1 Sweet fancy Moses, the whole vetting thing worked out with that Obama fellow...

2 The best vetting is done by the opposition, running in a few races is a good way to kick the tires. It isn't necessarily a party function - a couple of nasty non-partisan school board races can accomplish the same thing.

3 I'll read that in a second.  Just wanted to say DeMint kicking butt on fox.

"I don't want to be in a majority if it doesn't have principles".

"is the republican party united?"  "Outside of DC, the republicans are united more than ever before."

4 meanwhile, democrats get elected practically from their jail cells...

5 Well, fuck it then, why do we ever vote anyone out???

6 Nice post, ace.

I've been disappointed by the number of commenters, including some regulars here, who have stated flat out that they aren't bothered by the possibility (or, I personally think, likelihood) that O'Donnell is not particularly ethical because Democrats elect unethical people all the time. 

Also, I'd like to point out how ridiculous to use the RINO label on organizations like the NRSC.  They may be "CINOs" (conservatives in name only), but by virtue of their positions as "establishment" or "party insiders," they are certainly not Republicans in name only. 

7

Politicians, as much as we mock them for their scandals, actually, I think, tend to have (as a group) fewer of these problems than most people.

I stopped reading here tbh.

8

And bottom line, this country is now treading water, in the hands of an idiot ideologue who got here because establishment politicians had an establishment agenda of staying heeled by a system that they had a hand in driving into the gutter and the sum of which includes the fact that this country may not survive as a power in the world in which case, more than this country is screwed.

There are some excellent points in going with the devil you know.  But there comes a point at which that dog can no longer hunt.  In this case I say better the questionable novice not yet corrupted by the establishment. 

9 People who have been in the system in the while have had their backgrounds pawed at. And at each level of high office -- at each new level on the ladder as an ambitious politician climbs -- there is a new level of scrutiny, a higher level, a nastier level.

With the exception of the office of president, you mean.

10 Windows update - first thing that gets turned off.

11 once the Dems put forward an inexperienced unvetted candidate and amde him POTUS, all regular roolz no longer apply.

she knows who is supporting her, more than we can say for people like Castle who vote as Dems part of the time.

12 Politicians, as much as we mock them for their scandals, actually, I think, tend to have (as a group) fewer of these problems than most people. Or at least the group of promotable politicians don't.

Killed what was a pretty good post.

Power corrupts...

13 meanwhile, democrats get elected practically from their jail cells... We're working on electing the dead, too.

14 Having problems with the IRS is a resume enhancement as far as I am concerned.

15 You're worrying.  Stop worrying.

16 What I don't understand is why you would support a guy who wanted cap n tax.
There's no excuse for that.
Regardless of who you didn't support, you did support an anti-gun, cap n tax liberal.

17 We all know how well the MFM vetted one particular candidate, don't we...

18
This is a lot of words to say electability.

19 The big deal on all this is that its sending a message to the GOP entrenched idiots- get your act together and get back to our founding principles, you knotheads.

Now, whether or not they are listening is anyone's guess.  Mine is that they are not.  They are too 'captured' by the system, and cannot change, or are unwilling to change to what the electorate actually wants.

Vetting is indeed important.  More than you can realize.  BUT, anyone wanting to run better be upfront NOW, rather than toast later. 

But I'm still pushing for the GOP leadership to change- change now.  And change to the right.  And for God's sake- grow some frickin' 'nads!  Stand up for us, dammit!  If you had in the past, we'd not be in this situation.

Wolf

20 Because God knows, what we need is more Obama Republicans like Colin Powell. sheesh...

21

Ace,

 Good Job.

-A.B.

22 I don't think republicans.conservatives are going to do nearly as well as people say they are.  I would be willing to put money on it.

23 Nicely expressed, ace.

Does the name Osama Obama ring a familiar bell?

The Mohammedan Mouthpiece was a victory for projection: people saw what they wanted to see, and ignored the fraudulent hate-filled, revenge-seeking traitor behind the mask.

I'm not saying O'Donnell is anywhere near as dangerous or unprincipled as the Traitor-in-Chief. She may, in fact, be the genuine conservative her supporters claim.

But I have only second-hand information to judge her with. What I'm guessing is her website (http://christine2010.com/) is a one-page plea to send money. No issues, no nothin'.

We've developed some bad habits in our political lives. Knee-jerk support of candidates because we like what we imagine to be the cut of their jibs is one of them.

24 great point, Ace

25 Looks like another day of red-on-red warfare. I'm going back into the bomb shelter.

26 Ace ftw

27
We also better get used to the idea this is a  rebuilding year, not a Super Bowl victory year.

But I'm afraid a lot of pessimists are already getting cold feet and preparing to blame the loss of the House on too-far-right candidates.

Our party is broken. It needs to be fixed before we can even thinking about fixing government.

28 18
This is a lot of words to say electability.

I hope ace responds to clarify what his point is, but from my perspective vetting is more than simply about electability.  It's about seeing how someone behaves as they get increasing responsibility, accountability, and power.  If a candidate has a track-record of using their positions for personal gain or demonstrates poor management skills, that's a big strike against him/her. 

29 So, here are our choices:

1. experienced mediocre/ bad candidates
2. new, inexperienced candidates.

If we go with the first, we know we are getting spoiled meat.

If we go with the second, we could be very well buying meat that will soon spoil.

In other words, we're screwed whatever happens.

30 Let the healing begin.

31

Damn. If nothing else, I can see where you are coming from.

Which makes a damn fine post...

32 Good points Ace.  Now that the NRSC has flopped back I think everyone needs to chill the fuck out and move.  There are bigger fish to fry.

33 Ace - My biggest disagreement with this thesis is that you accurately describe the process of vetting Republican candidates. Democrat candidates skip the vetting process completely. Racist churches, racist diatribes in books, even recruiting for racist terrorist organizations get overlooked if you are a Dem. If they overlook that imagine how deep they bury promiscuity, bad money management, etc.

34 It won't matter. The american people are behind this. The people understand no one is perfect and we all have some baggage.

35
We have gotten so far away from the idea of citizen representation and self-governance.
The step up, run as a representative to your constituents, and then return to the private sector - that idea is gone.
It's now:  insider - all the time, and it has gotten obscene. Repellent.  Sure, vetting is important.  But wait, is it really.  I think we R's know that R's must be perfect, and D's are allowed endless sins and skeletons.

I guess Rangel(D) is ultra-vetted.

btw-
Castle is 70 years old.  That is not the future of the GOP.

36 Ace, you don't have to worry about vetting your candidates as the MSM does it for you.  If you are anything but a democrat that is.

37 2 The best vetting is done by the opposition, running in a few races is a good way to kick the tires. It isn't necessarily a party function - a couple of nasty non-partisan school board races can accomplish the same thing.

If there's a bright side, O'Donnell was practically vetted by Castle and she won anyway.  Maybe that'll happen in the general?

38 Dammit, why do you continue beating me?

39

Killed what was a pretty good post.

Power corrupts...

Thing is, when a politician gets in trouble, it's national news.  Take a random sampling of 536 people off the street and you'll find a lot worse than someone who got caught looking for man-love in a restroom or failing to report income on a condo.

Not to say that politicians are paragons of virtue- there's plenty of shady stuff going on.  However, much of it is viewed as politics-as-usual such allocating earmarks.

40 Well. Let's just vote for Marxist Coons.

41 Have Blue, that is the the reality of the current political situation.  Dems get an easier time of vetting.  It's unfair. Life is unfair.  Conservatives can either deal with this fact and put forward better candiadtes, or they can lose and complain about media bias.

42 Buck up, Ace ... don't go wobbly on us....

43

Two words...

So and What.

For every nut or poorly vette'd person, you'll find two or five that aren't.

Better to have inexperience folks that get whacked in the general election than have more freaking RINO's run and win.  Rather lose than have RINO's.

44

Dear GOP,

Please give us better candidates, so when we toss out your corrupt RINO/DIABlO scum, we have an acceptable choice that does not offend the blue hairs.

Thank you

45 Yes, @ 4, the analysis is great and all. But, the real problem is: Why are we falling all over ourselves to have the perfect or nearly-flawless candidate when the other side has a regular murder's row of rouges, dim-wits, half-wits, idiots, crooks, thieves and liars?

Funny how the dems are always sticking  with their guy no matter what and we are always looking for a way to kick them out. And they keep winning.

"But, the media! They'll destroy them if we don't keep our guys pure!" I know, I know. That's also Rule #13 in the AP stylebook, How to Write a Story on Any Republican.
And the last few months have shown we are winning without and in-spite of the media.

I know this is an argument we've had over and over and over here . . . . .

46 Politicians, as much as we mock them for their scandals, actually, I think, tend to have (as a group) fewer of these problems than most people.

WTF?

Are you high?

Two words: Kennedy. Clinton.

47 Let's just vote for Marxist Coons. RAAACIST!!!

48 Thank God no one is looking through my background. I'd make Cholly Rangel gasp, and not just from the fat man's sleep apnea.

49 What a fine way to end the primary season with 7 weeks out from election day: with a candidate enthusiastically endorsed by tea party groups who is 1. a career politician who just happened to always fail, and 2. has baggage that even if gotten over leaves her with an ideology that is 75% unpalatable to 75% of a very blue state. Oh, and gently stir in all the name-calling and attempts to purge the party by the likes of Mark Levin... And aren't we all just ready to "unite" and ride off the edge of a cliff together!? It's like birtherism or the Muslim thing...the tea party does a whole lot of good and then, caught in a zeitgeist, takes things--blindly and recklessly--too far.

50 Posted by: Have Blue at September 15, 2010 12:38 PM

That is why no one here -- at least openly -- supports Dem candidates.

It is also why we need Repubs who a) keep their noses clean and b) will investigate and punish those of either party who don't. "B" is the sticking point; there are too many in politics who don't act like screwups but are afraid or unwilling to hold their buddyroos "across the aisle" to even the most basic standards of decency. That's a major reason why Zombie Ted Kennedy thrived for so long.

51 Question ace:  Do you not think "normal people" can represent our interests?

See, the underlying assumption you seem to be making here is that, unless someone is as clean as the proverbial whistle, we can't vote for them.  That's bunk.  News-flash: people have flaws.  Some of them are serious.  But when it comes to representing MY VIEWS, I'd much rather have someone who's had to fight financial difficulties (like I have), and who's a little weird-ed-out by having strange people peeking in their windows (like I would be), and who, all-in-all, are real people.

We don't get that with "vetted" candidates.  We get white-washed candidates who have either never done anything to be "human" or they're Democrats.  (Exaggeration, but you get it).

How about this: find out if you support someone's positions, and then endorse those positions.  You don't have to say "Vote for O'Donnell!"  You can say, "I support X, Y, and Z, and based on what I know, so does O'Donnell.  If you support those positions, a vote for O'Donnell will send that message to Washington."  Then you won't get her dirt all over you when we find out she's a flawed human being (and a little crazy, but she had to be that to run in the first place).

The rest of us, however, will just put on our overalls, and get to work.

52 We're working on electing the dead, too.
Posted by: The DNC

I hear Pat Paulsen is running again, by his son.

53 22 I don't think republicans.conservatives are going to do nearly as well as people say they are.  I would be willing to put money on it.

Posted by: Sam at September 15, 2010 12:36 PM (Cxsey)

I'd take that bet.  Even most dems see where Barry is going and it isn't a place that Americans, even most dems, are willing to go.  Plus, Barry and his team have proven themselves to be (and I wish I could put this differently but I can't) idiots.  Everything he has said, every projection he has made, has proven to be either a lie or flat wrong.  And because he is wrong so often, even then it seems he is lying.  And another thing is that despite is being an obvious ideologue, he has shown how shallow are his conviction by the fact of how easily he was seduced by the excesses and the trappings of his new status.

No - the dems are going down hard.  Harder than most people realize at this point.

54 Listen up you RINO-loving Moderate fucks:

The Tea Party (the people of this country) are driving this Revolution.

Got that?

Now stop your fucking whining and get behind us or get yourselves a new fucking Party.

We control the purse strings here. END OF FUCKING STORY.

Have a good day pussies.

55 If there's a bright side, O'Donnell was practically vetted by Castle and she won anyway.  Maybe that'll happen in the general?

Unlikely in a Dem state. 

In the Republican primary you had conservative and status-quo weary centrist Republicans overlooking what may or may not have been some questionable ethical behaviors by O'Donnell because they liked what she said. 

In the general she will not be given the benefit of the doubt by liberals and moderates. 

56 Yeah, vetting, background checks, scandals.Well if you're a Republican. Don't really matter if you be Charlie Rangel. Lets just put him right back there in Congress. Waters.Waters who?

57 Pro abortion, pro Cap and tax, the list goes on and on. You know what you get when you vote for guys like Castle? You get fucked twice. You get fucked once when you vote for them, and you get fucked again when they point to all the support they got at the polls as they vote against your own convictions. The Obama Republicans are a goddam EXISTENTIAL THREAT, no less than the Democrats, because they give bipartisan support to the constant, never ending, daily assaults on liberty and property that are being plotted in DC by these neo Marxist scumbags, who have been hatching these plots for the past ONE HUNDRED years, and now see every goal within their grasp. Listen, our backs are to the wall. If we can't pull up out of this national death spiral, the next phase is not pretty, not one bit.

58 Fear beats Hope with one hand tied behind its back.  Its why I'm a conservative.

59 It's not being in office or part of the establishment, eg.: Barack Obama, that vets - its running in contested races. Having primary fights doesn't make a party weaker - it makes it stronger. The drivel coming out of the media about a revolt and division in the conservatives ranks confuses the democratic elite. They are used to having their decisions made for them and these primaries confuse them. That they illustrate enthusiasm and passion -- not a house divided is lost on a leftist elitist.

60

22 I don't think republicans.conservatives are going to do nearly as well as people say they are. 

How well would that be, and what people, exactly?

61 Give me Liberty or give me death!

62

If there's a bright side, O'Donnell was practically vetted by Castle and she won anyway.  Maybe that'll happen in the general?

Doubful.  People are a lot more likely to overlook faults in someone on their own team.  When it comes to the general, you're looking at a somewhat more objective audience.

O'Donnell will probably close the gap a little bit from being 11-12 points down; two months from now much of what has surfaced recently will be old news.  Barring some sort of miracle, two months isn't long enough to enable her to close that great a gap though.

63

Screw you ace! You're a RINO traitor! I know that because you're just a blogger and I wrote a book!

64 Ace: I want the candidate with the least amount of baggage, and I don't care if they consistently vote w/ Republicans/Conservatives or not.

Most of us: I want the candidate who will vote with Republicans/Conservatives as much as possible, and who cares what their past is like.

Do I have this right? Because I don't care if O'Donnell used to do donkey shows back-in-tha-day, as long as we can count on her vote when it gets down to it (ie. NOT the Maine twins).

Hopefully, we'll find out she used to smoke crack. Then she can be President.

65

I'm a 'candy-ass' that's never been invited to a cocktail party.

I feel fucking ripped off, man!

66 In the general she will not be given the benefit of the doubt by liberals and moderates. Your assuming they actually care enough to vote this cycle. Coons incites all of the passion of a 50yo hooker.

67 Don't really matter if you be Charlie Rangel. Lets just put him right back there in Congress.

I'm back, bitches!

68 Mike Castle Won't Endorse Christine O'Donnell, she's a "Con Artist"

69 Ugh.  Yeah, I know there's the imminent danger that the entire Democrat establishment is going to now dump on O'Donnell as a nut case.  But I have to say I find it rather incredible that the party who has given us Senator Stewart Smalley, Kucinich, Grayson, Governor Moonbeam (and I could go on for pages) AND is for all practical purposes the political home of the 9/11-Troofer movement has any right to mock the likes of Christine O'Donnell.

So how about the GOP and the entire Republican Establishment^TM give that line or rebuttal a shot, eh?

Just saying.

In other news - have they run out of pencils in New Hampshire?  Are they using an abacus to tally the votes up there?  Sheesh.

70 Nice post-game wrap-up there, Ace. Unfortunately it's no longer the regular season, we're in the finals now and we need all eyes forward, not back.

It's worth remembering next time primaries are coming up, but we're past that this cycle.

71 I agree with Jean @27

Unless you come out and admit your dirt, it is going to uncovered by your opponents. And they will use at the best time for them. They may make vague insinuations at first, but when it is 2 weeks, 10 days to election day, that's when the tarp is removed and the shit hits the fan. The media is not going to be friendly to republicans generally, though some local newspapers might buck the trend. The NYT and WaPo delight in being able to through as much dirt as possible about republican candidates while downplaying (or ignoring) democrat dirt.

I am seeing it now in the NY-13 race, Grimm won the Republican nomination, and McMahon is already suggesting Grimm has personal issues that need to be addressed. Now this is coming from his opponent, but it still raises the flag what does McMahon have or thinks he has against Grimm.

I know I have referenced Grimm a lot, but this is the race i have a personal stake in, I live in the district. 

72 Your assuming they actually care enough to vote this cycle. Coons incites all of the passion of a 50yo hooker.

Did someone say hooker?

73 There is always a concern about the unvetted.  It's hardly the reason to go with the Devil You Know.

74 68 Mike Castle Won't Endorse Christine O'Donnell, she's a "Con Artist"

A-hole.

75 38 Dammit, why do you continue beating me?

Posted by: a dead horse at September 15, 2010 12:40 PM (YVZlY)

You think you got problems?

76 O'Donnell will do just fine if she hires Ines Sainz for wardrobe, - that ass those pants were slammin'.

77
...by the likes of Mark Levin.

Yeah, don't you just wish Levin, Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, O'Reilly, and Beck would all just shut up and go away?

They're so stupid and all they do is cost us elections by scaring away moderates. And that Ann Coulter does more damage to the GOP than anybody.

78 The devil you know is still a devil.

79 Fair enough, Ace.  I just go back to the root causes of things, there would be no O'Donnell in DE, if the gop hadn't moved so far to left without getting their hand slapped.  The dems and/or society moves to the left 2 steps and the gop moves to the left 1 step.  I think that has brought us to the brink of losing America as an exceptional nation.

As for CO, dem candidate taxenlooper now has some dirt coming out himself and he has been in politics for a little while.  We're still boned, though.

80 Yeah, don't you just wish Levin, Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, O'Reilly, and Beck would all just shut up and go away?

Yes, I do.

81 42 Buck up, Ace ... don't go wobbly on us....

Posted by: mark x at September 15, 2010 12:41 PM (OBioD)

Now you've done it! Ace responds in 5..4..3..2..1..

82 Fucking sock.

83 I do believe that the founding fathers had citizen legislators in mind. This retarded career politicians b.s. would have them kicking themselves for not thinking of the then-unimaginable.

Term limits.  

84 I don't care if O'Donnell is a lunatic, or has skeletons in her closet, or any of that noise.

Castle is not the future of the GOP. He's a hindrance to everything that the GOP should be. He needs to go, regardless of the electability of his opponent.

85 Why are we falling all over ourselves to have the perfect or nearly-flawless candidate when the other side has a regular murder's row of rouges, dim-wits, half-wits, idiots, crooks, thieves and liars?

Yep. And when an unassailable candidate is found, he or she is attacked precisely for that. "Religious nut". "What are they hiding".

Look at Palin -- her actual record in office is middle-of-the-road. Fer crissake, she vetoed a bill that would have banned benefits for the same-sex partners of state employees! But the press crafted a fun-house-mirror image of her, and that's become the "truth" about her.

Not without the help of a whole lot of Republicans, of course. You know -- the establishment types who wailed and gnashed their teeth over the Delaware race. The ones who haven't found (bothered to find?) a way to keep Murkowski from playing spoiler. The ones who tried to slant the primary towards Crist over Rubio. The ones who declared the NRSC wouldn't help O'Donnell. The Ponnoru's of the world, who simply cannot believe the great unwashed didn't listen to them.

How about we stop letting the press pick our candidates? We know the press is on the other side, so why do we keep doing this?

86 69 Ugh.  Yeah, I know there's the imminent danger that the entire Democrat establishment is going to now dump on O'Donnell as a nut case.


Oh, we won't have to lift a finger, the Republican party did all our work for us, thanks!

87 You have a valid point Ace, but as you said, it is just a hunch. I should ask my wife, she has hunches too, and is invariably wrong, making her a perfect reverse barometer. BTW, the system corrupts politicians, so if you don't want a bad apple, you have to go to the tree.

