Accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative. And latch on to the affirmative.

Here it is folks - the country is broke and we are bumping into the kicked can, that can't be kicked no mo. The inside baseball on the economics side of this would turn most of the good morons here shitless, no doubt.  

And Ace.  You don't have to respond to every dissenting voice here. They have a reference in the DSM on such behaviour and well it's not what you want to portray.

Buck up all, they are.  

Ace...

I see you think that not only this story, but the one about her ex-campaign staff is bothering you.   Do you know exactly who those people are?    How they are connected and who they are connected to?    It's important.

The charge against her re campaign funds?    Who made those initial charges, and exactly why is that important?   It is, you know.

What I am seeing is that charges are being made, and there are specific answers to those charges, but nobody wants to address those.   Why?

I was able to find those answers, and they didn't come from O'Donnell.   There are reasonable explanations for the so-called problems that have 'come to light'.

People just don't want to see them because, frankly, they are acting like petulant childern.

I spend a lot of time at this site, and have been somewhat surprised that none of those explanations have even been pondered.   I am disappointed.

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 10:33 PM (bZ4G+)

Because you can't ignore it. I wouldn't expect you to either. But you can't ignore you are getting it pre spun already and Drew's post just gave the top a flick and said "Look! Look!". Why is Drew playing out Maher's game when practically everything she said on the show is already posted on Thinkprogress? If this is such news why not do a real post with ALL the crap she said? If this is news then that's news squared ain't it? Why wait for Maher to feed you it line by line? If Drew isn't spinning it why does he suggest that her cancellation of the Sunday news shows is somehow related to it when the story specifically shoots that idea down and pretty convincingly? People trying to duck shows don't apologize profusely and beg for another shot to be on. 

This is a blog, you need hits. Fine. This is news so post it. But don't give me your hands are tied here or it's too much to ask me to ignore the spin on this. If there was a story that came out saying Joe Miller once talked about how he once married a fish and sleep with it for a week in college I don't think the headline here would be "Joe Miller...Fish Fucker!"

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 11:02 PM (bZ4G+)

So what? You don't post stuff hoping people will be interested in it and come to your blog and read it? You don't want hits? This is all just being set down so some future historian will find it in some long lost archive and say "Hey! This Ace guy was one Zarkin' Frood!"?

Lovely. Washington blew a 17 point lead. Fucking unbelievable.   Chris in Va at September 19, 2010 07:38 PM (uCjoj)

FIFY

Son of a biatch.  I just read the latest on Gateway.

We better stop with the intellectual autoeroticism here and start focusing.

Can we perhaps as Johnny Mercer wrote: Accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative. And latch on to the affirmative.

Here it is folks - the country is broke and we are bumping into the kicked can, that can't be kicked no mo. The inside baseball on the economics side of this would turn most of the good morons here shitless, no doubt.  

Posted by: journolist at September 19, 2010 10:52 PM (O/NP5)

Seriously, with all this witch and Satan talk, might we already be making this out to be more than it was?  What did her "interest" amount to?   

Unless she hurt someone or maybe sacrificed a few local pets, then I do not care.  She is going to beat Coons, and I will donate because that's a realiastic outcome that I'm willing to back. 

I'm not Christian, but I like to practice the Christian virtue of 'Fuck, that's nothing.'     

The main reason for the tea party is over broad based concepts of debt and declining liberties and a despondent government.

The economic realities which are too esoteric for public play are what I am talking about.

As to Gateway, the president and the dems are engaging in something so off the charts in terms of political corruption and malfeasance and I should have mentioned I was also reading the bull shit election fraud piece over at Doug Ross.

And then to see this rather sophmoric pissing match over here . . .  It's like two factioning movie critics intellectualizing moby dick while sitting in the bar of the Titanic.

I want the truth.

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.

Uh, yeah I can.

