Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rick Santorum now TRASHES candidates he SUPPORTED in September
RED STATE ^ | December 7, 2010 | Grassroots1773

Posted on 12/07/2010 11:27:00 AM PST by Moseley

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-92 next last

1 posted on 12/07/2010 11:27:11 AM PST by Moseley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Real Santorum? This tells all, imo:

“Santorum — famous for dumping Pat Toomey overboard in 2006 in favor of Arlen Specter”


2 posted on 12/07/2010 11:30:53 AM PST by Kent C
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Gosh you guys. Maybe he is disappointed in the way she ran the campaign. He supported her when it counted and now thinks she either could have done better or ran a poor campaign. I don’t see why this is news or that he should be bashed after analyzing her loss and coming to this conclusion. We are VERY hard on folks who give opinions on certain people.


3 posted on 12/07/2010 11:31:32 AM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kent C

Yes. Rick Santorum was a good man, and reliably pro-life and pro-family. He was persuaded by Bush and Rove to support Arlen Specter, whom they insisted had a better chance to win than Pat Toomey.

I’m sorry he did that, because I think it lost him the next election, because his conservative base was angry with him. He did it at the urging of the party leaders, Bush and Rove. And he also said he did it out of loyalty because Specter had earlier supported him.

I blame Rove for that as much as anybody. Specter was predictably a disaster, and Rick lost the election for doing what he was asked to do by the party leadership.

Since the Tea Party revolt, people have been more willing to revolt against the party elite, but that was not the case back then.

Still, I don’t know what possible purpose Santorum can have for saying this stupid stuff now. I think he’s hoping one day to get his job back. But this ain’t the way to do it. Not now.


4 posted on 12/07/2010 11:45:32 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Maybe he is disappointed in the way she ran the campaign. He supported her when it counted and now thinks she either could have done better or ran a poor campaign.

As a Delaware resident, I can testify very well that she could have campaigned harder and more aggressively. Some criticism was certainly deserved. It wasn’t a forward and active enough campaign to really show that she meant to win.


5 posted on 12/07/2010 11:48:34 AM PST by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kent C
“Santorum — famous for dumping Pat Toomey overboard in 2006 in favor of Arlen Specter”

AND lost ALL credibility at the time in doing so. Has he ever explained or apologized for that?

Of course, GW Bush also campaigned for Specter during that very same primary.

6 posted on 12/07/2010 11:49:28 AM PST by Conservative Tsunami
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Rove trashed her before she even got out of the starting gates.

But Santorum was his best to sell very weak candidate, since she was the nominee.

But do we want a roster full of Christine O’Donnells? I don’t think so.

What else do you want from him?


7 posted on 12/07/2010 11:49:57 AM PST by earlJam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Kent C Yes. Rick Santorum was a good man, and reliably pro-life and pro-family. He was persuaded by Bush and Rove to support Arlen Specter, whom they insisted had a better chance to win than Pat Toomey.

I like Santorum. But he needs to straighten up and stand by his convictions, not waver or get blown around the winds of the moment. To wit, he should not have listened to the pressure to dump Toomey overboard. He needs to "man up" and be himself -- not what the elitists want him to be.
8 posted on 12/07/2010 11:50:23 AM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Right you are! Nevada and Maryland are RAT states. While I respect both Angle and O’Donnell for their attempts, they were, at the end of the day unelectable for any number of reasons. During their campaigns (and I really watched Nevada because we have business interests there) I cringed on almost a daily basis when I read what came out of the mouths of these two. They were so wedded to their personal philosophies that they thought that every looney statement they made was a plus, when it was a minus for most of the voters. If you didn’t know anything about the election and showed up to listen to the candidates, you just had to get the feeling that both of these women were too nutty to be elected. It’s really too bad for all of us because despite these foibles, they would have been good legislators.


9 posted on 12/07/2010 11:51:50 AM PST by vette6387 (Enough Already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

I like Santorum. He was a good Senator here. I am dumbfounded by his action the last few years. It seems he got a real shell shocked after the Toomey/Specter race in ‘04 and his loss to that loser Casey. He needs to get his act together.


10 posted on 12/07/2010 12:03:29 PM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

He made a political mistake but he is still right on policy.

He also said in 2007 “The only one I wouldn’t support is McCain.”


11 posted on 12/07/2010 12:10:14 PM PST by ari-freedom (Happy Chanuka!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: vette6387

“They were so wedded to their personal philosophies that they thought that every looney statement they made was a plus, when it was a minus for most of the voters.”

Conservatives can win everywhere once they start acting like responsible adults and not like radio talk show hosts.


12 posted on 12/07/2010 12:13:06 PM PST by ari-freedom (Happy Chanuka!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kent C
Yeah, I have no respect for this guy. His only virtue is being prolife, but beyond that he's just mush.
13 posted on 12/07/2010 12:15:12 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Never been a Santorum fan. Hope he doesn’t run for POTUS.