88 Give me Poontang or give me death!

89

But are they really "vetted?"  I think it means that people have already accepted what they know about an incumbent.  It isn't your girlfriend slept with a guy five years ago v she slept with a guy last night - its the difference between ith appening five years ago, you accepting it and moving on, or finding out about it last night.  It is "new" news v. old news. 

Do we think that Castle is pure as driven snow because he has been vetted?  Of course not.  It means he has been elected with whatever is known about him already.  Yeah, he's a RINO, apparently Delawareans are okay with that, so let's go with that. 

But last night shows that Delawareans WERE okay with that, and at least among Republican voters, are not any longer. 

Are the moderates okay with a Marxist?  How are we so sure.

I will say again - she couldn't beat Castle until she did. 

90

Yeah, don't you just wish Levin, Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, O'Reilly, and Beck would all just shut up and go away?

There are days.

91

In the Republican primary you had conservative and status-quo weary centrist Republicans overlooking what may or may not have been some questionable ethical behaviors by O'Donnell because they liked what she said.

And establishment Republicans overlooking questionable votes by Castle because he was their guy.

92

Ace,

Establishment Code of Approval.

There is a reason why the Dems won proclaiming to "drain the swamp".

93 How does your theory explain Mark Foley and Larry Craig?

Yes, new candidates can have surprises in their background, but keep in mind a significant number of politicians get more corrupt the longer they are in politics.

Oh, and it is interesting to consider this in light of the 2008 election where a State Senator (basically) became President.

94

Mike Castle Won't Endorse Christine O'Donnell, she's a "Con Artist"

That should be "She's a *slurps around his binky* con artist *sniffle*.  I wuv the RNC, and just 'cause I scroo you now don't mean I wuf no good!  Why din you bote for me?"

95 Tea Partiers like people with limited experience in government -- they haven't been tainted by the system, corrupted by it. And, of course, they don't have a long track record of disappointing them. (Yet.)

--True, but I think they love people with experience in government who do have a track record of positive accomplishments (Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio at the state level, Inhofe) trying to make the system less corrupt.

96

Yeah, thank god that vetting thing helped us to avoid a choice between say, the most liberal Dem Senator and a conservative hating Repub senator in the last election, Ace.

That vetting sure did expose John Edwards love child thing, right?

That vetting sure did expose Bill Clinton and his serial sexual abuse, right?

That vetting sure did let the public know about Al Gore's predeliction for massage parlors, right?

You're a great pundit and a fellow conservative, but once in a while you are SPECTACULARLY WRONG.

I am remembering your impassioned plea for the bailout in 2008, to help us avoid a socialist takeover in government for some reason right now. How'd that work out for us, huh?

 

 

97 I'll be as frank as you have been:  to me, the "pragmatists" looking to triangulate power first and worry about the agendae of the people they've put in power second are short-sighted, and in love with the frisson they get from being clever.  This is no different from the frisson that asshole McCain gets when he crosses the aisle to stab the party in the back; he too thinks he is a clever pragmatist. 

The party has to take a longer view, and has to nurture a principled lower level from which to draw.  We've also got to close our damn primaries; by the time I got to the last presidential primary in 2008 my only real choice was Juan McAmnesty.  That's a choice?  That's enfranchisement?  I shut my mouth and voted for the fucker, but I will not willingly be manipulated into that ridiculous position by "pragmatism" again. 

98 Yeah, the Democrats will jump on her as a nut case, just like they jumped on the Teaparty as backwards, ignorant, racists. And I see a couple of people here who seem to share that view.

99 I'm not going to tell you not to worry.  Ace, I totally share your outlook on this; I think I've made it abundantly clear my view of O'Donnell is not without reservations.

I have to balance that, though, with the well-vetted turds that I keep getting asked to vote for by establishment types, and then the fact that, at the end of the day, we have a candidate.  Not as strong a candidate as most of us would like, but it's what we have.

The most we can do is dig in, and pray it doesn't get worse than it is.  And curse the establishment imbeciles for creating a situation where this could blow up in the first place.

Let us now take aim at our adversaries, rather than each other (or ourselves).  We will, I think, be better served that way, for now.

100 You would think people with skeletons in their closet wouldn't run for high office understanding that they would be vetted by the media and their opposition. If they don't understand that, their judgment should be called into question.

101

OK, I'm officially bored with this blog-flog, so going surfing for something new and entertaining.

Unfortunately humans don't have horse sense, which is that thing horses have that keeps them from betting on people.

102 78 The devil you know is still a devil.

And you still don't know what allying yourself with the Devil You Know over the Devil You Don't will ultimately cost you in the end.

/Why am I commenting on Terran political issues? 

103

The devil you know is still a devil.

Reminds me of the bumper sticker: "Vote for Cthulu, Why go for the lesser evil?"

104 I have a picture of a young Barack Obama in my studio in a panama hat with a big burning spleef. This man is now my President. What kind of vetting did he get?

105

i feel like the voters of Deleware would have faced the Tommy Boy question had Castle won.

What's for dinner tonight, chicken or er... chicken?

106 Keep bashing O'Donnell.  Her Underdog bona fides grow hourly.  She can run on "I'm the Outsider" and you all can give her another million dollars worth of free publicity.  Works for me.

107 Hollowpoint @39, actually, no that's not true. Congressmen are more likely to have outstanding bad debts, more likely to have declared multiple bankruptcies (personal and business), more likely to cheat on a spouse, and more likely to be accused or convicted of a crime than the average person.

Vetting!

108 I think Ace has a valid and non-trivial point here,

BUT:

he's ignoring one unfortunate reality of the present system -- if dirt doesn't exist on a candidate, the Democrats will fall back on making shit up, and the media will aid and abet them.

And that changes things:  vetting makes no difference. If they can't get you on real unpaid taxes or that time you strangled a nun just to make the voices in your head stop chanting, they'll make shit up. Look at Sarah Palin -- she won local office, she won state office, she was vetted by McCain's campaign and was, in fact, pretty squeaky-clean.

Did that stop the Dems? No, they just made shit up. Insane, fantastic lies about her voting record, her family, even her youngest child -- and the media faithfully repeated them all.

So since any candidate who isn't a Democrat will be blasted, either with real accusations or shit somebody made up, why not go with the ones we agree with?

109

Great post with great points, Ace.

You summed up the rules for vetting and scrutinizing, but the rules are constantly changing. Between Gary Hart and Bill Clinton, it became acceptable to cheat on one's wife. By 2004, a president seeking re-election was no longer immune from background checks. Usually a candidate's entire life becomes an open book as he seeks his first term, and this counts as due diligence about his wife, too, in case she ever decides to run for the Senate. Then there was 2008 where there seemed to be no scrutiny about anyone -- certainly not Obama, but I don't remember hearing anything about McCain, Clinton, Guiliani, Romney, etc.

I'm agreeing with you on everything (albeit in a qualified way) and wondering to what degree these rules still apply. Could it be the "red wave" is going to wash these Tea Party candidates into office despite the mudslinging? Or have the media abandoned this role altogether?

110 88 Give me Poontang or give me death!

Posted by: Aqua Buddha at September 15, 2010 12:50 PM (RDnvk)

Finally, a voice of reason!

111 A lot of the people complaining that you and others didn't back O'donnell aren't necessarily holding her electability as nearly as high a factor as you are.

There are many that are honestly able to accept losing the DE seat (though they certainly aren't conceding it) if it means letting the GOP know that if they keep choosing people who voted for Cap & Trade and the Disclose Act for their candidates, they're ignoring not just their base, but all the angry voters out there that have given them a chance to regain power.  It didn't have to be Castle, but they're choosing Castle created O'Donnell, and all the GOP's problems that go with it, because they simply don't get it.

Even if O'Donnell loses, the message has been sent, and the GOP won't have to deal with a liberal holding them hostage on every meaningful issue he feels like.

112

Castle is not the future of the GOP. He's a hindrance to everything that the GOP should be. He needs to go, regardless of the electability of his opponent.

Castle is gone already.  Now what's the endgame strategy?  Coons is almost certainly going to win; what advantage did we gain?

113
I am remembering your impassioned plea for the bailout in 2008...

omg, I can't believe you went there!

But since you did...don't worry, Ace will come around. Most of them will come around before November.

114 Loved your poker game analogy Ace. Used it this a.m.

http://thecivillibertarian.blogspot.com/

I suppose Obama represents the greatest unvetted candidate ever. And it's ok to make mistakes. Our winner last night has made a few.

But what separates the children from the adults- is recognizing mistakes and taking the actions to never repeat them. Don't ever practice contempt prior to investigation. Some people are capable of rising to a challenge, some fold up like cheap suits. Trying to predict who will and who won't- is an exercise in futility. I don't try to predict that shit. I settle for the sure bet. Government can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory nearly 100% of the time no matter who sits in what seat. Proven time and time again, it's always a cinch.

115 Yeah, don't you just wish Levin, Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, O'Reilly, and Beck would all just shut up and go away?

They're so stupid and all they do is cost us elections by scaring away moderates. And that Ann Coulter does more damage to the GOP than anybody.
Posted by: AoS Pirate...now with extra-absorbent wings at September 15, 2010 12:47 PM

Take a look at Levin's go-round with the Powerline boys. He was a petulant, name-calling dimwit. I don't care whose side he's on; I've got no use for someone with such weak character and such a weak intellect. There are plenty of conservatives with principle, like Krauthammer, the Powerline boys, and Jonah Goldberg. I don't always agree with them, but at least I know they come to the discussion in good faith.

Mark Levin is dead to me, too.

116 I like to remind myself that when the Tea Parties showed up, people like Krauthammer sneered at them... and had to recant later in the wake of their efficacy. Also, he and people like Larry Kudlow had that jovial dinner at George Will's house, prior to the Ascension To The Throne. Afterwards they fell all over themselves on how suave and mature Barry was. I recall even Stephen Green, Vodkapundit, saying right after the election on a PJ podcast that Barry looked like the kind of President he could live with. Times change, no? And what the hell did these people see that we didn't? Something illusory, certainly.

117

In normal times Ace I would agree with you.  At this time it is clear the Republican party leadership has failed and the majority of the state parties are in revolt over the failure.  I know the establishment doesn't like this, but it can change over to what the rank and file are saying they want, it can voluntarily leave, or it can be dragged to the tumbrils.

I think that so long as there was power the rank and file were able to accept that the establishment wasn't doing what the rank and file wanted.  As soon as the power went so went the excuse (we have power so we know what we are doing) as to why the rank and file's demands weren't being met.  So now it is clear: change, leave, or be forced out.

118 The trouble is Castle has been vetted, his 40 year plus voting record shows he is in the wrong political party. This is the age of O and vetting is so last century. She might surprise you and the only way you can ever hope to change a blue state into a red state is by actually putting forward a candidate who actually defends and argues for the values of your party. Castle just confuses people on what a conservative and republican is.

119 If the voters of DE elect a Marxist, then the world is coming to an end.

120 Great post, Ace.
Thoughtful and persuasive.
Thanks.

121 I don't care if O'Donnell is a lunatic, or has skeletons in her closet, or any of that noise.

Castle is not the future of the GOP. He's a hindrance to everything that the GOP should be. He needs to go, regardless of the electability of his opponent.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at September 15, 2010 12:48 PM (TWwXV)

 

O'Donnell gives me a tingle & Castle doesn't.

END. OF. STORY.

Know what I mean, Pete?

122 #75 - You owe me a new keyboard, monitor, AND CPU...

123 One of the problems is O'Donnell was vetted during the primary and found to be wanting by traditional standards. The thing is, enough Republicans in DE decided they didn't care or other factors outweighed these issues. Will general electorate voters in a heavily Democratic state be so, flexible? I have my doubts.

124
Your girlfriend once slept with this guy you know and You girlfriend slept with this guy last night.

Internalizing this much?

125 O'Donnell is going to beat Coons.  She'll have all the money she needs to stomp him.

126

Hey ace, don't worry it's all good.

You still have good instincts.

And are a strong voice for "dirty conservatives."

And yes, you are still pretty damn funny.

Pretty fuckin' smart too.

But...

I'll bet that out of all the insults people have hurled at you: bad people or a sell-outs or fake conservatives or candy-asses.

I'll bet that candy-ass is the one that stings the most.

Why?  Because there is a kernnel of truth to it. 

The problem is, that "truth" is just packaged in a perjorative manner.

Basically, "candy-ass" is used to describe in a pejorative manner someone who has a low tolerance for risk.  Your prefered self-described way of refering to that in a positive matter is "grinder".

Which is cool.  I like you as a blogger, so I'll call you a grinder, and never a "candy-ass."  Unless its a flame thread.

All the other insults people throw at you?  Bad person?  Hell, you took that lemon and made mutha frickin' lemonaid with it.  Sell out?  Yeah, I don't think so.  When I see you on C-SPAN giving tongue baths to politicos instead of living off of blog ad, I'll consider it.  Fake conservative?  Naw.  Your positions are pretty mainstream conservative in about 90% of the issues.  Are you an "unconventional conservative?"  Hell yeah.  Let that freak flag fly.  Hell, it is probably about 80% of your brand appeal.

Closing up, did Mark Levin ever flame you or call you out as a candy ass or what-not?

Cuz if he did, he can suck my scrofulous sack.

That big dummy.

 

 

127 Ace is a smart guy.   He usually seems to take a genuie position.   Which I always appreciate.  He is also clever enough to come up with reasons after the fact to support his decision.  I believe he is capable of doing that for any position though, it's just a good rhetorical strategy.

   I think what Ace says here is accurate, but it's not a good enough reason to side with newcomers in Washington over mostly vetted establishment types.  I'll take the risks to get rid of the vetted liars. (to go along with the gambling analogy)

128 What's for dinner tonight, chicken or er... chicken? There's barely the beak left. Let me die already.

129 Yeah well that's why assholes like Rove and Krauthammer need to shut the fuck up.  Jesus Christ, MSDNC, CNN et al will be looking under every rock to dig up dirt on O'Donnell.  Do we really need someone who is supposed to be on OUR side trashing her 5 seconds after she won? 

130 He seems incapable of accepting that people of good heart and spirit might disagree with him

You say that about Levin, but you could just as easily say it about a couple of the co-bloggers.  The arrogance and condescension has pissed a lot of people off.

And this is O'Donnell's third run as the Republican candidate.  She's not exactly a complete outsider.

131 102

OK, I'm officially bored with this blog-flog, so going surfing for something new and entertaining.

Unfortunately humans don't have horse sense, which is that thing horses have that keeps them from betting on people trusting politicians.

Posted by: Country Club Republicans from hell at September 15, 2010 12:52 PM (7FgWm)

FIFY.

132 1 Sweet fancy Moses, the whole vetting thing worked out with that Obama fellow...

Yep, I guess vetting only works on who the MFM wants to vet.

The establishment are ALL fucking corruptocrats.  Vote them ALL out.

133

How about we discuss the Cultural Biases at play in the Ines Sainz ordeal?

I think a solid post with many, many pictures of Ines' ass in Tight Jeans would be sufficient to turn the page on this issue.

Why did an American Woman file a complaint about the treatment of another Woman?  What was that 'other' reporter's motivation in doing so? 

Was she not being Culturally Sensative? 

 Ines comes from a culture that values attractiveness.  If she wasn't offended, why should there be a problem?

Enquiring minds want more hot ass!

134

he's ignoring one unfortunate reality of the present system -- if dirt doesn't exist on a candidate, the Democrats will fall back on making shit up, and the media will aid and abet them.

Exactly!  Really, all of this stuff about this O'Donnell being a nut sounds vastly exaggerated as it is.

135 Blow it out your ass, Ace.  We gave these motherfuckers everything, House, Senate and Presidency.  What we got was a trillion dollar expansion of Medicare (prescription coverage, not ObamaCare), CFR, NCLB, bigger ethanol subsidies and lightbulbs outlawed.  We also got Jim Jeffords, Arlen Specter, Charlie Crist and this fuckstick witch Murkowski.  We also got Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

What good does it do us to "win" when these are the results?  Anyone who wants to talk of "Pyrrhic" victory should be talking the 2000-2004 "victories".  We got nothing for them.

Something is seriously wrong with the Republican Party, and it's not its conservatives (DeMint) or the Tea Party.  It is Karl Rove and the other dimwit "architects" who gave us compassionate conservatism.

I'd rather be ruled by the first 535 trailer dwellers I can find, than the Rockefeller Republicans who run the Stupid Party.

136 I'm guessing, based on what I've read, that O'Donnell is a bit of a flake.

I was never sold on needing a Senate majority this November, much less sold on the actual likelihood of getting one even with Castle. Much less the likelihood of Castle not pulling a Jeffords if he were the difference.

I don't mind losing a squish seat in Delaware against the prospect of what will probably be a much more dependable R Senate vote if O'D pulls out the win.

I know this explodes a lot of brains out there, and I certainly wish the Delaware Republican organizations had put up stronger big C primary challengers, but if the worse we get in O'D is a flaky dependable vote ala Carol Mosely Braun, I'll call it a win.

And losing a 50/50 vote in a career politician like Castle, I'll call a draw.

I think I tend to take a much longer view of these things than most. It's funny to me, that Ace admits betting his fears in supporting the establishment squish, while at the same time, I am betting my fears, in that an establishment squish is a much larger danger than losing the seat altogether.

We have a different perspective on "what has worked" in the past several decades, and those views don't really appear to be reconcilable.

Where those like me have seen the slide towards socialism abetted (or at least enabled) by the squishes, those sharing Ace & Drew's perspective feel taking any victory is the absolutely needed to slow the agenda of the left.

I think we can survive a couple more years out of control of the Senate. '12 is the crucial point. Taking control of all houses then with the most Conservative candidates available in power will make the Conservative mandate clear.

137 I think Ace's idea of being a grinder is spot on. If you think that all will be lost if we don't get the Senate majority this year then you obviously don't understand the war that is going on right now. The Left has always understood that transforming the country is a long-term slog. They know that there will be set-backs but they grind on. apparently, even in the face of this for the last 30 years, we don't understand this. Or at least some of us don't. This election is important but it isn't the last election we shall face. 2012 is an even bigger bugaboo for the Dems. Primary RINO purging is what is supposed to happen. We will not win every time, but we are transforming our party back to the Founder's ideals. Leftism is on full display for what it is right now. FAILURE. The last thing our side needs is to empower a few leftist RINO senators to allow the left to blame us as their policies get passed. OD may win. She may not. It is only one battle in the war. Everyone remember who our true enemies are and use your focus to defeat leftism wherever we find it...in either party.

138 Paralysis by analysis. That's the danger of your way of thinking about these contests. As voters and advocates, we are bound to make some mistakes.
 
Politicians are by their very nature a shifty and unreliable lot.

139

I just want someone to fill in this blank:

1 - Spurn the people (the "Establishment") who actually have experience winning elections.

2 - Nominate a candidate down by almost 20 points. Congradulate ourselves when she loses because a Dem is better than a RINO.

3 - ???

4 - Conservative majority!

140 Well, the problem with using ace's paradigm in Delaware is that Mike Castle has been thoroughly vetted and is such a p.o.s. it almost would not have mattered much if he won the general or if he did not. 

To stretch ace's analogy a bit:  The guys you are trying to drag out of the casino have moved to are playing at the two dollar table.

Or 

Let's Make a Deal:

You've opened every suitcase except the $40,000 (Crazy cat lady runs a good campaign) and $1.00 (Crazy cat lady gets buried).  For some odd reason, the banker only offers you $500 (Castle). 

Yeah, I would take a chance here.

141 I like to remind myself that when the Tea Parties showed up, people like Krauthammer sneered at them... and had to recant later in the wake of their efficacy.

Krauthammer did indeed misjudge the Tea Party, and he graciously copped to it after the summer of '09. We'll see who cops to what -- and how gracious they are -- after the O'D/Coons race is over.

142

Castle is gone already.  Now what's the endgame strategy?  Coons is almost certainly going to win; what advantage did we gain?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 15, 2010 12:53 PM (plsiE)

More important you should ask, what did we really risk. We got rid of someone that voted against our interest the majority of the time. If the Dem does win it will be partially with the help of the establishment crowd working to put the knife in our backs once more.

Between Castle and the Dem, there was hardly any difference in their voting tendencies. In reality, we risked almost nothing of consequence.

143

I'm with you, Ace. I see the pitfalls in both ways of thinking.  I change my mind on RINOs, it seems, depending on the "RINO". And I'm very conservative.