Posted by: CAC at September 19, 2010 11:39 PM (lV4Fs)

So if that's going to ...piss you off, then let me suggest something in a nice way: This may not be the blog for you. At least for a few weeks so take a break for a while.

done.

OMG they are tying to burn her!

http://tinyurl.com/25z2am3

I think I voted "No", but I was a little too disgusted by the eye-poking feel of Drew's post.  It really makes the bloggers come across fairly petty. 

And no, I wasn't slobbering over CO'D and no, I don't think Ace &Co are dirty RINOs.  But yeah, that OMGWITCH post didn't help the situation at all.  So you can take my vote off the "No" block.

And it's nice to have an inadvertantly relevant handle for once.

Posted by: Joe Biden at September 19, 2010 11:43 PM (GGulh)

Yes . . . but no hanging chads please.  

This comment over at The Agitator made me laugh: 

I know nothing about Christine OÂ’Donnell and since I donÂ’t vote in the state of Delaware, I probably wonÂ’t expend much effort trying to figure her out. She is accused of being a flake and of making some crazy statements. Again, I canÂ’t say one way or the other.

But I did have this thought:

Since when did making crazy, nonsensical public statements in the heat of a political campaign become a disqualification for a Senate seat held by Joe Biden for three decades?

730What kind of people are you?   Have you no decency, sir??

Posted by: SantaRosaStan / Joseph Welch at September 19, 2010 11:50 PM (dPcmp)

It's not you its your Sonoma county. Ace had a bad experience there at Castle Vineyards.   

Ace...

There seem to be a lot of people here that haven't been seen before.   There seem to be a few lefty blogs that are putting out the word to go to conservative sites to keep stirring the pot.   They erroneously believe that they can cause such serious riffs that we will implode.

Don't know if they're here or not, but it's a thought.

Ok, I think it's just time to realize that the Republican canidate in the Delaware senate race comes of as a loopy broad -- a loopy broad who is overly dramatic and makes unforced errors (that's the thing that bothers me about the Maher clip -- a sensible person would have given a more low key response and down-played it; she jumped right into the shit with both feet).  On something so trivial she did not give a "small potatoes" response.  It does not bode well; she's beyond a weak canidate -- she's a potentially embarassing one (and I do not care if the Dems have had similar; the point is to let them do that and go after them not field your own).

Fortunately, the Dems have also fielded a pretty atrocious candiate -- one with a voting record to match (same with Castle).  Perhaps some higher power is watching out, because O'Donnell should by rights be an utter fiasco.

My advice: someone get ahold of this idiot and tell her to stick to economic issues from here on out; also, support her -- but only as it pertains to going after Coons -- don't defend everything that comes out of her mouth as it only makes you look bad. This is going to have to be marketed as an "anti" vote, just like IL...except perhaps worse...

actually I think I am going to talk this over with the cobloggers and just lay down a flat ban on any CO'D stories, good or bad.

You cannot be serious? Well I guess you can, but whaaaaa??

110% of people here bitched about how Obama wasn't properly vetted leading up to election. Now anything on her is going to just be summarily dismissed bc it's going to upset and offend her die-hard fans here that refuse to see she may be (a) at best, flawed and (b) possibly viewed by indies in DE as a nutjob?

Oh boy.

Could you , also, check out the race in VT?    Len Britton is running against Leahy and isn't getting even the token $42K from the NRSC.   Seems they've written him off, but he believes that even that small amount in VT can make a huge difference.    That $42K can buy a month's worth of ads in VT.

Here's a link to a write-up @ NRO about it.

http://tiny.cc/7cok6

His site is lenbritton dot com

Thanks!

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 11:54 PM (bZ4G+)

Posted by: ace at September 19, 2010 11:55 PM (bZ4G+)

Ace I was trying to say it's ridiculous to suggest you not cover this. It's news. Everyone's covering it. I also think this whole poll is ridiculous and your talking to the cobloggers is too. There's no ignoring this stuff and it's counter productive to running a blog to do so. Unless this is just meant to be one big circle jerk with occasionally stops to rest and gaze at our navels.