I think we've just been burned so badly by the GOP that we're afraid to let them keep or have any more RINOs, and there are a lot of good reasons to fear the GOP establishment.

So I see both sides. I hope we don't make too many mistakes during this phase. I hope we keep the fire burning to clean up this party and do it wisely. I hope we quit getting vicious with people urging some restraint.

144

omg, I can't believe you went there!

YUP, that was a bad 'un.

145 Let my poontang go!!!

146

Great.

Sports Illustrated is now taking shots at the Tea Party.

In their weekly power rankings of NFL teams , here is there descrition of the Steelers.

Field goals attempts at Heinz Field are some kind of fun. That stadium really is the Bermuda Triangle for NFL kickers. Did you see that 40-yard miss late in regulation by the Steelers' Jeff Reed? The ball went so far right I thought it was going to run for office in the Tea Party.

 

Yeah, that's great, because most NFL fans are left wingers, right sports illustrated?

147 In reality, we risked almost nothing of consequence. Posted by: Jim in San Diego at September 15, 2010 12:58 PM

Except the nightmare scenario that we miss a Senate majority by one seat and all the committee chairmanships stay Dem.

148 "But there's a good reason to like candidates with the Establishment Code of Approval, people who have been around the block -- you have a pretty good idea of what dirt is lurking in their background."

I'd say that the fact that they've been around the block gives the impression that their dirt has come out.  But we see plenty of examples of folks in both major parties who've been in office a long time and have either been hiding their dirt all along or have -- by the very virtue of being in office and having access and influence -- become dirty, corrupted by power to a greater or lesser extent.  Bill Clinton?  Ted Kennedy?  David Vitter?  Larry Craig?

As for Angle and O'Donnell, they really aren't "out of nowhere" -- they're new on the national stage, but well-known in their own states.  The item you cited about Angle about prison massages, for example, stems from the very fact that she's served in the State legislature.  O'Donnell ran for the self-same office of US Senate in 2008 and was not vetted because as a no-hoper, the media and the opposition and, yes, her supporters were all too lazy to invest the effort in oppo-researching her.

What frosts me is the blind rush to pick some high-profile figure or another as the Next Big Thing to hitch our wagon to.  The people who cry "Help us, General Petraeus, you're our only hope" or "The 'Stache Will Save Us" are feeding into the problem you're railing against.  Those high-profile figures don't "come out of nowhere" but still have not been vetted in the important ways that matter for political candidates, both for personal dirt and for principles on the issues that matter across the board.  (Does anyone know if Petraeus is a registered Republican or if Bolton favors the Bush tax cuts?)

It's important for both the Republican Establishment and for the TEA Party insurgents to operate a "farm team" system to develop candidates over a longer period than one election cycle and to do oppo research on their own prospective candidates to bring any dirt or questions into the open before putting their weight behind particular individuals.

149

Even if O'Donnell is totaly unelectable (which I don't buy), and gets creamed by Coons, then the old guard in the Republican leadership got a message- that the Tea party, and the conservative tsunami, are for real, and you ignore it at your peril.  Run conservatives or lose.  This is vitally important to the thing that AOSHQ and most of the right blogs have been saying for years, that is that the method for getting conservatives in office is first to elect them in the primary. 

Remember McCain?  Anyone?  He was the one who 'could win', right?  Thoroughly vetted, right?  He not only lost, but turned the Republican party away from Reagan conservatism even more then the Bush family had.  Amnesty, Campaign Finance, Go along to get along, don't take any stand that might turn off 'moderates', that was what the Republican party stood for just two years ago.  How did that work out for us? They, and their tired power mongering 'moderation',  need to GO!  

Ace,if, as you have said, and I agree, that a third party will destroy any chance conservatives have, then we have to take over the Republican party and move it our way.  That is done in the primary.  That is what happened in Delaware.

A few weeks back it was "Don't just win, but STOMP them".  Now it sounds like "just win, forget the principals".  

An O'Donnell loss is better for the cause then a Castle win.  Why is that hard to see?  The last thing we need is another gang of 14 member when the chips are down. 

 

150

How about some discussion on the fading influence of the MSM.

A few years ago, an illegal immigrant housekeeper was enough to destroy the viability of nearly any Right of Center candidate. 

Now they have next to no traction with the majority of the electorate.  They have a trust factor that is equitable to that of our CongressCritters.

151
The house is on fire and Ace wants to be sure the firemen all washed their junk back at the station before he lets them put it out.
And did they wax the trucks? Can't put out a fire with unwaxed trucks. Better be sure to use filtered water too, it's important.

152 130 Yeah well that's why assholes like Rove and Krauthammer need to shut the fuck up.  Jesus Christ, MSDNC, CNN et al will be looking under every rock to dig up dirt on O'Donnell.  Do we really need someone who is supposed to be on OUR side trashing her 5 seconds after she won? 

Posted by: jewells at September 15, 2010 12:56 PM (l/N7H)

One word: Establishment.  They're all part of it, and it doesn't matter whether they are part of the Republican establishment or Democrat establishment. They want to hold on to the position they currently occupy and they are very nervous that the infusion of new blood could make them no longer relevant. 

153 Just a warning,  around here I notice a lot of shiftless freebooters jumping on the Tea Party bandwagon, and also on the various "conservative patriot" groups forming because they say the GOP isn't tough enough.  Come to find some are failed business owners who were counting on all the bubble wealth to keep them going, so it must be govt's fault.    Lots of former subprime mortgage brokers, financial advisors and broken-down Realtors running for office.  O'Donnell herself has a pretty stinky foreclosure thing going on so she's just another fool.

154 I think what the electorate is saying is fuck it, we tried it the old fashion way and we still got Obamacare. Now we go scorch earth. The Democrats are probably going to get the same beating, people are tired and pissed, rational thought gone, so it's full speed ahead. kinda of exciting to see.

155 But we see plenty of examples of folks in both major parties who've been in office a long time and have either been hiding their dirt all along Why didn't you come to me like a fucking man and tell me this?

156  The ball went so far right I thought it was going to run for office in the Tea Party.

 

Yeah, that's great, because most NFL fans are left wingers, right sports illustrated?

 

The Tea Party purists have made no secret of the fact that that anyone even pretending to be friendly to moderates is not welcome, so I don't see anything wrong with SI here.

157 Tea Party Revolution Takes Control Of GOP!

Self-Important Really-Smart East-Coast Candy-Ass RINO Bloggers Hardest Hit!

Allahpundit and Ace weep uncontrollably.

*their tears sustain me*

158 Nobody with sense puts up with the ultra-detailed examination of every single aspect of life that being a professional politician requires. No real human being is capable of surviving such a thing without SOMETHING unpleasant turning up. This sort of vetting results in faceless losers with no spine pretending to run government. It is a process that selects for useless nonentities. It doesn't MATTER that they're guaranteed not to do anything terribly bad: they're guaranteed not to do anything good, either. That is a recipe to put the country exactly where it is today. Unacceptable.

159

It is Karl Rove and the other dimwit "architects" who gave us compassionate conservatism.

The term "compassionate conservatism" has ALWAYS made my skin crawl.  I don't WANT my conservatism compassionate, I want it cold, logical, and Constitutional.  Save your compassion for the time it truly counts: in your PERSONAL LIFE.  There's no room for it in politics.

160 1 - Spurn the people (the "Establishment") who actually have experience winning elections.

Well, looking at the time period of 2004-8, when the current crop of moderates really took over the Rep party, we see a significant decline in the ability of the Republicans to win elections.

The moderates tend to blame outside forces, but there is a pretty significant correlation between a moderate Republicans party and a Republican party that loses elections.

161 Ted Kennedy was vetted and found to be a shit bag. How long was he a senator?

162 Allah is that you ?

163 The people who cry "Help us, General Petraeus, you're our only hope" or "The 'Stache Will Save Us" are feeding into the problem you're railing against. Those high-profile figures don't "come out of nowhere" but still have not been vetted in the important ways that matter for political candidates Excellent point

164 Well, if we're going to be more like Europe, maybe we just get over these pseudo-scandals already. Even real honest-to-god scandals don't seem to cause people to leave office. So why should we really care about them if the candidates vote the right way? I'm semi-serious. Let's not forget the eternal double-standards of the MFM. Ace will say that means we have to better than the opposition. I disagree. What we need to do is make the opposition play by the same rules. Screw the supposedly kooky ideas spewed by our candidates. They're no more kooky than one-half of the crap that comes out of Harry Reid's mouth in an afternoon.

165 149 In reality, we risked almost nothing of consequence. Posted by: Jim in San Diego at September 15, 2010 12:58 PM

Except the nightmare scenario that we miss a Senate majority by one seat and all the committee chairmanships stay Dem.

Posted by: arhooley at September 15, 2010 12:59 PM (jAzLw)

I say the real nightmare scenario would be to return Castle to office and then have that "majority" go ahead and vote with the Dems anyway.

166 So, Ace, you're afraid of powerful women?

167 This is the second time I wrote this. I had finished it at 11:40, after writing for 40 minutes, and guess what? The stupid computer was on that automatic update countdown and I hadn't noticed. So as I was drawing to my conclusion the thing just shut down. And no damn freaking auto-save or anything. Anyway, I just wanted you to know that I had begun blogging very early at the crack of 11:08. a computer reset at 11:45am? you should really try setting it for a more normal time, on the off chance you wake up before noon. And that's why Mark Levin is dead to me. He seems incapable of accepting that people of good heart and spirit might disagree with him; everyone who disagrees with him, it turns out, is a monster who just wants to "destroy" Christine O'Donnell because we're all secretly liberals. Which is the sort of thing a degenerate gambler says when you try to pry him way from the table. But you've got the problem, not him, you know? Haven't been able to listen for the past couple days for that reason. He ends up calling Malkin that too, since she was calling for people to tone it down. I dont think she is a nobody who hasnt written a book.

168 Good Lord. Right a novel next time Ace. You and Gabe really are squishy RHINO whiners.

How about this. VET THE OPPOSITION. Start writing about COON and how he is a self admitted MARXIST.

Also, I call BULLSHIT on this entire post. You're all the sudden concerned about vetting?

Why didn't you vet CASTLE and the fact that the 30 year civil servant is worth 8 MILLION DOLLARS. Answer that question you petulant child. HOW IS CASTLE WORTH 8 MILLION? Vet it ASSHOLE!

169

I have the official "Ace of Spades" vetting seal of approval.

No skeletons in my closet!

170
'Unelectable' is a democrat/MFM term for 'we don't want to run against them'.

171

I agree totally that candidates should be vetted. Christine O' Donnell was vetted throughout her primary.

The list of things that assholes like Carl Rove can't wait to read over and over on fox news is all stuff that came out before she won. She won anyway.

172

Term Limits.

Freeze the assets of anyone in Congress. No more making money while in Congress... ie you leave with the assets you came in with.

Free Congrssional housing, paid for by the STATES.

They are in Washington to Serve... not make Carreers, or better retirments than anyone elsse.

173

Ya know what the Establishment needs to do?

Back actual conservatives.

That's kinda the whole point.

If they did that, we wouldn't need to rely upon these unknowns.

174 Yeah well that's why assholes like Rove and Krauthammer need to shut the fuck up.  Jesus Christ, MSDNC, CNN et al will be looking under every rock to dig up dirt on O'Donnell.  Do we really need someone who is supposed to be on OUR side trashing her 5 seconds after she won?  Posted by: jewells at September 15, 2010 12:56 PM

Krauthammer and Rove are "assholes"? Good God.

175

The Tea Party purists have made no secret of the fact that that anyone even pretending to be friendly to moderates is not welcome, so I don't see anything wrong with SI here.

Like Mark Kirk? Scott Brown? Carli Fiorina? Meg Whitman?

I could go on, but i don't care to waste my time Paul.

 

 

176 Coons is almost certainly going to win; what advantage did we gain?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 15, 2010 12:53 PM (plsiE)

 

You sure about that?  Castle was almost certainly going to win against OD.  He didn't. 

177

Freeze the assets of anyone in Congress. No more making money while in Congress... ie you leave with the assets you came in with.

How did Mike Castle end up with a net worth of 8 million when he's been a "public servant" for the last 30 years?

178

Yeah, that's great, because most NFL fans are left wingers, right sports illustrated?

They're just following the standard media business model. Even more awesome? A bunchof mini-Olbermann's waiting in the wing to become political pundits.

179 You say that about Levin, but you could just as easily say it about a couple of the co-bloggers.  The arrogance and condescension has pissed a lot of people off.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at September 15, 2010 12:56 PM

And you sure as shit could say it about a whole lot of comment-posters here.

Whether ace posts a thoughtful opinion or engages in wild-eyed jackassery, there are always people who fall back on knee-jerk responses. They never read and think about what he's saying. They definitely ignore commenters with different views, except to throw up tired, repetitive snark.

Analysis seems a dying art. Kudos to ace for practicing it.

The whole "NRSCC was not supporting O'Donnell but was forced to change its mind" thing is a great example. Brett Bair said Carl Cameron reported that "sources" told him the NRSCC  tale last night. Fucks News has been backpedaling furiously this morning. Posters here have been yelping about that without doing any follow-up. And so, despite the evidence, is Megyn Kelly.

180 I agree wholeheartedly with what you say, commend you for saying it....but am still left with the feeling that this same ol' shit approach has gotten us the likes of Lindsay Graham.

I honestly just don't know what the answer is...but if I lived in Delaware, I'd have most certainly voted for COD.

And cried bitter tears when I found out she actually won.

But my God, at some point ya gotta make stand. You just do.

181

I also have the official "Ace of Spades" vetting seal of approval.

No skeletons in my... er... um...  closet?

Excuse me, I have to use the restroom!

182 Drew translation: "Tis but a flesh wound"

183 148 - SI's premier football writer, Peter King, regularly knobgobbles the Marxist-in-Chief, so I'm not surprised. They are owned by CNN, after all.

184
Obama wasn't vetted and look where he is now.

He won.

Democrats can be as corrupt, tax evading, tax cheating, and ultra hard core left-wing and unsuitable for governance as possible, and it's all on a free pass.

 

185 We are in the midst of an electoral revolution.  Vetting thresholds shift with the passion of the times. This isn't a a "normal" election cycle, Ace.  They view the political class in Washington and their state capitals as the Enemy and will select the men and women that reflect their rage with the status quo.  If a winning candidate turns out to be a loser, well, adjustments can be made later on.

186
Yeah, that's great, because most NFL fans are left wingers, right sports illustrated?

Umm, you know who owns SI, don't you?  I canceled that subscription long, long ago. 

187 #148  Yeah, that's great, because most NFL fans are left wingers, right sports illustrated?

Hardy har har.  Shame that most sports reporters are left-wing artards.  I haven't heard much about Don Banks, but I'd hazard a guess he's more of the same.

188 Who says Castle has been vetted?  History shows that when the Dems decide to turn on these career RINOs, suddenly there's all kinds of meat there to get him in trouble.

Remember Bob Packwood in the 90s?  Been a reliable Dem vote on women's issues for decades in exchange for a little Ted Kennedy action on the side. Ten minutes after the Dem's decided they didn't need him anymore, he was exposed, and out.

189

Sheeit. Whut's wrong with sumbody's that got a 'Vette? I shore wish I had wun.

Freebird! Where's mah lighter?

190

According to Ace of Spades, I am officially vetted!

Now release my chakras, bitch!

191 Krauthammer and Rove are "assholes"? Good God.

Posted by: arhooley at September 15, 2010 01:04 PM (jAzLw)

I'm not ready to condemn Rove for an angry, ill thought out outburst, but Krauthammer, yeah, undeniably a Washington hack insider elitist, on top of being an asshole.

192 Oh ACE has blocked me on twitter. What a pussy.

193

The Tea Party purists Establishment Republicans have made no secret of the fact that that anyone even pretending to be friendly to the Tea Party moderates is not welcome, so I don't see anything wrong with SI here shitting on conservitives and helping Democrats.

Posted by: Paul at September 15, 2010 01:02 PM (DsHk0)

Fixed it for ya!

194

Yeah, that's great, because most NFL fans are left wingers, right sports illustrated?

They're just following the standard media business model. Even more awesome? A bunchof mini-Olbermann's waiting in the wing to become political pundits.

Look, we all know most sports writers a left leaning, no suprise, but they are normally very good about keeping politics out of the discussion.

It was just a cheap shot that doesn't really benefit the author in anyway but to alienate people who might read his material.

It's like Michael Jordan said, or was ascribed to him, Republicans buy sneakers too.

 

195
We're not going to win the Senate.

The only reason some of you keep repeating that fantasy is because you know deep down we don't lose *that much* with Castle's loss/the loss to Coons.

Castle was a shitty Republican. That's a fact. Losing him in the House kinda sucks a little, but not having him in the Senate is not a big loss.

So you need to up the ante an say O'Donnell just cost us the Senate, thus making her primary win a big setback. It isn't.

196 Why I'm Down On Out-of-Nowhere Candidates
Translation: If O'Donnell actually wins the seat, my really-smart Candy-Ass RINO analysis will hang around my neck like a noose as my reputation goes down in flames!

197 The problem is not the vetting or not vetting, the problem is that we've got an electorate addicted to "gotcha" elections. "October surprises", last-minute character assassination, Friday-night data dumps....

Amusingly, this has everything to do with Afghanistan. Elections are held on fixed dates -- they have published timelines -- and this allows inimical interests to game the system. Since they can, and since they value their interests over civic harmony, they will.

198 To make this simple, maybe electing Castle might have been the better move in the short term, but in the long term if the GOP establishment (prime example 1: Rove) keeps pushing for people like Castle they will end up like the Whig Party. If you don't know who they are look em up, it did not end well for them.

199 Ace, I'm with you on Levin and Riehl.  If anyone thinks I'm a squish please go browse my web site.  Nothing squishy there.  Just genuine concern for the future. 

I'd just like to remind people of the press release from Colorado Right to Life.

 Â“With Maes we lowered our guard, hoping that a grassroots, tea-party-endorsed, self-proclaimed pro-personhood Republican candidate could be trusted. We see now that we were gullible. We apologize.”

Here's the problem: It's Too Late!  A Dem will win.

200 Conservatives get vetted, liberals get a pass.

THAT is what has to be changed.

HOW it can be changed is a tough question.

201 #102, you say that now. I was out 200 bales of high-grade hay when Barbaro didn't win the Preakness.

202

I am one of Ace's vetted candidates, and I would never, ever, ever switch parties to give control of the Senate to the Democrats.

Trust me, I'm vetted! 

203

Hollowpoint @39, actually, no that's not true. Congressmen are more likely to have outstanding bad debts, more likely to have declared multiple bankruptcies (personal and business), more likely to cheat on a spouse, and more likely to be accused or convicted of a crime than the average person.

I highly doubt that.  In 2008 alone there were over 1 million bankruptcies, with the number climbing since then.  About 1 in 50 have a felony conviction.  Around 20 percent have cheated on their spouse.

 

204 2 ideas: 1] Vet them. B] have candidates endorse the TEA Party Principles -- not the other way around.

205

The Founders never envisioned that being a politician would be a career. They envisioned a politician doing the job as a sacrifice, and then going back to their lives. It was *service*, not a lifelong career move. And I hate the fact that we simply assume now that politics is a profession like any other. It isn't.

A good politician requires skill, honesty, and an ability to weed out the bullshit. That's it. It doesn't require a saint (who among us is a saint?) or a genius. I don't see why a bit of background "coloration" should unfit someone for public office. Gay? I don't care. Bankruptcy in your past? I don't care. Deep in debt at present? I care, because your ability to manage your own finances might impact your ability to do your job. A philanderer? I care, because if you can't keep faith with your own spouse, how can you keep faith with the people who voted for you?

I'm sick to death of career politicians. I hate the breed with a passion. They are a horrible mutant strain of creature that the Founders did not intend to be running our lives. But if we will only accept candidates who can present simon-pure credentials before being allowed into office, then we're only going to continue to get the mendacious, careerist mediocrities we've been getting up until now.

Put some new blood into the Congressional chambers, says I. Some will turn out to be flakes and idiots, sure, but that's already true. (I present you with my State Senator, the Honorable Al Franken, as exhibit #1. We could hardly do worse than him, even if we put teams of experts on the project.)

 

206

Oh ACE has blocked me on twitter. What a pussy.

Calling anyone who uses Twitter a pu$$y is redundant.

207

Krauthammer and Rove are "assholes"? Good God.

Yes, last night they were.

208 Just out of curiousity, how is Coons doing for money?  I don't see too many people getting excited for a Marxist this year, even in Delaware.

Are the national Dems planning to bankroll him as much as possible?

209 I think your gambling analogy isn't a bad one, Ace.

Problem is, it works both ways. It might well be better to put a pile on double zero than it is to keep stuffing quarters in a machine that only has three cherries and no bars at all on the second and third wheels.

Regards,
Ric

210

Monty,

Hear, Hear!

211 Calling anyone who uses Twitter a pu$$y is redundant.

Calling Ace a pussy is redundant.

212 VET THE OPPOSITION. Start writing about COON and how he is a self admitted MARXIST.

Whoa there, caballero....you're assuming that the majority of people in Delaware CARE that he's a Marxist. I'm guessing they consider that a plus. Here in the People's Republic Of California, it'd be considered a plus in most areas. Yet Whitman and Carly are ahead.

I think COD needs to harness the crazy and make it work for her. I preferred it when Rove and the NRSC were bad-mouthing her. She needs to admit her financial issues, admit she's not perfect, and come out swinging by saying that the she is NOT a Republican darling, and that while she may not have a load of experience, she knows that there are big problems in the country overall, and she wants to do her part in solving them.

213

... judges are subject to all sorts of scrutiny and can be disrobed if they go way over the line....

Let's not try this with Ginsburg, Sotomayor or Kagan, 'K?

Cordially...

214

I say the real nightmare scenario would be to return Castle to office and then have that "majority" go ahead and vote with the Dems anyway.

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at September 15, 2010 01:02 PM

--------------------
Fair enough. Now we seem to have a choice between a nightmare and a miracle.

215 Except the nightmare scenario that we miss a Senate majority by one seat and all the committee chairmanships stay Dem.

Posted by: arhooley at September 15, 2010 12:59 PM (jAzLw)

This is an interesting insight into how human beings think.  Six months ago, hardly anyone figured that the GOP could win a Senate majority, and almost everyone figured Castle was a lock for winning the general election.  So hardly anyone cared to look past Castle's electability or cared to look at O'Donnell's baggage: it just didn't matter much outside Delaware.

But with the surging fortunes of Republican candidates -- a surge fueled in a large part by the energy and emotion of the TEA Party movement -- suddenly the prize of a Senate majority looked well within reach.  Suddenly, the prospect of losing something that was never ours to begin with became a nightmare scenario, and the people who made it possible to believe that the wonderful prize was almost ours are now the villains snatching the prize from our grasp.

It's human nature -- it's been the subject of fables and parables to the time of Aesop and before: don't count your chickens before they hatch, those grapes were probably sour anyway, and other such reflections on our psychology.

216

I hearby swear to stay loyal to the GOP voters that put me in office. I would never, ever switch parties. Ever.

You can trust me way more than those filthy, unvetted "outsiders." Just ask Ace of Spades.

 

217 I think that politics as casino gambling is the wrong metaphor.  The goal is not to rack up points, or to win money, but to save our constitutional republic from irreparable damage.  I for one think our nation faces an existential threat. I don't care who doesn't see it that way; it won't change my mind that it is so.

Therefore this isn't casino gambling; this is war.  And the objective can only be one of a couple things, and among them is to identify or shape just one party that is actually pro-Constitution, at the very least.  A party that actually gets that things are going to be very bad and unfixable in the near future under current policies.  So the objective is to force the party back into actually caring about the Constitution and the nation, and the second objective is to use that to save the country, although at this point it is my opinion (as a former candidate myself) that we are likely to lose that fight.  Too much has been lost to make victory in the big things predictable, but it is still a fight to be fought, with vigor and self-sacrifice. 

So in that context, look at the primaries as the ONLY mechanism to meet objective number one, and look at the candidates as weapons to achieve both objectives.  If that's the metaphor, did Castle even qualify as a weapon at all?  If so, a weapon for which side?  If that's the metaphor, O'Donnel may yet turn out to be defective, or ineffective, but that ought not stop us from at least trying to use the weapon while the machines of destruction bear down on us.

218

Yes, last night they were.

Krauthammer definitely has an elitist streak, and Rove is just a "win at all costs" kind of guy because he's a political strategist.  I wouldn't expect them to take any other position regardless of how much I disagree.

With that said, they both need to chill and stop trying to sound smarter than everyone else.  They generally are, but not in this case.

219 "We The People...."

Got that you RINO Candy-Ass Bloggers?

Not "We The GOP"

Not "We The Political Analysts"

Not "We The Candy-Ass Social-Moderates"

But- "WE THE PEOPLE"

Get used to that- mkay girls?

Here's a tissue- now blow!

220 Are the national Dems planning to bankroll him as much as possible?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 15, 2010 01:10 PM

The Dems will do just what hardcore O'Donnell supporters are insisting we do: They'll support their candidate and demand everyone else do likewise because he has the Magic Letter behind his name on the ballot.

221

More important you should ask, what did we really risk. We got rid of someone that voted against our interest the majority of the time. If the Dem does win it will be partially with the help of the establishment crowd working to put the knife in our backs once more.

Between Castle and the Dem, there was hardly any difference in their voting tendencies. In reality, we risked almost nothing of consequence.

It's a gross exaggeration to suggest that there was "harly any difference" in their voting tendencies.  Was Castle a reliable vote?  No.  A full on "bearded Marxist"?  No.

Your argument also ignores the possiblity of gaining the Senate majority and the Committee control that comes with it.

222 She needs to admit her financial issues, admit she's not perfect, and come out swinging

Posted by: MissTammy at September 15, 2010 01:12 PM

Let's see if she's smart enough and honest enough to do that. I bet she doubles down on the denial and beclowns herself.

223 Riehl had nice things to say about ace's "5 reasons she could win" post, if that matters.

224 “I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me.” George S. Patton. Castle = French Division.

225
Yes, I eagerly await the first Coons Sucks post at AoS.

226 So Ace, are you the blogger Mark Levin called an Ass?

He may be dead to you, but he's a Patriot who is doing lots to help REAL conservatives everywhere.

Screw the RINOs.

227

Calling Ace a pussy is redundant.

I've a feeling he can handle it.

228

I promise to bring back respectability and decency to the office of Presisdent.

I've been vetted!

229
Let's see if she's smart enough and honest enough to do that. I bet she doubles down on the denial and beclowns herself.


My money is on the beclowning, but I am trying to remain positive.

230 I've a feeling he can handle it.

I'm sure he can. Wait, by "it" you mean "cock in his mouth". Right?

231 "Paul" and the two retards repeatedly insulting ace should STFU and go sit on a tuffet. 

232 Field goals attempts at Heinz Field are some kind of fun. That stadium really is the Bermuda Triangle for NFL kickers. Did you see that 40-yard miss late in regulation by the Steelers' Jeff Reed? The ball went so far right I thought it was going to run for office in the Tea Party.

 

Yeah, that's great, because most NFL fans are left wingers, right sports illustrated?

Posted by: Ben at September 15, 2010 12:59 PM (wuv1c)

--Ha, I'm reading that right now!

Dumbass doesn't even know there is no Tea Party you can "run for office in."

Like I've said, sportswriters are English or journalism majors who got Obama-like grades in college.

233
The only thing that irked me about what Kraut said was Castle was a shoo-in.

Bull shit. He doesn't know that. Is Marco Rubio a shoo-in, because his poll numbers show him ahead just like Castle's did? Besides AR and AK, we have no shoo-ins this November.

234 The whole "NRSCC was not supporting O'Donnell but was forced to change its mind" thing is a great example. Brett Bair said Carl Cameron reported that "sources" told him the NRSCC  tale last night. Fucks News has been backpedaling furiously this morning. Posters here have been yelping about that without doing any follow-up. And so, despite the evidence, is Megyn Kelly.

Posted by: MrScribbler at September 15, 2010 01:05 PM (Ulu3i)

I have no doubt that some pissy little bitch at the NRSC told Cameron and Baier last night that the NRSC wouldn't give O'Donnell a dime.  That could easily have been one little scum-sucker's belief and not reflective of the NRSC's official policy.  Or it could have been a trial balloon to see whether it would cause an uproar of outrage or a roar of approval.

235 I'd rather be ruled by the first 535 trailer dwellers I can find, than the Rockefeller Republicans who run the Stupid Party.

Posted by: Randall Hoven at September 15, 2010 12:57 PM (I4dSA)

LOL!

236 So Ace, are you the blogger Mark Levin called an Ass?

He may be dead to you, but he's a Patriot who is doing lots to help REAL conservatives everywhere.

Screw the RINOs.

And in doing so pissing off people you need to win.  It get's him ratings but it is not what Reagan did.

237

All seriousness aside, I have two words for you: Rick Scott. This guy has a big 'ol walk-in closet full of skeletons. He ran against Bill McCollum, the ultimate Washington insider. With all his warts, I'm gonna vote for him against the democrat kitchen Sink. Is it a gamble? Sure, but this is just the beginning of the conservative revolution, and if he doesn't toe the line, we can make his political life a living hell, just like we will any newcomer who doesn't start obeying orders from us, their bosses. We'll use him for fodder in our cannons in the next battle.

We're no longer taking prisoners. We no longer give any quarter. Join us or else.

I've got my doubts, but I'm sick and tired of being used, abused, and lied to by pols who care about their power a helluva lot more that they care about my future job prospects and the welfare of my family. I'm tired of pols saying one thing on the campaign trail then developing a convenient case of amnesia when they get to Washington and start voting for things that I oppose like ObamaCare and Crap-and-Tax and Cash-4-Clunkers and the GM and Chrysler takeovers...

And the fact that Teddy Kennedy still remained in office after his drunken killing of Kopechne soured me on Dims pretty much permanently. If they could still embrace a bastard like that, how could they possibly have any scruples left to govern with? Some vetting...

238 I'm sure he can. Wait, by "it" you mean "cock in his mouth". Right?

Posted by: FleshBomb at September 15, 2010 01:18 PM (Ca/zm)

You know, I believe you have gone beyond legitimate comment and have now descended to the level of plain boring asshole.

239 Watching tweets of rightwing bloggers, reporters, last night was enlightening.

They looked remarkably like all the leftwing bloggers and reporter tweets.

Good to know who is on what side I guess....sad, but the need to be on the "cool"
side extends to more than just 14 year olds.

I would have expected more from the right, but so be it.

240 What I found funny and interesting, Rove mentioned the fact that it took 2 decades for O'Donnell to pay education bills. Well that remark resembles a lot of people in this country, and financial difficulties that she has which I am not too familiar with, I would think that very few are not having financial difficulties including Ace's bestest newest friend Rubio. He is not too bad is he? Plus I like her retort about not being a Trust fund baby, that was sweet this fight going to be well worth it!

241 Bull shit. He doesn't know that. Is Marco Rubio a shoo-in, because his poll numbers show him ahead just like Castle's did? Besides AR and AK, we have no shoo-ins this November.

Posted by: AoS Pirate...now with extra-absorbent wings at September 15, 2010 01:19 PM (uFokq)

Given that Murkowski hasn't officially ruled out her write-in bid, AK isn't a shoo-in yet, either.

242 Ace your a rhino pussy LOL

243 I am a fairly new commenter, though a long-time lurker, and as such I fully acknowledge that I have no right to offer my opinions, but that's not going to stop me from doing so.....


I get that a certain amount of insulting is a time-honored Moron tradition, but seriously....this is getting out of hand. Y'all are starting to sound like Olberman and Schultz. Take it to HuffPo.

244

You know, I believe you have gone beyond legitimate comment and have now descended to the level of plain boring asshole.

Posted by: maddogg at September 15, 2010 01:20 PM (OlN4e)

No!  I won't have that!

He's a fancy, flamboyant boring asshole.

245 And in doing so pissing off people you need to win.  It get's him ratings but it is not what Reagan did.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at September 15, 2010 01:20 PM

Sorry, not buying that.  Levin is not running for office.  He is a radio host.  One who has been lumped in with Limbaugh et al, for years.  Anyone he has pissed off so bad they won't vote and donate Conservative and/or GOP in a wave election never voted  or donated Conservative and/or GOP in the first place.

246

Just making a point, not really insulting Ace. He is right about 98% of the time. And he is funny.

But the "vetting" argument is loose shit, as he would say.

A lot of you just can't handle the fact that O'Donnell won. She did. Now let's close ranks get after those socialists that are destroying the country.

Work, donate, vote.

  

247 You know, I believe you have gone beyond legitimate comment and have now descended to the level of plain boring asshole.

If I was the typical limp and squishy RHINO I would actually have ASCENDED to the level of plain boring asshole.

248 242 Watching tweets of rightwing bloggers, reporters, last night was enlightening.

They looked remarkably like all the leftwing bloggers and reporter tweets.



I thought the same thing.

249 Well, one positive thing to take from this: The passion is on our side.

The Democrats are all pretty much gathered up in Hagia Sophia praying fervently we won't pour through the breach in the morning.

250 Posted by: FleshBomb at September 15, 2010 01:03 PM (Ca/zm)

This isn't your house, you asshole. Don't shit on the carpet.

251 Out-of-Nowhere Candidates
See Obama, Barack H.

252 No, Fleshbomb, you are pretty much just shitting the bed.

253 A lot of you just can't handle the fact that O'Donnell won

Hah, I can't handle it, and I'd have voted for her! But yes, it's time to suck it up and close ranks.

Ironically, the Ace et.al. camp who are always dogging the other side as being purists are themselves becoming purists in their own way.

254 I love shitting in limp, impotent, RHINO beds. Roll in it bitches.

255 The candidates that have been "vetted" by the establishment too often have secrets that they manage to hide because those that are vetting them are members of the same club.  These secrets often come out just at the right time politically to do the most damage to the party. 

256 259 I love shitting in limp, impotent, RHINO beds. Roll in it bitches.

Posted by: FleshBomb at September 15, 2010 01:27 PM (Ca/zm)

If yo're going to call me a RINO fuckhead, at least spell it right.

257 I feel like the GOP, especially the CO folks dropped the ball.  WTF are they good for if not to pre-vet candidates and provide this information at the caucuses and conventions.

Instead of 6 governor candidates we don't get a solid (state rep) asked to step down so as not to take votes from 'its his turn' McInnis, who later turns out to have an issue that has come up since his stint as a congress critter;  and oh we can't be bothered to collect basic background info on Maes,  he is just an outsider so 'we' wont pick him anyway.   Well guess what, people who were tired of not liking their choices on Nov 2nd showed up to caucuses and the primary this year  -- and they didn't have enough information thanks to the STUPID PARTY. 

258 Ah, you're dead to Mark Levin. Call it even.

259

He may be dead to you, but he's a Patriot who is doing lots to help REAL conservatives everywhere.

Maybe. But he's still an asshole. That kind of snide crap he was slinging is beyond the pale. This whole episode really put me off Levin in a big way. He's been a fucking jerk to good folks (the Powerline guys specifically) -- it was a real Prima Donna act. I'm with Ace on this one: he's dead to me.

Does that officially put me in the RINO camp? Do I get my decoder pin and pass to the clubhouse now?

It's possible to disagree with people without being an asshole about it. The Left has never learned that lesson, but I expected more out of the conservative brain-trust.

 

260 If yo're going to call me a RINO fuckhead, at least spell it right.

Pot Meet Kettle, ass face.

261 It's getting smelly in here.  LOL

262

The whole "NRSCC was not supporting O'Donnell but was forced to change its mind" thing is a great example. Brett Bair said Carl Cameron reported that "sources" told him the NRSCC  tale last night. Fucks News has been backpedaling furiously this morning. Posters here have been yelping about that without doing any follow-up. And so, despite the evidence, is Megyn Kelly.

Posted by: MrScribbler at September 15, 2010 01:05 PM (Ulu3i)

Stu Rothenberg was on WMAL this am and said he called the NRSC last night and got the word that they wouldn't support her, not just because they didn't think she could win, but because she was a flawed person. 

 

 

263

Is ND a lock? Awesome.

264

I would have supported Castle if he won the primary. It would hurt, but I voted for McCain in 2008, so I know about hurt.

We all fought like hell, we have our candidates. Now we carry the banner against the hordes of Mordor!

265 #259

We all have pretty thick skin when it comes to being insulted. But there is almost always a point to it. Your blather is just that: pointless. You sound like a 12-year old boy who is using profanity because mommy and daddy are away.

266

Posted by: FleshBomb at September 15, 2010 01:31 PM (Ca/zm)

How old are you pissant? 12?

267 Repub
In
Name
Only.

268 We're not going to win the Senate.

The only reason some of you keep repeating that fantasy is because you know deep down we don't lose *that much* with Castle's loss/the loss to Coons.

Castle was a shitty Republican. That's a fact. Losing him in the House kinda sucks a little, but not having him in the Senate is not a big loss.

So you need to up the ante an say O'Donnell just cost us the Senate, thus making her primary win a big setback. It isn't.

Posted by: AoS Pirate...now with extra-absorbent wings at September 15, 2010 01:08 PM (uFokq)

Well, we just might win the Senate.  And O'Donnell just might win her Senate race as part of that win, or we might win it despite her losing in November.  But you're right: framing her nomination as the single key factor in winning or losing a Senate majority is just tunnel-vision.

269

And that's why Mark Levin is dead to me. He seems incapable of accepting that people of good heart and spirit might disagree with him; everyone who disagrees with him, it turns out, is a monster who just wants to "destroy" Christine O'Donnell because we're all secretly liberals.

Which is the sort of thing a degenerate gambler says when you try to pry him way from the table. But you've got the problem, not him, you know?      Posted by: Ace at 12:25 PM

Levin is an arrogant SOB.  Anyone who allows himself to be called the Great One is a conceited fool.  He was flattered by O'Donnell just as he is by Hannity.  Stroke Mark's ego and he'll do anything. 

As for O'Donnell, if she loses she's the replacement for Alan Keyes.  If she wins, she's the Conservative version of Maxine Waters.  Neither one is a good thing.  Oh, and I disliked Castle too.

270 Is ND a lock? Awesome.

Posted by: AoS Pirate...now with extra-absorbent wings at September 15, 2010 01:31 PM (uFokq)

*SIGH*

271 While we remain briefly, on this subject of vetting, when do we get to vet Ace? Just who is he...this is Darth Vader on the intartubes?  Not exactly transparent.

Inquiring minds, want to know...

272 Posted by: Log Cabin at September 15, 2010 01:32 PM (1Wfmo)

Just as long as Frodo isn't played by that whiny little weasel-looking shit Elijah Wood.

273 How old are you pissant? 12?

Old enough you sore fucking loser. "Yo're" Priceless.

274 #155
Lots of former subprime mortgage brokers, financial advisors...running for office.

I was both Jeanne. What's your fuckin' point?

275

You sound like a 12-year old boy who is using profanity because mommy and daddy are away.

 

Okay, I think Fleshbomb is annoying, but this is what makes AoSHQ superspecial - that a guy with the handle "CharlieBrown'sDildo" is saying this. 

I remember a post where Ace was clamping down on the profanity - I think it was after the whole cockholster googlebomb attempt - and he was posting what some commenters had said, and there was a good one from "Masturbatin Pete" about how we needed to have respect for other or some stuff.

 

276

An excellent post Ace,

 

Please note that there is no singular vetting process. As was noted, on average, we, the media and the Dems are all to happy to vet our candidates repeatedly. Ineed, it's obvious that the Del State GOP failed to do due diligance in 2006 or 2008. The sacrifical lamb scenario is an excuse, not an explanation.

One possible cause for frustration here is that we see criminal, downright bizarre people on the Dem side not only survive, but prosper. This tends to exascerbate the problem. We want to do well, and present the best candidate; we care about what we send to the Capitol. That's also why talk of electability is irksome.

 

This one was and still is a doozy. Perhaps if we gain perspective from this post, relations may improve.

277

I'm sure he can. Wait, by "it" you mean "cock in his mouth". Right?

Depends.  Is it your mom's?

I just can't understand why Ace would want you off his Twitter feed with such a pedestrian response.

278 Great post.

Don't know if anybody here frequented the threads at HA ove the last few days, but I was essentially trying to make the point that if O'Donnell has this strange stuff on her record now (and few of her supporters really seemed to care and didn't want to hear it), then wait until the Dem-Media complex got their hooks into her.