I think you real problem is trying to decide on enthusiasm levels. If people are expecting you to now be enthusiastic about OD I would say that's little ridiculous too. I sure ain't. But I don't think asking your cobloggers to take a step back and say you know when you read this stuff coming out remember the primary is over and she won. If you can't love this broad the least you can do is remember she's on our side and when somebody from the other side says something bear it in mind. Place it in context of every pol instead of going with their meme that she is beyond the pale. Yeah, I know that was your meme during the primary too and maybe she is in the grand scheme of things. But the nomination decides what the pale is for us and she got beyond it. At least till election day.

If you can't be enthusiastic, and I don't blame you if you can't, the least you can be is neutral. Drew's post made a lame limp in that direction but it's was weak at best. Now maybe that makes lousy reading . So how about playing it for humor? I've seen that done thousand times. But to say you are backing her, for good or ill,  and treat this like a serious news story is a bit much to take.

"That used to mean something among conservatives, but not anymore."

Well, not voting like Castle did used to mean something among conservatives too.  We can, and have, gone around this shit for awhile now.  There are legitimate arguments in favor of both candidates and they're both shitty.  The point is stop poking us in the eye about O'Donnell.  We get it.  Everyone gets it.  You don't like her.  Just be fair about it.

"That's fine that you forgave that, but stop insisting that people who objected to her join you in matching your enthusiasm. the best I can manage is soft rhetorical support and a general do-no-harm type coverage."

Come on guy, it's not about enthusiasm.  I-told-you-so crap isn't fixing a damn thing.  Do negative coverage on her, but just don't be motivated by what seems to be the desire to play gotcha.  The witch stuff is weak sauce in the big picture but you guys bit hard. 

You don't have to be enthusiatic, but be fair.

The hardcore just wants to enforce pure message discilpline, and I dont' want that, so a full embargo is the best solution.

You can't complain about the coverage if there is no coverage.

You are a funny guy Ace......right?

You can't be serious?

Um, I don't drop the F bomb alot here, but fuck the hardcore. 

That is all. 

765 >>>

Now wait a minute. A complete embargo on covering the Republican nominee for U.S. Senator?

Ace, damn it.  You are becoming blind to logic.  You are playing the board here on a dime's worth of rationale.  

You are pissed. And have your reasons.  But, we are talking about a Republican nominee for U.S. Senate put in place by a phenomenon called the Tea Party.

So the positions this Republican nominee represents as a nominated candidate who is the proxy of a faction of 'We The People' in DE is less important than your cerebral malcontent over C'OD when she would support everything the country so yearns to do from a conservative perspective?    

And now after trashing her intellect you are publicly basing your issues on her "character flaws?" After the latest tantalizing embroglio Bill Maher snippet?

Dude . . .

I just set my alarm.

You know I really hate setting my alarm. So I think if I just ignore it and set it back to off. After all, if I ignore it, it will just go away, right? Also, if you could refrain my talking about alarm clocks I think that would go a long way in making my case!

IÂ’m going to sleep in and dream about cotton candy, rainbows, and unicorns! (Yes, I know you see what I did there).

No bothers—no repercussions. I’m sure my job will be waiting for me. If anyone raises and eyebrow ro makes a stink, I'll just tell them, "Shut Up, I Won".

I can't see the point of electing someone who says he's a Republican but won't act (i.e., vote) like a Republican.

Maybe not in Kansas, but in Delaware, yeah, if it gets us the majority in the Senate and all that goes with it (committee chairmanships).  See that?

ha

rethugs infighting

go figure

ha

rethugs infighting

go figure

Posted by: navycopjoe at September 20, 2010 12:37 AM (gg4j2)

You're gonna find out what it's like when 2 pineapples are infighting for space in your anus.

jeebus, I don't care who supports O' Donnell or who doesn't. Most of us don't live in her state and she seems to be doing fine raising money.

The character meme is getting pretty thick and self serving though. We are talking about politicians.

One's like Kirk who lied about his decorations and some other stuff.

The rich guy from California on the judiciary committee who was arrested for stealing cars when he was young, can't remember his name but he's the one who wants to issue the supeonas.

Rubios problems with his credit card that just now seemed to have been found to be non problems but we still liked him when they were a problem.

Everybody has some kind of problem in thier past. We're human.

I'm out.

Grabbing some ice cream and watching some Seinfeld.

Hope it's not the episode on spite . . . the one where Jerry tries to return a jacket out of spite.

BTW, does Ace get a say in this?

They had to conduct a poll to see if they should report stories on a current candidate running for the Senate.

What does this tell you?

812  ha, you said anus (oh, congrats on the first kick)

hey ace, can i do a right up later on on the hawaii gov and HI-1 house race and send it to you for possible use?

the dems could lose hawaii which is amazing

Ace, did you see my comment about Len Britton in VT?   I'd, at least, like to call some attention to him not getting the standard $42K from the NRSC.

And the page won't reload. Which is a sign I believe.

Parting words: We do this asinine shit to ourselves.

 And when some small group of disaffected cranks nominates looney-tunes joke-candidates as nominees for the Senate, we can either marginalize them before they tar the entire conservative movement, or embrace them and watch the country at large decide that we're not serious people and shouldn't be entrusted with power.

Miss me yet?

Parting words: We do this asinine shit to ourselves.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at September 20, 2010 12:44 AM (G5low)

Yeah, the whole witch thing looks rather... puritanical, compared to our S&M.

Do your think we are retarded?

Your pet name for 'us' is 'morons'.

I am neither.

The question is not about to cover or ot. The question is about how you cover. 

Do you want O'Donnell to lose?

I think you do.

GOOOO Mit! GOOO TPal! Go Newt!

Posted by: Gryph at September 20, 2010 12:48 AM (J8eZP)

Cut. Jib. Newsletter?

Ace - the word phenomenon when discussing the tea party movement says it all. It is a word which elevates the subject beyond something which is  understoond through mere convention.

This is why standard political analysis does not stick to the tea party movement. The movement is growing and those that take the time to really see it for what it is . . .  will be the most in tune to what is taking place.

Now I'm done and on to ice cream and Seinfeld.

Posted by: Chris in Va at September 20, 2010 12:46 AM (uCjoj)

Yeah, but 46% polled said they didn't know enough about him.    In VT, $42K can be enough for a month's worth of ads.   The NRSC said they give that to every candidate (or at least that's what they said about the person who shall not be named).  

This link is to an article @ NRO about the lack of any help, at all.

http://tiny.cc/7cok6

Posted by: pam at September 20, 2010 12:54 AM (h8R9p)

Further evidence right here that O'Donnell's supporters don't actually care about defeating Democrats.  Their little intraparty purge continues on apace, and that's what matters to them.

People like this are the true RINOs.

Posted by: ace at September 20, 2010 12:35 AM (bZ4G+)

I do see this as long term at least in terms of government spending. One thing is for sure is that the R House had better make sure they spend less money next year than was spent this year. Without that then we are looking at 3 parties and pandemonium. Other than that I think this current crop of candidates will mature into real pols, it's inevitable. I certainly see O'Donnell, if she wins somehow, being fairly conservative for the first couple years but she will triangulate like it's going out of style as 2014 and reelection approaches.

The real criteria here is philosophy as reflected in votes. New candidates get a pass, they have no votes luckily for them. They will. The question is do those votes reflect a serious attempt to move the government right no matter how little or an acquiescence to the idea that we just need to do bigger government better? If it's the latter then they need to go. The public does not want bigger government done better and they haven't in a long time. Obama and the entire left thought that is what they voted for in 2008 and look where that got them. Karl Rove and the GOP leadership though that is what they wanted in the earlier part of the decade and look where that got them.