And I was called a troll, douche, traitor and a host of other names becuase I dared to keep holding out dirt on their candidate without explicitly supporting Castle (which I begrudgingly was doing, even though I would have liked a better candidate there, too-it was for the easy win). Maybe some of you here were even hating on us RINO-troll-douches!

But it wasn't because I explicitly didn't like Christine - I don't (I think she's a fraud, and that if there were a D after her name, many who were criticizing Team Castle would have been right on board agreeing), but that's not the point. The point is what the media and the Democrats, who infect nearly every corner of public discourse in American life except for on conservative talk radio, would not only destroy her and the Senate seat pickup, but would also seek to destroy the TP and its other candidates and use Christine's dirt as the "poster child" going forward - not just in this election, but in future years, too.

We want conservatives, but they should be solid conservatives with little "nutty" baggage like the ones you listed (Angle, Miller, etc). There's no need to go whole-hog on terrible candidates and shoot yourself in the foot just to "prove a point" to the RNC.

279 I don't get calling Ace a 'RINO' or a 'RINO Lover'.  It's stupid, and it should be evident to any regular or occasional reader here that he is a conservative.  People who know shouldn't descend to cocksucker levels, and Trolls can fuck off, you're useless.  Ace explained himself, and while I can intellectually understand it, I am not as risk-averse as he is. 

I have to ask the more risk-averse people, though, will you now throw your support behind the nominees?  I mean, they are now the party NOMINEES.  Or are you going to kick at the dirt, thrust your hands in your pockets, hang your head and grudgingly lend tenuous support while always adding a caveat?  Throw in the towel and willingly give up the chance of a majority, or fight for what you stated you wanted to fight for before? 

Losing a good fight is ALWAYS better than rolling up in a ball and being kicked.  Right now it's put up or shut up.  We're all supposed to be on the same team, aren't we?  Then for fucks sake, start throwing punches at the right fucking people!  The primaries are over, now either start getting to work or get the fuck out of the way.

280

You sure about that?  Castle was almost certainly going to win against OD.  He didn't. 

The only people who recently claimed that Castle was a shoe-in were on the Castle campaign.  The (misguided) Palin endorsement likely pushed her over the top.

Now that the candidates have some name recognition and the undecideds are under 10%, it's going to take Coons being caught with a live boy or dead girl for her to close the gap with under 2 months to go.

281 Allen West, Outsider Candidate. Powers: War Hero, clean, articulate, no discernible Negro accent (unless he wants one), conservative principles Weaknesses: mock execution of terrorist prisoner, saving lives but leading to resignation Christine O'Donnell, Outsider Candidate Powers: not a Democrat, impervious to sexual assaults involving her own fingers, big hooters Weaknesses: shrill-bitch baseless lawsuit against ISI, paranoid persecution fantasies, lies about winning counties she lost, big hooters which obviously give her no pleasure. Outsider status is not always desirable.

282

They are a horrible mutant strain of creature that the Founders did not intend to be running our lives.

Heh. Monty, since you may have missed all the fun yesterday, click on my handle and scroll down to yesterday's post.

283 #223- you have hit the REAL heart-breaker here:

Interesting note under Disbursements
Castle: $1,489,035   O'Donnell:  $230,095
It doesn't look like his money helped Mike Castle.

From EVERY race I can recall where the TP fave dominated, they ended up winning WITH FAR LESS MONEY.  Do you think the GOP establishment is experiencing severe embarrassment?  ''Give us money, we'll bring forth the best candidate, and we'll win''.  Think that line in your mailer envelopes is working for you?

This is monumental embarrassment for GOP- all that money down the drain.  Seriously. Where do you think the money Castle has goes now?  Since he's not endorsing O'Donnell, think he'll give up any of it to her campaign?  Hardly. 

There is money out there- tons of it.  It's just gone now... forever...

Wolf

284 Yeah, that shitbomb is having a hard time, Mom has a customer and told him "paying customers first". No wonder he's pissed.

285 Sorry - nutty baggage was directed at CO, not Miller or Angle.

Bad edit.

286

Why didn't you vet CASTLE and the fact that the 30 year civil servant is worth 8 MILLION DOLLARS. Answer that question you petulant child. HOW IS CASTLE WORTH 8 MILLION? Vet it ASSHOLE!

Castle is a direct descendant of Benjamin Franklin. He also attended Hamilton College in upstate New York. That's all on Wikipedia and took me less than a minute to find. It took about three additional seconds to conclude that he has means and connections. Reading your insightful question also prompts me to wonder why his net worth isn't quite a bit more.

(By the way, do you know what an appositive is?)

287 Posted by: blaster at September 15, 2010 01:35 PM (Ov86C)

Blaster,

Ace gave me shit for having a boring screen name (NJConservative), so I am using CharlieBrown'sDildo; one of the names he mentioned in his criticism.

And if you have a problem with that...

But first, you will blow me.

288

Depends.  Is it your mom's?

I just can't understand why Ace would want you off his Twitter feed with such a pedestrian response.

What a non pedestrian response. "your mom's". Real genius there BB (Butt Boy?)

289 MM has a post up at her site claiming that Rove has been on the Castle team for quite some time. Eat some more crow Ace.

290

Delaware was thought to be a lock if Castle won, pre-primary polling had him up 11 on Coons, which was a bigger leader than Toomey in PA. That is not a comment on last night primary, just a summary of the political assessment of the situation.

 

Posted by: Mallamutt

 

Flame war is back on!!!! Prepare the megafonts!

 

I kid.

291 Maddog so maaaadddd!
Grow a pair son.

292 All the Castle weasels seem to have fled HA for here ... ROFL ...

293

The fine conservatives in Deleware voted out a liberal in conservative clothing. Thank you, brothers and sisters.

I'll take that win.

The Dims are running a marxist against our nominee. Now that's fucking insane rght here.

 

294

If yo're going to call me a RINO fuckhead, at least spell it right.

Everything's right. It's spelled "RHINO" because it stands for Republican Hore In Name Only.

295

Weaknesses: mock execution of terrorist prisoner, saving lives but leading to resignation

Only a weakness in that he didn't actually execute said terrorist. I understand the only reason he didn't was that he needed intel from it. He, in the process, mananged to point out a glaring fault in our overall response to terrorism and embarass his superiors, all the way to the top. No wonder he was court martialed.

Feature, not a bug, at least for me. We need the strength to treat those bastards as the rabid animals they are.

296

Just making a point, not really insulting Ace. He is right about 98% of the time. And he is funny.

But the "vetting" argument is loose shit, as he would say.

A lot of you just can't handle the fact that O'Donnell won. She did. Now let's close ranks get after those socialists that are destroying the country.

Work, donate, vote.

We've accepted that O'Donnell won; as such we've also had to accept that a seat that we would've "won" (Castle wouldn't have been a true "win") is now lost, and probably for a very long time.

And Ace has a good point- if O'Donnell was properly vetted from the start, do you really think she'd have made it this far?  Given what we now know, there's a very real possibility that she's only in this for the money.

297 Vetting only works or doesn't with the voters. Example I: Rep. Barney Frank had an outcall service in his basement, he slept with Herb Moses while Herb Moses was effing up the secondary market in mortgage paper, and Barney Frank claimed not to recognize the "righteous herb" when his new boyfriend was growing it on his property. Has Barney Frank been vetted?
Example II: Gov. Palin, whatever else you may want to say about her, has five children. Period. And still there are some who want to continue to "vett" that fact.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: our party should have a brief pledge (The Mount Vernon Statement, for example) candidates must swear. If they break the pledge, they are expelled. Let the other party have that Frank/Castle debate.

298

Now its recently. How recently?  When did O'Donnell start having a chance?  When did it start becoming apparent that Castle had turned from "almost certainly going to win"? 

Castle was a shoo-in for the nomination less than 2 months ago - in early August he had a 20% lead in favorables over O'Donnell among Republicans.  Today O'Donnell is the candidate.

 

299 Nice post, Ace.

300

The fine conservatives in Deleware voted out a liberal in conservative clothing. Thank you, brothers and sisters.

I'll take that win.

The Dims are running a marxist against our nominee. Now that's fucking insane rght here.

If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.  The Marxist is almost guaranteed to win against O'Donnell.  That's how we as conservatives are supposed to define victory?  Trading a RINO for a Marxist?

 

301 My computer did that too last night.  I was surprised there wasn't a warning box with, say, and option to wait or something.  There always has been one in the past.

302

What a non pedestrian response. "your mom's". Real genius there BB (Butt Boy?)

I am not even a bit surprised that flew over your head.

303 #33 is spot-on.  Vetting only works one way.  Republicans, especially conservatives, and especially conservatives who might win, get "vetted."  Democrats get free passes.  If they do get caught, they whip out the race card, the sex card, the gay card, or the "for the chillurn" card, and then they get let off.

Was O'Donnell the hill we wanted to take our stand and die on?  Eh, maybe not, she's got some issues.  Personally, though, I think the Republican establishment needed to see that yes, we'll vote for an imperfect Christine O'Donnell over a "vetted" Mike Castle.  They need to see that if they want our votes, their "establishment" candidate better have opinions and personality in line with what we want.  The RNC and their crew need to remember where the power is...with the voters, not with their K Street lobbyist droogs.

304

Nice post, Ace.

...but if anyone ELSE says it, just check out the previous threads.

*eye roll*

305 Yeah well that's why assholes like Rove and Krauthammer need to shut the fuck up.  Jesus Christ, MSDNC, CNN et al will be looking under every rock to dig up dirt on O'Donnell. 
Posted by: jewells at September 15, 2010 12:56 PM

So now it's not enough to have purity of candidates but we have to have conformity of opinion? 

Krauthammer and Rove aren't on the O'Donnell payroll. They are on the FNC payroll to give their opinions. If you think they should toe the line, then you are buying into the left wing idea that FNC is (and should be) a propaganda arm of the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

306 What was your gf's phone number?

307 I am not even a bit surprised that flew over your head.

Nor was your mother surprised when my wad flew over her head. She calls me LongBomb!

308 To those saying "You've cost us a seat, where's the benefit?"  Let me tell you a story.

The year is 1836, Sam Houston has just been appointed General over the army of the Texicans (yep, that what we called ourselves then) attempting to secede from Mexico.  He tells a young office, William Travis, to go to a fort known as the Alamo, retrieve the guns there and meet up with the rest of the army as soon as possible.

Mr. Travis and a bunch of allies show up at the Alamo, and Travis decides that, no, he's not going to grab the guns and go, he's going to sell his life and the lives of every man (and most of the women and children) in that fort to give his cause more time.  He holds off Santa Anna's army for three days.  In so doing, he caused far greater casualties than he suffered (in absolute numbers, of course, in percentages not so much) and made Santa Anna sit in place and lick his wounds for a while, eventually allowing General Sam Houston to pick the time and place of the final engagement against the Mexican army, at field near the where the city of Houston now sits, called San Jacinto.

Travis, David Bowie, and a certain Senator from Tennessee "couldn't win" either.  And, in fact, they didn't.  But in losing, they gained for their side a huge morale advantage and bought time.

Maybe COD can't win.  Maybe her candidacy will be relegated to the ash-heap of history.  But even if so, if the panty-waist whiners complaining about her unelectibility would shut up and support her, the rallying cry for finally overturning the pseudo-socialist state in which we find ourselves will be, with the same force those Texicans felt in 1836 and cry "Remember Deleware!"

309

We've accepted that O'Donnell won; as such we've also had to accept that a seat that we would've "won" (Castle wouldn't have been a true "win") is now lost, and probably for a very long time.

 

Hollowpoint, that's loser talk.  And I am not saying that happy talk fixes a problem.  Yes, Delaware Republicans chose a candidate who polls behind Democrat challenger instead of a candidate who polled ahead of the Democrat challenger.  Yes, that means that today for the general we are starting at a disadvantage, but it does not mean that the seat is lost.  You keep saying it like an immutable fact, but the point I keep making is that Castle was going to beat the neophyte O'Donnell and that was an immutable fact - until it wasn't.  Marco Rubio was dangerous to support because he was too conservative and would scare the old folks.  He is polling ahead of the Democrat AND Crist running as whatever the hell he is. 

So, okay, a polling advantage has been given up.  But NOT an election.

As Sarge says, STOW THAT SHIT HUDSON! 

Now get out there and fight. 

 

310

Nor was your mother surprised when my wad flew over her head. She calls me LongBomb!

And he still doesn't get it.

311 I'm like Chris Elliot's character in Groundhog Day:  "Man, you touched me."

312 The Dems will do just what hardcore O'Donnell supporters are insisting we do: They'll support their candidate and demand everyone else do likewise because he has the Magic Letter behind his name on the ballot.

Doubtless they will.  But there are degrees of support.

The NRSC is giving O'Donnell $48K.  They are spending much more than that on Mark Kirk however, because they feel a pickup is more likely there (which is fine).

Are the national Dems planning to flood Delaware with cash for Coons?  The advantage I see O'Donnell having here is money from outside.  I could see the national Dems not wanting to spend a lot on Delaware and focusing on protecting incumbents, hoping it is blue enough where they won't need a large expenditure.

313 It only matters where the rubber meets the road: if they push the botton yay or nay during the votes.

If kennedy can kill someone, Byrd can hate a race, and Rangel can lie, cheat and steal...and all still stay in congress and VOTE, then that's all I care about is how will they vote.

314 Posted by: gh at September 15, 2010 01:44 PM (0QVPH)

Some of us have said all there is to say about Team Christine's crusade and why it might not be a great idea for us and for the movement to throw unvetted and horrifically inexperienced conservative candidates out of left field into the lion's den FOR CONSERVATISM.

Becuase when they fall, they're going to fall hard.

315 Hmmm. I have to say I am truly impressed with FleshBomb's (virtual) oratorical skills. He really knows how to write hard-hitting, convincing commentary. First, he comes on and insults Ace, who has only been doing this now for about 7 years, so of course, Ace has very little credibility in the business, being a newbie fly-by-night blogger. Then, he once again demonstrates his mastery of the debating technique by using SPELLING FLAMES! Wow, that one is a reall ball-buster. Because, you know, mistyping a word TOTALLY invalidates whatever point it was you were hoping to make. Yes, it is clear to me that FleshBombs master debating skills are too much for most of you morons.

316

 The Marxist is almost guaranteed to win against O'Donnell.

Again, really?  You think that Marxism is a-okay with Delawareans?  How vetted is this Coons guy?  Let TPX and CFG roll a few hundred K in negative independent expenditure ads in there, let's see how much they like it.

And remember, Beau Biden was a shoo-in for that seat. 

What's he doing now?

 

317 Some people would rather live on their knees than die standing up. Sad to know so many of the right-wing bloggers fit into that category.

I run into this all of the time in dealing with businesses: they have a terrible problem and it's going to cost them horribly to deal with it now because of all of the other problems they have and they're barely making money, etc. The easy thing to do is to kick the can down the road and deal with it later - at a "good time."

The thing is there's never a good time to deal with these problems. There's always an opportunity cost, sometimes a significant one. In the bad times, there's not enough money or resources. In the good times, there's too much opportunity and we can't waste money or resources  fixing things. But eventually, the problems grow to the point where you can no longer ignore them - and at this point, they're ugly, nasty beasts that now take real money and real resources to fix.

The Republicans have had these issues for years and have refused to clean house. People like Ace and Allah (and others) have constantly said "we'll just keep pushing for bigger majorities and clean up later." Well, in 2006 and 2008 things had gotten so bad that the voters said "enough of this shit" and went somewhere - anywhere - else.

Republicans need to take accountability for their mess and clean it up. They need to show some serious contrition for letting things get so bad in the first place. Otherwise they'll have crazy and unthinkable things happening - like a serious revolt on their hands and insurgents taking over primaries. Whoops, too late, it's already happening.

You guys don't get it - you keep selling shit sandwiches and when people finally scream "ENOUGH!" your answer is to tell them to eat more shit. Whoops, too late. You establishment-loving assholes have had your day. It's over. It's your own damned fault. Deal with it.

318

Debra Medina taught me how to understand peoples' "fear of the unknown" over unknown, dark-horse candidates.

*sigh*

319 Hmmm. I have to say I am truly impressed with FleshBomb's (virtual) oratorical skills. He really knows how to write hard-hitting, convincing commentary. First, he comes on and insults Ace, who has only been doing this now for about 7 years, so of course, Ace has very little credibility in the business, being a newbie fly-by-night blogger. Then, he once again demonstrates his mastery of the debating technique by using SPELLING FLAMES! Wow, that one is a reall ball-buster. Because, you know, mistyping a word TOTALLY invalidates whatever point it was you were hoping to make. Yes, it is clear to me that FleshBombs master debating skills are too much for most of you morons.

Try paying attention little guy. The SPELLING FLAME was tried me by madpuppy. Only problem is he misspelled a word in his flame. I just made him look like a little lost puppy. Pay attention.

Ace, has been "doing this" for 7 years.

You're right. How dare I?

Fuck you and every other squishy RINO puke on this site. At least the progressives with the (D) by there names are up front with me about their motives. Shady bastards.

320 Well, there is a nother reason they will drop a ton of cash on Kirk...its Obama seat. And in Obama's home state, it is a repudiation of Obama on a very personal level. Plus, as thin skinned as “The One” is, this might be the race that gets that very bad reaction from Mr. Cool. The type of comment that even Chrissy Matthews can not overlook

Don't get me wrong.  I have no problem with turning Obama's old seat.  I was just pointing out that there are differing levels of support possible.

O'Donnell's best chance is if the national Dems don't support Coons heavily.  I think if they go full-bore and make him a priority, they neutralize one of her biggest possible advantages.

Given the sorry state of several of their long-tenured incumbents, they may not have that luxury.

321 Ace, you've got MSM stockholm sydrome.

Get over it.

Fight.

322

"The american people are behind this.
The people understand no one is perfect and we all have some baggage. "

...until Tina Fey makes fun of her.  Then she's fucked.

323

Krauthammer and Rove aren't on the O'Donnell payroll. They are on the FNC payroll to give their opinions. If you think they should toe the line, then you are buying into the left wing idea that FNC is (and should be) a propaganda arm of the Republican Party and the conservative movement

I understand that and agree.  I'm not asking them to tow the line, I'm asking for a little decorum and maybe a little bit of class.  Especially on Rove's part.  This is the good ol boys getting pissed at that "upstart-how dare she".  Their true colors are showing through. That's my take anyway.  Hell I could be wrong, but we shall see. 

324 Fuck you and every other squishy RINO puke on this site. At least the progressives with the (D) by there names are up front with me about their motives. Shady bastards.

Posted by: FleshBomb at September 15, 2010 02:07 PM (Ca/zm)

I like the cut of your jib, FleshBomb.  Do you perchance have a blog or a newsletter that I might peruse?

325 The seat's lost.  We all know it.  All the plumping and fluffing in the world isn't going to change it.  As was said previously, up this thread a bit, we just traded a RINO in for a Marxist who'll be in the seat for the rest of his life.

Rush, Levin, Malkin, Riehl, and everyone else can keep slathering gold paint on the turd, but those are the facts.  The seat's gone for at least a generation.

And, now, we have demands for GOP money to subsidize O'Donnell's rent for the next several years once the campaign's over.

326 @AllenG - Right on!

327 I like the cut of your jib, FleshBomb.  Do you perchance have a blog or a newsletter that I might peruse?

No. I don't need anybody poo'n on my sheets!

328

Hollowpoint, that's loser talk.  And I am not saying that happy talk fixes a problem.  Yes, Delaware Republicans chose a candidate who polls behind Democrat challenger instead of a candidate who polled ahead of the Democrat challenger.  Yes, that means that today for the general we are starting at a disadvantage, but it does not mean that the seat is lost.  You keep saying it like an immutable fact, but the point I keep making is that Castle was going to beat the neophyte O'Donnell and that was an immutable fact - until it wasn't.

You're trying to extrapolate from a primary election to a general election.  That just isn't valid.

Note that in July, O'Donnell was roughly even in a matchup against Coons.  Now shes 11-12 points behind Coons- numbers that haven't changed much in the past month.

Would I like O'Donnell to win?  Of course I would.  But let's be realistic- trying to get your hopes up in the general based on the course of the primary election cycle is wishful thinking.  Poll results get more accurate the closer it is to the election, not less.

As I said in a previous thread- she could've gone from 0% support in August to getting 100% of the primary vote in September, but still easily lose in a blue state general election.

329 Listen, our backs are to the wall. If we can't pull up out of this national death spiral, the next phase is not pretty, not one bit.

So we're at war, backs to the wall, facing an existential threat. Got it. And the best way to save our country from certain disaster is to "scare" the Republican party by throwing all our support behind bad candidates who will never actually get in office. Oh, and by refusing to support RINO candidates because they make us feel sad inside.

Besides, we never wanted that stupid ol' majority. And winning isn't everything. And the guy who was running would probably let us down. And it doesn't really matter until the next election, anyway, so who really cares who wins?

You may have noticed that this is the exact same strategy that elected President Obama. But nevermind, I'm sure it'll work great this time.

Then we can all hang out together at town hall meetings shouting at the candidates who did get elected, and complain about how unfair it is that we haven't gotten the respect we're entitled to. Because, by golly, we're a political force to be reckoned with!

330 Yeah, man. Give me well vetted candidates like Larry "wide stance" Craig, and Mark Foley.  That's the way to win elections.

331

Walt Gilbert - do we really all know it?  The seat is lost for a generation?  Who sits in it now?  Who has sat in it since 1972? 

I was trying to persuade the losers, but, seriously, you're just losers.  Shut it with the pussy talk.  You want to be a loser go over to imsoemo.com and cut yourself.  But just a little.

332

Typically politicians jump just one level of "promotion" -- they go from, say, a State Senator to Congressman. Whereas before they were getting fairly light Level 2 scrutiny, now they're getting more serious, but still not super-prying, Level 3 scrutiny. Sure, the new level of scrutiny might turn something bad up, but usually if they pass Level 2 scrutiny, you have a pretty good reason for believing they'll pass Level 3 scrutiny too. Sometimes they won't, of course, but usually they will.

This ONLY happens if they are Real Republicans, and myabe if they are Boll Weevils and Blue Dogs. Demunists and RINOs get a pass.

Remember "Guess. That. Party"??????

333 So we're at war, backs to the wall, facing an existential threat. Got it. And the best way to save our country from certain disaster is to "scare" the Republican party by throwing all our support behind bad candidates who will never actually get in office. Oh, and by refusing to support RINO candidates because they make us feel sad inside.

Besides, we never wanted that stupid ol' majority. And winning isn't everything. And the guy who was running would probably let us down. And it doesn't really matter until the next election, anyway, so who really cares who wins?

You may have noticed that this is the exact same strategy that elected President Obama. But nevermind, I'm sure it'll work great this time.

Then we can all hang out together at town hall meetings shouting at the candidates who did get elected, and complain about how unfair it is that we haven't gotten the respect we're entitled to. Because, by golly, we're a political force to be reckoned with!

You have it entirely backwards. What brought along Obama were RINO GOP'ers (GW, Rove, et al) that started this deficit mess we are in now. We chose YOUR RINO candidate John McCain! That's what gave us Obama.

We've tried it your way. Now we're going to do it the people's way.

334 I listened to Mark Levin once. He opened up a subject, worked himself up to a righteous hysterical lather, took a call and proceeded to literally scream insults at a poor lady who didn't agree with him enough.

I don't remember the details. I just remember that he was a complete dick to a long-time listener whom I suspect ceased listening after that call.

That's certainly the last time I ever listened to him.

We may vote the same way most of the time - but it doesn't make him less of a dick.

335

So, Hollowpoint, what you are saying is that there is no possible way that Coons numbers or O'Donnells numbers can change, at all, in the next 2 months?  It's all settled law and nothing can be done? 

I am not extrapolating from the primary to the general.  You are stating as a fact seomthing which has not yet happened.  I am saying that people have stated predictions as fact in the past, and it has turned out that the "facts" weren't.  And that doesn't matter whether it was general or primary. 

Coon's numbers can go down, and O'Donnell's can go up.  But you can guarantee the outcome by throwing in the towel.  Fight, dammit.  It isn't wishful thinking if you make it happen. 

 

336 > Now they go from Level Zero to Level 4. Except Obama, who went from Level Zero to Level -12. The higher on the ladder he goes, the more his past is suppressed.

337 Thanks for having my back with "FleshBomb," guys. He's probably not worth your efforts though. He started yabbing at me on twitter. He's what you would call a "fucking idiot." I cannot think of a situation in which his opinion would be important to me, even "Hey man, I think your arm caught on fire." It's really not necessary to defend me -- but if you're having fun, then by all means.

338

just think, if this had happened to McCain in AZ back in 04, we'd have got a dem senator in AZ and a legit shot at the whitehouse in 08.

RINO's must be cast out!

339 Thanks for having my back with "FleshBomb," guys. He's probably not worth your efforts though. He started yabbing at me on twitter. He's what you would call a "fucking idiot." I cannot think of a situation in which his opinion would be important to me, even "Hey man, I think your arm caught on fire."

It's really not necessary to defend me -- but if you're having fun, then by all means.

As a matter of fact, he is soooo unimportant to me that I just spent 30 seconds of my life to thank my fellow rinos for having my ass! - Ace

340

Wow, I just went to the Coons for Senate website and he has bigger pictures of O'Donnell up than he does of himself.  And those pics are taken from O'Donnell's campaign, so they look pretty good.  She's not an unattractive person, and he's an older balding guy, so good luck with using her as the two-minute hate totem. 

 

341

Yeah, man. Give me well vetted candidates like Larry "wide stance" Craig, and Mark Foley.  That's the way to win elections.

Both were in office over a decade; they did win their elections prior to their scandals.  Vetting looks at a person's past- it's not using a crystal ball to predict what they'll do 10 years later.

The entire point is that had O'Donnell been thouroughly vetted early on, it's much more likely that we'd have an electable candidate- be it Castle or someone else more conservative who beat him- instead of the largely unelectable O'Donnell.

342

Some of us are leaving HA because that place has gone batshit crazy.  I was called everything there but the Whore of Satan because I didn't buy Christine's con job and I pointed out that Mike Castle was not Karl Marx without a beard. 

I agree with the poster above who said that if this primary had been held a month or two ago, Mike Castle would have walked away with it.  If he had not gone so negative over the last week he still probably would have won.  And would that have killed the Tea Party movement or been a huge blow to conservatism?  I don't think so.  Six out of seven is a damn good run.  But if O'Donnell explodes now like a cigar it sure will be bad for both.  And chances are she will. 

I still think Christine O'Donnell is nothing but a big fat liar and a con artist.  Her history is more than just a little spotty, it's downright bizarre and NOT conservative.  She apparently has done nothing professionally but run for office for the last 5 years.  Don't people understand that "marketing and PR consultant" means "loser who can't get a job?"  When the stuff came out about her lawsuit against ISI, conservatives should have run for the hills.  Instead, we had assholes like Mark Levin shooting the messenger. 

It's OBVIOUS that this woman has some talent, but so does Barack Obama.  It's the same kind of talent - getting people to believe in them as righteous and good and conning them out of their money while never actually accomplishing anything.  They are bullshit artists and narcissists who believe in nothing but their own specialness.  I've seen dozens of these people before in my career.  I called out Obama for this very early on in 2008, right here at this site.   

You can throw all your shit at me now and call me a RINO and say I am just butthurt.  But I really think you all have been conned.  I'm not falling for it. 

343 Look Ace I am sorry I slept with him, he wasn't really any better in bed than you and I wouldn't have done it except that you are always going off to see every lame movie that comes out. Stay home sometimes and maybe it will ot ahppen again

344

He's what you would call a "fucking idiot."

Posted by: ace at September 15, 2010 02:33 PM (KUUXH)

Whoa there, buddy! That's my title! Obama reminds me of that every time he body checks me into the wall in the White House.

345 We need to get back to Reagan's 11th Commandment.  The Castle camp was vicious and vindictive and sore losers.  That happens.  What should not happen is the rest of us falling into the trap of a heated campaign, take sides and declare war on each other.  Castle was not the guy you followed into battle.  He may have had an R behind his name but that had little to do with what this election is about.

Our cities are rotting from under us.  Our taxes are too high.  The government tells us what to eat, how to pee, where to sleep and when to farm.  People are sick of all their money going into someone else's pockets.  The burden of this government is too much.  That is the issue burning inside each conservative.  There is a large disgruntled populace that looks at government budgets and wonders where the money goes when bridges collapse or pipelines explode or Fannie Mae needs another 4 billion.

Mike Castle is an honorable man who served his state.  But he also served himself.  Too many politicians get rich off the largess of the people's money.  Too many inside deals, double-handed kick-backs and bloated legislation that is designed to reward graft and corruption.  Mike Castle was a part of that system.  It was time for him to go.  Do you know how I know that?  Because GOP primary voters said so.  When your own constituency says go, you go. 

So let's stop the finger pointing, the whining and the hand-wringing.  We have a candidate who could win.

Put yourself in the position of Democrats.  Do you think they would have a problem nominating and voting for someone with a shoddy past (whether real or imagined)?  Ask Charlie Rangel that question.

346

I pointed out that Mike Castle was not Karl Marx without a beard. 

But Mr. Coons is. End of story.

Let's pull together. Ace was being pragmatic, but the primary is over.

347 Well, I wouldn't call you an asshole or sellout.  But for what it's worth, let me offer my impression of the whole thing, as a not very political voter:

The "dirt" doesn't really matter that much to me.  After all, look at all the dirt on Obama that didn't matter a whit. 

It's like the house is burning and you want to vet the firemen before you let them put out the flames.

I mean, I get entirely what you are saying.  But from my point of view out here in Regular Nobody Land, the situation is dire.  Letting RINO's carry on "running" things (i.e., wrecking everything we hold dear, or at least allowing it to be wrecked) is no longer an option.  Give me a Tea Party candidate, period.

As I'm often a pretty good barometer of the average person, I'd say this is probably a significant trend.

348 I'm over it now.  And I was one of the loudest and most anguished about our shooting ourselves in the foot during the runup to this primary.  I don't think O'Donnell can win.  I think she's a fraud of a candidate -- genuinely a rotten person, which is the problem.  (She could be the second coming of Reagan politically and I'd still have to oppose her for what she's done in her personal life.)  But I'm done talking about it.  As far as I'm concerned, my focus now (for AoSHQ) will be exclusively on getting my Congressional canvass finished, and she's not even relevant to that.  Michelle Rollins' defeat is more relevant, frankly.  (Not too much more relevant, since she was doomed against Carney anyway, but still.)

I'm actually very pleased with our primary outcomes in NH and NY.  Altschuler, Doheny, Grimm, Bass (by the skin of his teeth), and Guinta make for pretty much the best possible outcome on the non-Senator/Governor tickets.

And man, if Carl Paladino can get revved up, you morons are quite possibly gonna LOVE him.  I mean, he's practically as flawed a candidate as O'Donnell (hell, he's intermittently a Democrat -- and he won the NY primary against Lazio with nearly 80% of the vote!), but damn is he ever one entertainingly angry palooka.  We just gave Ed Anger the GOP nomination for NY Governor!

349

So, Hollowpoint, what you are saying is that there is no possible way that Coons numbers or O'Donnells numbers can change, at all, in the next 2 months?  It's all settled law and nothing can be done? 

Anything is possible.  For instance, he could whip out his dick and start flogging the dolphin while singing "Camptown Races" during the next debate.

However, her chances are abysmally low.  It's no longer the case of poor name recognition or being unfamiliar with the candidates.  The way the polls stand now, she could win every single undecided vote and she'd still lose.

I'm sure the numbers will change somewhat in the nexst 7 weeks, but gaining 11 ponts in a blue state?  We're approaching lottery odds.

350 People are human.  Humans make mistakes.  If they are basically good people, they learn and grow.  Knowing how easy it is to make a mistake and how hard it its to achieve redemption is a good thing in a leader.

Let he (or she) who is without sin throw the first stone.  Errr, Ace - drop the rock, please.

351

Anything is possible.  For instance, he could whip out his dick and start flogging the dolphin while singing "Camptown Races" during the next debate.

However, her chances are abysmally low.  It's no longer the case of poor name recognition or being unfamiliar with the candidates.  The way the polls stand now, she could win every single undecided vote and she'd still lose.

I'm sure the numbers will change somewhat in the nexst 7 weeks, but gaining 11 ponts in a blue state?  We're approaching lottery odds.

She doesn't have to gain 11 points. make up 5 1/2 points and she's tied. Stop with the fucking defeatism. It's gross.

352 It's really not necessary to defend me -- but if you're having fun, then by all means.

Posted by: ace at September 15, 2010 02:33

 

Egad but this has been a rollicking ride. How are you holding up sir?

353 FleshBomb, Um, I'm thanking people for thinking of me, extending me a courtesy. That has nothing to do with you. It's thanking THEM for being such nice folks they'd jump in to defend me. I don't care about you. Who are you? You're a fucking numbskull. If your heart was on fire I wouldn't trouble myself to piss down your throat. My God you really think you rate, don't you?

354 I just hate being called an asshole or sell-out or candy-ass or RINO for offering what is, in my mind, perfectly good advice which, seriously, is offered with the movement's best interests at heart. Even if you disagree with me, I wish people who disagreed would accept that I am offering this advice with best intentions. I am not looking to screw anyone. Quite the opposite.


Best intentions?  Pfft....

This reeks of the ends justify the means.  We are not that party.

355
Hey, here's an idea: recruit candidates that have integrity. Not just some $2 tranny ewok hooker who'll give you a hummer say what they think you want to hear.

Prime example: Good Time Charlie "The Orange" Crist. He was against civil unions before he was for them. Not picking on GOProud or the Log Cabin Republicans, it's just "The Orange"'s latest flip flop.

I'd say he was lying before, or lying now, but I'm thinking he's just lying.

356 First rate, Ace. First rate.My heart is on fire and I like my RINOs medium rare. Thanks for asking.

As for the poll question. I haven't dove into the poll. I usually leave that up to the experts like Ace. But she doesn't have to make up 11 points. Some of those will surely come from Coons. It'll be a minus 1 from him every time.

357 Vetting ???? that is the first step to empowering the elite. Let's let some regular run of the mill f*ck ups have a chance

358
I don't care about you. Who are you? You're a fucking numbskull. If your heart was on fire I wouldn't trouble myself to piss down your throat.

What if you could piss acid? not the drug, I'm thinking sulfuric acid? then you could put his flaming heart out and do him even more damage as you burn out his up GI tract.

359 Great post, ace. Shame some people can't win with dignity.

On the idea of the "how dare she" idea that supposedly has the Republican establishment all wee-wee'd up, that may be the case for some of the big-money dogs. I think for K-Hammer, Rove, and folks like myself that wanted a Castle primary win for the purposes of the general, it was more the fact that 99% of O'Donnell supporters were willing to overlook her glaring integrity issues, her strange concerns over our masturbatory habits, and the fact that her website is a giant paypal button, because she says some so-con stuff on Hannity. I'm behind her now (yup) but that doesn't mean I trust her or like the idea of supporting someone who is quite possibly morally bankrupt. I mean, how did this clown become the nu face of conservatism? Joe Miller, Marco Rubio, I see that. I don't see what about O'Donnell was so motivating, besides her not being Mike Castle.

360

Fleshbomb, you are an attractive rogue of a man.  A veritible "sturm und drang" of machismo and honest raw sexual passion.

Many of our homosexuals here in the comments have been all atwitter with exitement at your posts.

You are building a fan base here.

A very gay fan base, but none the less, a fan base.  They were wondering if you would want to have a moron meet-up, so that you and them might talk about Christine O'Donnell, and other such topics of true conservatism.

Yes, there will also be cabaret, but what do you expect?  It's a gay fan base.

361 Either way, she needs more than 5.5% pick-up to win.

Can we agree on >5.5% and <11%.

If so, I can live with that and don't buy the hype that she can't win.

362 I remember the heckuva job the GOP 'leadership' did vetting Scozzafava, Castle, Murkowski, Crist...

363

Fleshbomb, you are an attractive rogue of a man.  A veritible "sturm und drang" of machismo and honest raw sexual passion.

Many of our homosexuals here in the comments have been all atwitter with exitement at your posts.

You are building a fan base here.

A very gay fan base, but none the less, a fan base.  They were wondering if you would want to have a moron meet-up, so that you and them might talk about Christine O'Donnell, and other such topics of true conservatism.

Yes, there will also be cabaret, but what do you expect?  It's a gay fan base.

I'm like Lady GaGa. I love my monsters.

364
Oh, and I forgot to mention that Good Time Charlie "The Orange" Crist was vetted and approved  by the party machinery at the national level.

It took a rank-and-file revolt of the party's Florida county committies and the ouster of "The Orange"'s butt-buddy, Jim Greer from the state party chair. Greer would presumably have been vetted for that position.

How'd that all work out for ya?

365 Oh fuck! I thought Fleshbomb was Ace's sock puppet.

He's a real person? That's scary.

366

FleshBomb at September 15, 2010 03:08 PM (Ca/zm)

Well played.  Well played indeed.

Now why don't you stop flaming ace so much and just make points like you did in 377?

It made sense and has the benefit of not pissing off the host and his guests.

367 Fleshbomb? never heard of it.

368

Seriously FleshBomb.

Chill out a bit.

369 " I'm behind her now (yup) but that doesn't mean I trust her or like the idea of supporting someone who is quite possibly morally bankrupt." A. You should NEVER trust ANY politician. B. When it's a choice between a KNOWN backstabber and thief and someone who MAY BE a backstabber and thief, who do you choose? And the "nutty" O'Donnell stuff is getting old. What has she said that's nuttier than "Obamacare will lower medical costs"? or "We have to spend our way out of debt"? So she worried about masturbation. Shoot, we have a Congress full of Republicans right now who sat there in the middle of a war on terror and a collapsing economy and worried about online gambling and steroids in baseball. Please. O'Donnell may not be crazy enough for DC...

370

Well said, Ace.

The other side of vetting is that we really don't know how these people will vote when they are put to the test. It's fine to put up conservative points on a website and say they refelct your views. But will someone who hasn't been through the fire stand up to the heat when he/she is courted by the MSM, the beltway establishment, the collegiality of the senate dining room?

I understand there are good points about NOT being a politician, having a fresh start with someone who is in theory indebted to no one and not yet corrupted by the siren song of the Georgetown cocktail parties. And at some point, you have to trust someone will do what they say they will.

But there is always a risk, particularly when people are making such a big jump. Being a US Senator is big time. Christine O'Donnell will arguably be one of the 75 or so most powerful people in the US from a political point of view if she wins. Will the ideals she says she stands for (and I'm assuming here that she is sincere, because we really don't know for sure at this point) hold up? When Joe Biden has her to the WH to talk about the good old days in DE and how we all have to work together for the good of the country, and Obama pops his head in the door to say, "Welcome, it's all about getting along for the sake of the US, call me if I can help, I was an outsider once, too"?

 

371 "I just hate being called an asshole or sell-out or candy-ass or RINO..." New Yorker...

372 I lurk, comment once in a very long while, but I have to say this whole kerfuffle is seriously fucked up.

Look at any one of the candidates running at any given time. You don't know a thing about them, that is unless they are in your district. You go basically on what you're hearing from the freaking MFM, what you read in the paper, word of mouth. You do some research, make a decision and ultimately you go on faith that this individual is going to believe and vote the way you want them to.

The Republicans in Delaware have made a decision to have CO be their nominee. They're pissed off and had no confidence that Castle believes and would vote the way they wanted, so they are going on faith that CO will. Huge risk, yes. But essentially one the Republicans in Delaware are willing to take. Nothing is certain in life. She might lose, but hell, she might actually win. You know what, the people in Delaware will ultimately make that decision, not us and not Ace.

373 Loved your work with Hamilton.

A. You should NEVER trust ANY politician.

I didn't say I'd let one house-sit for me. I mean that I don't even necessarily trust her has some sort of conservative voice, if she makes it into the Senate. I look at her background and I see opportunist.

B. When it's a choice between a KNOWN backstabber and thief and someone who MAY BE a backstabber and thief, who do you choose?

Yeah, it's still thievery, but I expect a pol to take shit from the public coffers. O'Donnell's living off of campaign funds. There's a difference chief.

And the "nutty" O'Donnell stuff is getting old. What has she said that's nuttier than "Obamacare will lower medical costs"? or "We have to spend our way out of debt"?

I'm not saying "nutty". I'm saying that she lacks integrity. Not typical politician lacks integrity. She's a lifetime grifter. She claims less income than I did last year working part-time at the Home fucking Depot. She's suing ISI for $6 million, and the more you read about that lawsuit, the worse it gets for her. People who have met her say she's a flake. Her former campaign employees say she doesn't pay them and campaigns to pay the bills. I don't know if they're right, but it sure as shit isn't something you normally hear, even in the smears against Sarah Palin. I don't think she's crazy, I think she's crazy like a fuckin' fox, and that's what makes me wary of her. Like I said, I'm behind her now, but as someone in the comments above said, does that mean I can't have my reservations? It doesn't mean I won't send her a spare $20 (if I have it), it just means that I'm pretty sure all it will do is go towards her rent.

374

I'm sure the numbers will change somewhat in the nexst 7 weeks, but gaining 11 ponts in a blue state?  We're approaching lottery odds.

So what you are saying there's a chance!

Well, I feel persuasive now.  You've moved off of the absolutist position that she cannot win.  The proposition that she will have to work hard to win I can agree with.  She is NOT a shoo-in.  And happy talk and happy thoughts won't make her one.

I refuse to concede the race.  It won't take the extremes that you mention in order to move Coons' numbers.  It didn't take that to move Castle's. 

 

375 All I've seen is a lot of insults directed towards people who disagree with you. Overtures of peace also contain unnecessary snark. So, don't be surprised if people don't believe you.

376 332 My question.  Who is an example of an unvetted elected Republican that has harmed the cause?

Good god, polynikes, do you not know who Jack Ryan is? 

377 are you talking to me, moi?

378
I general I agree with Ace, with one caveat.   The O'Donnell victory is an enormous head adjustment for the status quo (.i.e. RNC types).   I think some beltway partisan was quoted today as saying  "This changes everything."

It's not O'Donnell that is going to change Washington.  It's the awakening by elected officials to the fact that they are all potential sand Castles where primaries are no longer rubber stamps for incumbents.

379 >>> The O'Donnell victory is an enormous head adjustment for the status quo (.i.e. RNC types). I think some beltway partisan was quoted today as saying "This changes everything." This changes things, but not in a good way, I don't think. to me, the Tea Party had been an organization which wanted more conservative candidates but was not anti-Republican. Like, Joe Miller again. Great call. Helps everyone. To me the mask has slipped a bit and now it's kind of just a RINO-hunting organization, without much care about who actually winds up winning seats. The function you are talking about -- putting people on notice -- was already accomplished with Miller, Rubio, Paul, Angle, LEE (another good purge), etc. Now we seem to be just about reducing the party's chances out of a sense of vengeance or insistence that "we shall be heard," etc. Well, I already thought they were being heard.

380

I refuse to concede the race.  It won't take the extremes that you mention in order to move Coons' numbers.  It didn't take that to move Castle's. 

Sigh... again- Castle just ran in a primary composed solely of Republicans.  Delaware is a state composed mostly of Dems.  The reason Castle polled so well is that he got a healthy chunk of Dem and Independent voters.  O'Donnell gets a much smaller chunk from those demographics.

At 47% to 36%, Coons only needs another 3% from the pool of undecideds to hit 50%.  O'Donnell needs 14% to reach 50%.  Sure, there will be some "other" votes, but still- given her lack of money, the skeletons in her closet, and the fact that she's running in a decidedly blue state with the election only 7 weeks away, her odds fall somewhere between slim and none... and Slim is leaving the building.

That's not pessimism; it's merely a reasonable read on the (unfortunate) situation.

 

381

No shit Sherlock.  Obama-One Big-Ass Mistake Amerikkka.  You're preaching to the choir. 

Get over yourself, you aren't deep.

382 It gives me great pause when a relative cipher is now running for a big fat office. Because I know they haven't really gone through this hell of disclosure and digging before. And most people do bad stuff. And some of that bad stuff will look a lot like automatic disqualifiers for high office, particularly when the news is fresh and not long chewed-over and digested and baked in the cake.



Okay, I see now where you're coming from with this.  And I think you're correctly describing how things work (and especially how they'll be spun in the mainstream media).

But here's what bothers me about the consequences of that.  In practice, an Ivy-league, media-approved, politically- and socially-connected candidate gets a pass on any number of things that would disqualify a regular citizen from holding an office of public trust.  Tax problems?  Hello, Timmy Geithner and hundreds of congressional and White House staffers and other government employees.  General wackiness or ill-considered hypothetical cases?  Hello Joe Biden and too many Democrat congressman to name.

And above all, being disqualified for problems with student loans or not being able to make an IRS payment?  Well, all else being equal I get those aren't good signs, but at the same time, that tells me someone actually had to work for whatever they have and had a few lean years along the way.  Compared to someone who's a legacy admission to an Ivy-league college, uses their daddy's money to set themselves up in life, networks with all the right people and spends their entire career in government, well, I'll take the candidate with the worse credit rating.

And my complaint isn't just that "life isn't fair," I got that long ago, but the impression of sanctimonious hypocrisy given by career establishment commentators (not counting Ace in this, I'm thinking of Karl Rove and others on tv and print) telling us how the vagaries of life disqualify ordinary citizens but not elites with a career in government and the right personal connections.  I think this feeling is what's driving the "elites versus country" meme and I think it's largely correct.  And I think enough other people are bothered by that hypocrisy to explain how O'Donnell and others can win a primary despite some baggage.  Whether that feeling has spread wide enough for O'Donnell to win the general is an open question.  But we may be seeing the beginning of a sea change, and the importance of the pre-exposure/baked in the cake factor, while real, is declining.

383 A counterpoint to the betting big analogy:

It is true that the casual observer would say conservatives have a gambling problem. But look a little deeper.  Imagine this scenario, you are broke, hundreds of thousands in debt, you are going to lose everything including the last $1000 dollars in your pocket come the dawn of the next day, unless by some miracle you can clear at least $350,000 by morning. Now if that's what you believe, and many of us do believe exactly that about the state of the United States; suddenly real risky bets you would not normally take become reasonable.

The casual onlooker at your poker table sees you come up with 3-J non suited, these are not cards you would normally play, but at the night wears on and the approach to certain doom looms close, you start to ask if they are cards that you can afford NOT to play. He thinks you are crazy for betting on them.

You ask, if I don't start taking these types of risks am I barring myself from any possibility of success? Am I giving up hope via prudence?

Levine, views the US in that State, and doesn't know why other people who claim to be conservative don't. I personally can certainly understand not believing things are that bad, but, I think they are. That giddiness with the wins that you equate with gamblers euphoria, is actually not that at all. Rather than being high on the thrill of a cheap win, we see that what we thought was all but completely lost actually has some real possibility of success. We are up $100,000, and for the first time in our dire straight we are daring to think that we just might be OK if we can just win big enough, fast enough, before time runs out. It was always a real long shot, but now at least it is a real shot.

So we bet 3-J non-suit.

And those around us think we are crazy.
And we think they are crazy for not understanding.

384 @396:  I guess I am assuming that those numbers aren't or weren't carved in stone.  Granted, that's a lot to do in seven weeks in Delaware, but then again Castle was both better known and for a while the presumptive GOP nominee.  If O'Donnell hits the right balance of fiscal conservatism and tonal moderation I've been assuming she could gain a lot.  Especially this year, running against a formerly self-avowed Marxist.

Of course, I'd also have liked Castle to have sincerely endorsed the winner of the primary and rally his personal supporters to her campaign, and that's not likely to happen.  So the pessimists may be right after all.

385 DaveR., that is an interesting point, and there's some truth there, but... well, life sucks. even if the hypocrisy you suggest is prevailing, it's still prevailing. you know, a big part of this, and I don't like saying this but here's the truth: A lot of people think O'D is a dunce. And by a lot of people, I mean me. And also, a lot of people. We are sort of stepping lightly around this because we don't want to say it. But a lot of the stuff Rove is talking about is proxy-stuff for the problems that 1, she is a dunce, with 2, absolutely no record of accomplishment apart from getting on Fox. (Which even I did, once.) The thing is I don't think there's a damn bit of substance here, so all of this stuff tends to reinforce that. it's not that she's poor-- it's that she doesn't seem to have *done* anything for five years except hang around the fringes of politics and get paid the occasional $200 check. Is she a homemaker, then? I don't know. Never heard even if she's married or has kids. All I know is that she is supposedly a professional woman without an actual profession. And again, I would forgive all this -- I don't need a rocket scientist for a senator. JD Hayworth is a dummy and I supported him. But I don't think that people with no visible means of income, no accomplishments, and no particular intellect just get elected on the strength of their ideas, unless they're in a state that strongly favors their ideas. Delaware does not. This was a mistake, and I'll take it for the team, and rah-rah, but this was a gross mistake by some people who forgot at the end of the day politics is not about sending messages, it's about winning elections.

386 ps I don't think a lot of those things you mention are such big deals, either, like the student loan thing, etc. A big deal for me is the lawsuit, which appears meritless, and furthermore contains her own sworn allegation that she became emotionally unbalanced due to being (justly) demoted. Another big thing is she's been doing this for years and has made no headway in it. I.e., she is not really talented in this area. That x-tra normal thing said it well. I think the secret person who did that got this line from me: The fact is she's a professional politician, she's just fucking bad at it. She's not a nurse, or a doctor, or a businessman, or from some other field more honorable than politics. She is from the disreputable field of politics itself. And she's not even making any headway in that field. People just keep telling me they don't care about this. Fine. I suspect some other people care much more. And i think on November 2, for all this nonsense about not caring if a Dem takes the seat, there will be a lot more caring than is admitted.

387 and yeah, this whole campaign against the evils of masturbation? I joke about it, but that is the sort of thing that could destroy her, if like Morning Zoo guys start busting her on it every morning, ridiculing her. Her problem is that she does not (in my mind) appear to be a serious person. The kind of shit that plays into this is going to stick and it's going to hurt.

388 This was a mistake, and I'll take it for the team, and rah-rah, but this was a gross mistake by some people who forgot at the end of the day politics is not about sending messages, it's about winning elections.

Posted by: ace at September 15, 2010 04:00 PM (KUUXH)

I've paid little attention to this particular election, but I think that there's no point in winning elections if your winners aren't actually on your side. I don't want another Bush presidency. IMO, we have very little time (if there's any left) to fix the image of the republican party for the coming generation, who in all odds is already under severe cultural pressure to subjugate itself under the iron fist of the Democratic party. I'll admit it's a gambit that could end up backfiring, but if losing the senate makes another hurricane possible in '12, and once we regain both branches of government, the leadership is solid, it's gonna be worth 2 years of nailbiting to see if the dumbasscrats manage to pass another atrocity. At the end of those 2  years, we could always undo that damage, as well as the damage we got the last 2 years (and we won't undo it with specters and scoffazas and crists in the party).

389  I'm thinking of Karl Rove and others on tv and print) telling us how the vagaries of life disqualify ordinary citizens but not elites with a career in government and the right personal connections.  I think this feeling is what's driving the "elites versus country" meme and I think it's largely correct.  And I think enough other people are bothered by that hypocrisy to explain how O'Donnell and others can win a primary despite some baggage.  Whether that feeling has spread wide enough for O'Donnell to win the general is an open question.  But we may be seeing the beginning of a sea change, and the importance of the pre-exposure/baked in the cake factor, while real, is declining.

Posted by: Dave R. at September 15, 2010 03:49 PM (RFRdD)

I hope you're wrong.  I have seen too many of these "we know nothing about them " candidates turn out to be even worse then expected..  And O'Donnell has more than "some baggage," she comes off stranger than fiction...against masturbation for example.  Her financial woes were not small either and much of it her own fault. 

And I listened to Rove and didn't get the impression that so-called "vagaries of Life" disqualify a potential candidate.  He was specific about O'Donnell and correct.  I didn't like Castle but I sure didn't like O'Donnell, it was a deja vu feeling of  Keyes.  I have a hunch O'Donnell is not really in it to win it, but loves the money and the fame.  JMO

  I hope for the Tea Party movement's sake I'm wrong.   And as for that, yes the Tea Party Express campaigned for and supported her, but as a Tea Partier from the beginning I won't let them represent me.  Just an opinion and my own reasons. 

390

Sex slave baby, I'm a love dictator
You're a FLESHBOMB mama,
I'm a leather detonator

+1 on that alternative fanbase idea

What ever did happen to Zodiac Mindwarp?

391 >>>>I've paid little attention to this particular election, but I think that there's no point in winning elections if your winners aren't actually on your side. I don't want another Bush presidency. You guys keep saying that but your choice in NYS, for example, is between a leftwing Democrat and a moderate squish Republican. That is the choice. There is no third choice. Period. And you keep saying "then I want the dem." Fine, I can't argue with you. If you want the dem you want the dem. I fear the Tea Party is about to hurt itself by making its demands so unreasonable -- we demand a strong conservative in blue states! -- that no one is going to bother to even try to satisfy these demands. Which is a bad thing, both ways, because the GOP really does need the spine-stiffening and message of the Tea Party. But where it gets to plainly silly shit, like "Let's insist on Jim DeMint clones in Vermont," it's like: Oh please, adults are talking. I'm sorry but that's how I feel. Sometimes I really wonder if some people have ever been to a blue state, or if they have experience out of deep red counties. I feel like when I tell them that these states lean liberal it's because they're full of liberals and they don't believe me, like I'm making up monster stories to scare them.

392

well said Ace ...

I now look at O'Donnell this way ...  she may be a flake but she is now OUR flake ...  with a little monetary support she may be able to manage some of these future revelations (assuming the worst and there are new ones) with a little by hiring a message pro now and Nov. ...  If we are lucky and all her skeletons are out then I think she can manage quite well with some cleaned up reasonable answers to the know items ...

the scorched earth attitude of the O'Donnel supporters was starting to look alot like Ron Paul supporters and that was where the venom was coming from.  Castle wasn't fighting any dirtier than O'Donnell was ....  after what O'Donnell directly said and tried to imply about Castle I am not suprised he won't endorse her yet ...  she needs to heal that wound, not him ...

393

I fear the Tea Party is about to hurt itself by making its demands so unreasonable -- we demand a strong conservative in blue states! -- that no one is going to bother to even try to satisfy these demands.

Which is a bad thing, both ways, because the GOP really does need the spine-stiffening and message of the Tea Party.

Posted by: ace at September 15, 2010 04:14 PM

But that's the problem with this particular race especially.  It isn't "The Tea Party" that got behind O'Donnell, it was the Tea Party Express group.  Other Tea Party groups weren't so enthusiastic.  I keep saying one group doesn't represent the whole movement, hell they don't represent me.  Many of the Tea Partiers and 912 Project members I know were not happy with O'Donnell and skeptical of claims that she is a Conservative.  But the media and a whole lot of so-called Conservative purists wouldn't listen.  You're right that this could harm the movement as a whole, but I hope not.

394 You know, i've been hesistant to bring this up,  but since it hasn't been mentioned that i know of, i will. I remember not too long ago when everyone on this site was shitting all over "someguy" for being a keyboard warrior. In other words, he wasn't really doing anything himself except wailing on a blog. Being a person who enjoys the opportunity to rant blogs give me, i never really liked that criticism. But here we are a few months later and i see a lot of people doing nothing but wailing on a blog against a chick who's actually putting herself out there and trying to accomplish something, and she's been doing this for quite some time, a fact i'
d be willing to bet most of the people judging her by the shit the gop shitbags put out didn't know. So keep on wailing, but don't forget that she's actually had the guts to put herself on the line for this, something most here can't say.

395 Thanks, Ace.  That I can actually understand.  Though, proxy-talk or not, I'm still bothered by the terms Rove and the tv brigade were using.  My complaint isn't only that "life isn't fair" but that it's time to start calling people of both parties on their hypocrisy around who can serve and who gets disqualified.

But speaking of mistakes and un-vetted candidates, what about Mike Castle?  Cap and tax.  Pro-choice.  Squishy on repeal of Obamacare.  The NRA hated him enough to endorse a primary opponent with no record in office, when normally they like themselves some incumbents and put an asterisk beside the rating of anyone they've had to evaluate on statements only and no hard record.

Even for Delaware, Castle was an abortion of a candidate in this of all years.  If the Delaware state GOP or RNSC wanted a professional, electable candidate they should have found themselves one.  As it was they nominated the time-server who's turn it was despite him being unacceptable to the most motivated constituency in a wave year.  Electability goes both ways.

396 >>>But that's the problem with this particular race especially. It isn't "The Tea Party" that got behind O'Donnell, it was the Tea Party Express group. Right, but then that got Palin on board. Well, I think what Palin took to be "mean" and unfair attacks on a woman got Palin on board. But the TPX started the ball rolling. So yeah it's not the Tea Party per se, which has all sorts of people (including, sometimes, ME), some with a more cautious, grinder approach, and some who have come to the casino to GAMBLE, BABY. Vegas, baby. (MiketheMoose's point about gambling big when you're down big notwithstanding -- it's an interesting analogy but I still favor the grinder approach. If you bet big when you're down you'll probably end up at the pawn shop, MtM, to extend your analogy still further.) And there are a lot of people who really like the ACTION, BABY, right now, and I really do feel it's like I am trying to pull them away from the craps table before they start betting their mortgages.

397 And you keep saying "then I want the dem."

This is one I don't understand. Plunking out a OD in a dicey race, at least if you loose the general, tells the establishment a bunch of things about candidates you'll support, and will likely have a positive effect at getting them on the primary ballot.

Voting dem instead of rep out of spite, for things like JohnM is doing right NOW, well that is just some very dangerous sour grapes that set us further behind, and emboldens the dems: kind of like O's election did; which kind of followed that exact pattern.

398 >>>that it's time to start calling people of both parties on their hypocrisy around who can serve and who gets disqualified. Democrats get called on this too, but less, of course. Because the MFM assumes if you're a Democrat you're a genius, because they're all Democrats and they're geniuses, can I get an amen? But all this stuff about "Dems don't have to put up with this" -- um, so what? I mean, I understand your frustration about that, but you know and I know the house is playing a crooked game. We can protest these rules but until they are actually changed we abide by them -- against our will. But to act as if they're NOT rules, that's just self-defeating. We can complain about these rules and try to change them, but until they change, they're the rules. Patty Murray is borderline retarded and no one in the media ever mentions that. But -- what are you going to do with that?

399 Right, but then that got Palin on board. Well, I think what Palin took to be "mean" and unfair attacks on a woman got Palin on board. But the TPX started the ball rolling. 

Posted by: ace at September 15, 2010 04:27 PM

Maybe.  But I read somewhere that it was Matt Moran, O'Donnell's campaign manager, who hooked Palin.  He worked on the Doug Hoffman campaign and had kept in touch with Palin.  Sounds more like typical campaign wheeling and dealing then grassroots to me. 

400

But here we are a few months later and i see a lot of people doing nothing but wailing on a blog against a chick who's actually putting herself out there and trying to accomplish something, and she's been doing this for quite some time, a fact i'
d be willing to bet most of the people judging her by the shit the gop shitbags put out didn't know. So keep on wailing, but don't forget that she's actually had the guts to put herself on the line for this, something most here can't say.

We also laughed at Alvin Greene and the Dems when he won his primary... then went and elected his female doppelganger in Delaware.

401 But all this stuff about "Dems don't have to put up with this" -- um, so what?

Possibly you're mixing up someone else's posts with the one of mine you're quoting from?

Or, more likely, there's something I'm not expressing well.  I'm not complaining directly about the partisan double standard.  (Indirectly I guess I am, only out of necessity, but that's not my main point.)  I am complaining about the double standard between elites and regular working citizens.  And rules of the game or not -I do understand those are the operative rules of the game- I think it's fair and even productive to point out the double standard, to shout it from the rooftops even.  This is what people are talking about with the "court and country" divide, or elites versus midde-class, or inside the beltway versus out.  It's a large part of what's motivating the Tea Party.  I predict that feeling is going to grow in traction and political influence, which is going to make pointing out the divide and talking about it useful and practical.

402
For Ace, Fleshbot and anyone struggling with virginity: The Virginity Hotline.

403 And that's why Mark Levin is dead to me. Exactly. I came to this conclusion today. As long as I keep hearing how I'm a RINO or not down with the cause just because I think O'Donnel has character issues, then i'll keep talking about why I think she's sub-standard. So you O'Donnell supporters keep talking shit and I'll keep talking about why I think shes mental. When you finally shut up, then I can finally support her over the Democrat.

404 Mr Spades is forgetting Ted Kennedy, Charlie Rangel, Alcie Hastings, Duke Cunningham, George Bush, Barack Obama...

Vetted my rear end, sir.  It's time to use them like they use us, then kick them to the curb when something better comes along.

405 If you bet big when you're down you'll probably end up at the pawn shop, MtM, to extend your analogy still further.

We have already gone to the pawn shop 13 trillion times. The only thing separating strategy in this case is time. If you favor the view we have 15 years to turn this around if we can make some modest gains now then grinding is clearly the best strategy. If your belief is that things can at most hold on for 2 or 3 years unless real big gains are made immediately, then big betting becomes a better strategy.

In honesty, 'I' think if we can make modest gains today, we can stretch our time out to 4 or 5 years before the debt bomb explodes.

Which is why I got fencelined on the DE issue.
One candidate was too big a bet on too poor a hand.
The other was too small a gain.

Fortunately, unlike you, I don't matter; So I can choose to sit a hand out; I don't have to pick a side every time.

I, because I was stuck, have a hard time with those calling the other side unreasonable. They both had compelling arguments and substantial drawbacks. And much of where you might come down on the issue most likely has to do with your national outlook, rather than strict ideology, or anything really to do with that race.

Any reasonable person would look at that situation and say both options sucked, and the task was to choose the least sucky.

But I think both sides participated in post purchase rationalization in order to come to grips with whichever bad choice they thought was better.

OD's side convinced themselves that OD might win,
and
Castles side convinced themselves that he might not be an opportunistic RINO.

That's all in the past now, though a similar issue may come up in the future. Right now our continuing focus on that race should be to maximize that OD might win thing, just as it would be to maximize Castles conservative voting record had he won. Again: those that don't want to get on board and want to continue a knock down dragout merits debate of a decision already made without a "if it comes up again" tact, I simply don't understand.

It the end no-one's national outlook is going to change over this, so, No one will change their mind on what they thought the better decision was. Therefore if this comes up again in the near future, you can expect us all to do the exact same things, for the exact same reasons. If the situation in the US lurches one direction or the other, then people might change their minds about which strategy big betting/grinding holds the best promise for the Republic.

406 You guys keep saying that but your choice in NYS, for example, is between a leftwing Democrat and a moderate squish Republican. That is the choice. There is no third choice. Period.

And you keep saying "then I want the dem."

Fine, I can't argue with you. If you want the dem you want the dem.

You misunderstand. I don't want the Dem. I want the third choice to become viable. IF (I'm not convinced it will work, but it's certainly possible) temporarily ending up with a dem means we will get a viable third choice in the mid to long run, it might be worth the risk. I do know, however, that a moderate GOP has gotten us nothing but disaster. It's possible that refusing to elect moderate republicans will also turn out a disaster, but things are so bad right now that I'm seriously considering taking the chance. What exactly do we have to lose? I know what we have to lose if we continue on this path: our future. If the future you want is a choice between the moderate and the communist, then the status quo will serve you just fine. I'm tired of compromising when the democrats somehow manage to get extremists who believe in massive wealth redistribution and partial birth abortion and bow to the fucking mayor of Tampa into the oval office. Jim DeMint is unreasonable in Vermont. Fine. How does electing RINOs make Jim DeMint reasonable in Vermont? Do you WANT Jim DeMint in Vermont? If yes, what is your solution for getting Jim DeMint in Vermont?

I'm sorry but that's how I feel. Sometimes I really wonder if some people have ever been to a blue state, or if they have experience out of deep red counties. I feel like when I tell them that these states lean liberal it's because they're full of liberals and they don't believe me, like I'm making up monster stories to scare them.

I live in Toronto. Not only do I know what blue states are like, I've never set foot in a red state, deep or otherwise. If I had lost both arms in a freak chainsaw accident, I could still count the open conservatives I know in real life on one hand. People can change. I'm not sure you understand the extent of brainwashing that ensures liberal majorities in ultra-liberal locations. That brainwashing is not permanent. I snapped out of it and others can too. The glare from Charlie Crist's orange tan won't do it though.

407 A 2,200 page bill is placed before you, with no opportunity to read a single page of it, you are required to vote on it a couple of hours later.  And you vote "yes"?

You bet I'll vote for a guy sitting in a jail cell over this entrenched professional politician.  Any.  Day.

408 Why not do some background checks on people? Companies do it all the time when they are going to hire people for management positions, why couldn't the Tea Party people do some basic investigation of these people. Sometimes just knowing what the problems are in advance can make a difference.

Today we are hearing about O'Donnell and masturbation, O'Donnell and creationism. I am guessing that is nothing compared to what is out there. And the truth is a lot of times people don't even think this stuff is important until they see themselves depicted badly on TV.

I  did not support O'Donnell because I don't trust her. It is not her politics that bother me, it is her character. I just can not help it. I don't trust her.

And as for Levin, he did not have to be such a nasty person.  The guys at Powerline are good people, they did not deserve to be treated the way he treated them.

If these guys want unity, they might think about refraining from the some of the name calling and personal insults. It just makes people angry and more resentful.

409 "Sometimes I really wonder if some people have ever been to a blue state, or if they have experience out of deep red counties. I feel like when I tell them that these states lean liberal it's because they're full of liberals and they don't believe me, like I'm making up monster stories to scare them."

Even liberals want freedom for themselves, Ace.  When it comes right down to it, we can't predict the future.  I'm not about to even try.

You say you hate being called a "candy-ass RINO," but what about those of us who really did support O'Donnell with the best of intentions?  I'm being called "unprincipled" because I backed the more conservative candidate (and didn't even say anything about it until after the fact)?  How fucked up is that?  I don't think Castle supporters were "unprincipled RINOS."  I just think they're party animals (pun intended).  They are for the Republican party.  I'm not.  I'm for freedom and the finest of American tradition and exceptionalism.  We won't get that with a 53-seat senate majority if 4 Republicans vote with the Dems.

410 Here in Milwaukee, Mark Belling (who occasionally stands in for Rush) has pronounced Ron Johnson the Ideal - no, the PERFECT candidate for Wisconsin Senator's race against Feingold. Says he could not pick a more perfect candidate if he tried - best one of the field of candidates nationwide.

411

It was not RINOs that made Nancy Pelosi Speaker, it was DemocratsÂ….period.

 

And who has done more damage to the country, (insert your RINO here) or Obama?

 Posted by: Mallamutt at September 15, 2010 04:19 PM (OWjjx)

The difference between a RINO  and a Democrat is one walks toward socialism and the other runs headlong toward it, either way, the destination is the same.

412

Ace,

I agree that vetting is very important and you make some good points ... but ... O'Donnell already ran for the Senate against Biden two years ago, she must have already had some vetting by the Democrats. So while she may be new to us, she is not new to Delaware. All candidates have some baggage, so far what I have seen from her is not insurmountable and we have yet to hear about the baggage of her opponent, but now he will also be in the spotlight.

My bone to pick is this ... and I have seen it many times before in politics ... Republicans do it all the time ... It is O.K. for the GOP to put up someone like O'Donnell when the rank and file GOP elected officials don't want to run because they see the race as unwinnable, but as soon as they think there is a chance, they push the candidate who was willing to take on a Goliath opponent aside and step in to take the seat. That is why I always advised all my candidates in that situation to get a two run commitment from the party. I know from history, a candidate may have to run several times before being elected - just ask people like Newt Gingrich and several members of the current Congress. I guess I'm saying is we should all give her a shot, she earned it by taking on Biden when no one else would. Only one who has been in that kind of race, knows how lonely it can be ... and frustrating too!

I was touched by the sincerity of your post ... thanks. You know Ace, you are a ray of light for me, because you have made me smile so many times through these dark ages we have been experiencing for the past two years. What would I do without your flaming skulls - I know not!

D.

413

That leaves us a base range of somewhere around 8.5.

 

And that is positively, absolutely, the best you are going to get from anyone.

Can you explain how FiveThirtyEight gave her odds that don't seem that impossible (one in six chance of taking the general from Coons) as of two days ago... rather than a rating of "impossible"?

414

Wrong again Ace. If vetting mattered in the slightest a certain president I know would have had trouble leaping from nothing to president in two steps, at the same time not only not being vetted, but hiring three law firms to stonewall what vetting was possible.

Reminds me of the argument that to win you must compromise and pander and seek a big tent. Dems didn't have any problem obstructing for 6 years prior to taking over as the majority. Looks to me like it worked.

415 Posted by: Jimma at September 15, 2010 05:52 PM (Ln41L)

Obama's a democrat. Vetting doesn't work the same way for us like it does for him. He openly supported all sorts of far left shit and it hasn't done him any harm, because it's rarely mentioned, and when it is, it's mentioned as a good thing. Obama could be a serial killer and he would still get positive spin from the MFM.

416 >>>O'Donnell already ran for the Senate against Biden two years ago, she must have already had some vetting by the Democrats. She didn't, that was a give-up sacrificial lamb situation. She lost 65-35, the biggest blowout in Biden's career. Further evidence? No one ever heard of this lawsuit or IRS problems or foreclosures or spending campaign money on rent then, either. It was not a serious vetting. I would say it was virtually no vetting at all. They didn't even bother putting this stuff out there. You don't drop all that dirt you've collected until you NEED to. Castle didn't go negative, either, until he NEEDED to.

417 "Obama's a democrat. Vetting doesn't work the same way for us like it does for him."

Posted by: Johnny at September 15, 2010 05:58 PM (aB5St)

Normally I'd be inclined to agree on this salient point, but the slings and arrows aren't coming from Democrats this time.  They are coming from Karl fucking Rove, who may have even been working behind the scenes on the Castle campaign!  They are coming from people like Rove, who had less to say about "rectitude" and "character" in Democrats, including Barack Obama, than they have to say about O'Donnell now!  It's just nothing but shitty two ways from Friday.

418 "You don't drop all that dirt you've collected until you NEED to. Castle didn't go negative, either, until he NEEDED to."

Posted by: ace at September 15, 2010 06:04 PM (KUUXH)

So if it didn't work for Castle in the primary, why are so many "conservatives" shitting themselves over the general election?  O'Donnell's primary victory may have not been a major landslide, but it was solid enough to convince me that a solid majority of Delaware Republican primary voters looked at all the negativity and said, "So what?"

They pulled out all the stops.  It didn't work.  I can't imagine that Coons will have anything left for the general election except the standard, "I'm different from my opponent" fare.  We got fooled on that shit *once* in 2008.

419 dude, we're shitting ourselves because 31% of the state considers her even *fit* for office. 31%. Stop wishing away reality! This is driving me to distraction! We are not playing a game of let's pretend. If you don't know this stuff it's because you're coccooning yourself with it, avoiding her negatives, because you don't want to hear it. Latest poll: Only 31% consider her fit for office. Not "most fit." Fit at all. So don't come in here and say "This didn't work." It sure did work. It worked like gangbusters. The GOP primary voters just decided Castle was even more unfit due to his votes.

420 "So don't come in here and say "This didn't work." It sure did work. It worked like gangbusters. The GOP primary voters just decided Castle was even more unfit due to his votes."

Posted by: ace at September 15, 2010 06:28 PM (KUUXH)

Well gee, Ace.  I'm glad you can predict the future.  Wanna go into business together?  I'll invest the money, and you can use your crystal ball to tell which stocks we can invest it on.

I didn't say shit about the Delaware primaries until after the fact, cause I don't live in Delaware.  I just know that we can get a Republican majority in the Senate and still manage to fuck it up if they aren't the right Republicans.  I am no more going to guess the outcome of the general election than I guessed at the outcome of the primary.  I'm just going to say that I'm relieved that the right candidate won, in my not-so-humble estimation.

421 By the way, Ace -- I saw a CNN Poll that concluded 27% of Americans trust the government.  That's an even smaller percentage than that of Delawarers who think O'Donnell is fit for office.  Put that between your teeth and chew on it, buddy.

422

You say you hate being called a "candy-ass RINO," but what about those of us who really did support O'Donnell with the best of intentions? 

I know this was directed to ace, but I'd like to respond as well.

As many posts on this subject as I've made the past week, I've never resorted to name calling or questioning of voters' motives.

I honor and respect the best of intentions, and I believe you have been played.

Last night I was listening to the election returns coming in on the radio. A WDEL reporter was at O'Donnell's election return HQ in Dover. Before the AP called the election for her, she had a lead of about 5 points. The reporter interviewed one of COD voters present. He spoke of how he almost couldn't speak because he was too choked up. When he was asked why he liked Christine, he said, "Because she has good character, and she's a good woman of faith..." He continued in that vein, as he spoke the words that came to my mind were "hoodwinked and bamboozled". I feel badly for the honest people who put God and country first who were taken in by her and the national cohort who enabled her.

PPP has an O'Donnell/Coons race going for Coons by 16 points.(it's on their website, Public Policy Polling). I think this is the poll ace referred to, and it's also the only poll that put COD ahead a few days before the election.The author of the poll even suggested she could win by as much as ten points. (ace actually is a good prognosticator of the future, he called the race exactly: O'Donnell by 6.)

This past Monday the Intrade contract for the Republican DE senate candidate was $74. Today it's around $18.

I got an e-mail today that my congressional candidate Pat Meehan needs support to fend off typical bullshit dem attacks. His and Pat Toomey's races are the ones that will receive my financial support. The COD/Coons race will undoubtedly take some interesting twists and turns in the months ahead. As much as I'd like to I won't be able to avoid it, as I work and live within walking distance of the First State.

c'est la vie.

423

@440

ya must be from Boothwyn, Pa

424 I've never commented here before, but I just sent this to most of my friends.  It's excellent.  Thank you.

425

Politicians, as much as we mock them for their scandals, actually, I think, tend to have (as a group) fewer of these problems than most people.

Dude, I mean, c'mon.  Especially coming from someone inspired by Mencken. 

Even if it was true, it's not apt to compare politicians to the population at large.  Alvin Greene notwithstanding, the pool from which politicians are drawn is made up almost exclusively of the professional class.  I'd bet that better than half is constituted by lawyers alone.  I see no difference between the ethics of your average professional and those of your average politician.  If anything, the politician is more likely to have been corrupted simply by engaging in the process of climbing the political ladder.  Nice guys finish last.       

 

426 @440:

"I honor and respect the best of intentions, and I believe you have been played."

Posted by: kallisto at September 15, 2010 06:46 PM (+FkcS)

Well for starters Kallisto, as I mentioned in my post to Ace earlier (and it bears repeating), I did not vote for O'Donnell because I could not.  I did not comment on this race at this or any other blog, nor in my own blog or podcast, until today.

And for what I said the day after, I have been called "stupid," "unprincipled," "naive," and I've even been compared to a "degenerate gambler" in these very august pages (in which I always consider the source before I take something personally).  Karl Rove's behavior today convinces me that there are things more important to Karl Rove, and others, than advancing conservative principles.

I know that 31% of Delawarers polled (of registered, rather than likely voters, if memory serves) believe that O'Donnell is not fit for office.  The issue of her fitness for office was raised before the primary.  Weeks before.  I said nothing.  My thought at the time leading up to the primary election was that the people of Delaware were capable of handling their own affairs appropriately.  Is this a tack I take with all out-of-state elections?  No.  I just happened to this time because it was a primary, and I don't usually don't get worked up about primaries.

Anyhow, now that it's over, I'm sticking to my guns here.  My first, last and only concern is for freedom.  The time for armchair quarterbacking is over; it won't do a bit of good coming from Karl Rove or anyone else at this point.

427 I just hate being called an asshole or sell-out or candy-ass or RINO for offering what is, in my mind, perfectly good advice which, seriously, is offered with the movement's best interests at heart. Even if you disagree with me, I wish people who disagreed would accept that I am offering this advice with best intentions.

Which movement is that?  The conservative movement?  How can pushing for a rino (and Castle was a rino on steroids) to win be good for the conservative movement?  That's how we got here in the first place. 

What needs to be recognized is that the Roves, Bushes, McCains and all the other "rinos"  are all global socialists. 

Guess it's a good thing no one is reading this post anymore.

428 Yeesh, I'm late to the party on this one.  Even the guy spamming wholesale soccer jersey promos beat me here.  But that's just the way my brain functions sometimes.

Ace looks at this topic in the beforehand sense.  My concern lies in what comes after.

Let's say that November is every bit the Donk bloodbath it looks to be.  Republicans retake the House with 240+ Members, and tie up the Senate 50-50 (would have recaptured the majority, but the TPE squandered a gimmie pickup in Delaware).  Question: In which direction are Tea Party expectations going to go after a joyride like this cycle has been?

Answer: Through the roof.  They're going to expect the moon and all its green cheese.  Permanentize the Bush tax cuts.  Cut TRILLIONS from federal spending.  Abolish half the Cabinet-level departments.  Repeal ObamaCare.  Impeach Obama AND Biden so John Boehner can keep the Oval Office warm for Sarah Palin in 2013.  The sky won't be the limit.  There will BE no limit.

And that's just the first hundred days of the 112th Congress.

And they'll likely get none, or very little, of it until 2013 at the earliest.

What *is* reasonable to expect is that no more damage will be done, and the groundwork will be laid for more gains in 2012 and the dethroning of The One based upon his obstructing all of the above.  But I am now seriously questioning whether all these new-to-politics folks are capable of grasping this.  I don't think they understand that advancing an agenda takes a long time and a lot of (ugh) politics  and (shudder) compromises at times.  That there is, has been, and will always be, like it or not, give & take, mutual backscratching, and yes, deal-making involved with moving the proverbial chains.

TPers' experience in politics will have been like the rookie whose team wins the Super Bowl in his first season, and then he never even makes the playoffs again the rest of his career.  You know what such players always say: "I thought this it how it'd be every year.  I didn't know how hard it is just to make the playoffs, much less advance and get to the Big Game."  And when they don't get everything they want by next spring, they're going to get impatient, they're going to get angry, and they're going to blame not Democrat obstructionism, but the "RINO" establishment for being too "weak" and "spineless" and "wishy-washy" and "betraying the people who elected them" by not "ramming" everything through like ObamaCare was.  Senators Angle, Buck, Johnson, Toomey, et al may even be consigned to the RINO enemies list if it gets bad enough.

Now look a little further ahead and picture Mike Huckabee taking out Sarah Palin in the GOP primaries and Mitt Romney emerging with the '12 presidential nomination.  Party split, nay MELTDOWN, anyone?  And the door would open wide to Hopenchange with the Pelosi Poliburo, Reloaded.

Before Delaware, I had no such worries.  Now they seem almost inevitable.

No wonder Karl Rove was horrified Tuesday night.  He saw America's remaining life flash before his eyes, with its would-be saviors wielding the long knives.

429 @JASmius - I'm late to the party here too. I agree with you 10000%, though. Also: http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7140347/ That's the Delaware Senate race summed up in a minute.

430 Jas, as I've pointed out before, it doesn't really matter whether the Pubs take the Senate or not, as long as the line is somewhere near 50.  I predict it will be, with the Republicans in solid control of the House.

Nothing of any import will be actually making it into law for the next two years, whether the Dems or the Pubs have razor-thin control of the Senate.  With Obama in the White House, whichever party is narrowly in the minority in the Senate will filibuster everything that the narrow minority proposes of consequence.  So Obama won't be getting much of anything with respect to legislation put on his desk, either for veto or for signing.

In the House, knowing this, assuming the DeMint wing takes control, expect to see a two-year job interview for the position of "new form of governance" being placed on display.  They will push and pass the sorts of things that a unified Tea-Party flavored version of the post-hostile-takeover GOP would offer if the government were NOT divided.

Then in 2012, the American people will get to decide which style of governance they prefer.  They'll be comparing either the Tea Party vision with the Dem vision if the Dems keep the majority in the Senate, or they'll be comparing the Tea Party vision with the "bipartisan" RINO squishiness offered for so long by the Mitch McConnell brand of "moderates" if the GOP gets narrow control.

It's not until 2012 that anything truly meaningful can be done.  So 2010 is about setting the table for 2012, and slamming the brakes on further implementation of the Obama agenda via the takeover of the House.

The time for discussion of better vetting of candidates, and the flaws of the existing Republican candidates, is after November 3rd.  Until then, push against the Dems with everything we've got, no matter how flawed they are.

431 PIMF.

With Obama in the White House, whichever party is narrowly in the minority in the Senate will filibuster everything that the narrow minority majority proposes of consequence.

432 wholesale earring

433 Jake's (Sam Worthington) crippled main character is the perfect point of contact for the audience not only is he new to the visual delights of Pandora but his anal pornolar disability means that every moment in his Avatar body is one of glorious freedom from the confinement of his chair