14 posted on 12/07/2010 12:16:25 PM PST by cblue55 (Envisioning when all that is left is the right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cblue55

I don’t see how he will matter either way.


15 posted on 12/07/2010 12:28:57 PM PST by Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Tsunami; hinckley buzzard

> AND lost ALL credibility at the time in doing so. Has he ever explained or apologized for that?

No and despite some (what I think) feigned support (he’s running for something?) for _certain_ tea party candidates, he still really is an anti-libertarian, anti-small gov., anti-truly free market. Like hinckley buzzard says - pro-life is about it.


16 posted on 12/07/2010 12:31:35 PM PST by Kent C
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
Oh, goodie. More post election hindsight navel gazing.
17 posted on 12/07/2010 12:32:16 PM PST by Pan_Yan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

“I am not a witch” was certainly a FUBAR campaign item.


18 posted on 12/07/2010 12:37:30 PM PST by Undocumented_capitalist (Obama&Pelosi are the killers in chief of the unborn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

> Still, I don’t know what possible purpose Santorum can have for saying this stupid stuff now. I think he’s hoping one day to get his job back. But this ain’t the way to do it. Not now.

Yours was possibly the best spin on where Santorum stands, but I’ll never forget his comments on libertarians even before the Toomey thing. He’s in the John Kasich traitor territory for me... Kasich got the first assault weapons ban passed for Clinton.


19 posted on 12/07/2010 12:37:30 PM PST by Kent C
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Santorum made his choice six years ago when he supported Arlen over Pat.

Arlen’s Democrat vote was the extra vote needed for Obama-Care to make cloture,IIRC.

I voted for Santorum in 2000 and thought he had solid conservative values, in 2006 I grudgingly voted for him again(I loathed Casey) but he strayed and now I’m done with him.

As far as I’m concerned he’s an arrogant opportunist who sucks up to the Rob Gleason-Brabender-Cox Republican establishment big government crowd.


20 posted on 12/07/2010 12:38:22 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
I've known Rick Santorum since he was a congresscritter, years prior to his being elected a Senator.

We used to fly the same flight to DC for years, before he moved his family to DC.

He was a very sincere, honest, young congresscritter with real values.

Unfortunately, young Rick, the honest congresscritter, has lived too long in DC and has too much political dogshit on his shoes.

I think that the old saying, that laying down with dogs will earn you fleas, is too true.

I don't say he is corrupt, but he has certainly become more of a DC "Lifer" than a young man with principles.

21 posted on 12/07/2010 12:39:57 PM PST by USS Alaska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kent C

Ricki Santorum is a wimpish Loser! Don’t ever consider him for a national office,EVER!


22 posted on 12/07/2010 12:52:13 PM PST by True Republican Patriot (May GOD Continue to BLESS Our Greatest President :George W. Bush!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
Well there are a few things here to think about....(1) I don't think there is anything wrong with him expressing his disapproval of a candidate...we all do it all the time, so why can't he? (2) He is a fine Republican, and was #3 in the Senate at one time, so maybe because his name has been thrown around for POTUS or VP, some people are trying to smear him already....(3) I live in PA. and was very happy with the Senator...I did however not approve of him throwing his weight for Snarlin Arlin, but there you have to go back to item (1)......so he isn't any different than any of the rest of us, is he?
23 posted on 12/07/2010 1:09:05 PM PST by HarleyLady27 (How's that change treatin ya now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
Angle and O’Donnell stormed the “enemy” at their strongest points and put pressure on the Democrats on their home turf.

I believe those two... especially O'Donnell, kept the glare of media off Rand Paul, giving him some needed breathing room so he could steady his campaign against Conway. COD had better be on Rand's Christmas gift list.

24 posted on 12/07/2010 1:10:43 PM PST by ScottinVA (The West needs to act NOW to aggressively treat its metastasizing islaminoma!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Undocumented_capitalist
“I am not a witch” was certainly a FUBAR campaign item.

So was the "I am you!" ad.

Who wrote her stuff?

25 posted on 12/07/2010 1:12:47 PM PST by earlJam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I blame Rove for that as much as anybody. Specter was predictably a disaster, and Rick lost the election for doing what he was asked to do by the party leadership.

We have to remember, though, it was 2006 -- a "wave" election -- that carried a lot of weight toward his loss. We lost a high number of GOPers that year. Plus.. Bob Casey disguised himself as a pro-life "moderate," giving PA voters an illusory alternative to Santorum.

26 posted on 12/07/2010 1:16:06 PM PST by ScottinVA (The West needs to act NOW to aggressively treat its metastasizing islaminoma!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

True. But I remember a lot of Freepers back before that election were saying that they refused to vote for Rick. And I was saying that Bob Casey was not his father’s son when it came to abortion, that he was lying on several issues, so they should hold their noses and vote for Rick. But they didn’t.

He made a big mistake agreeing to endorse Specter. But his voting record was good as long as he was in the Senate.


27 posted on 12/07/2010 1:37:53 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

YOu would have liked it better if he had said she had no chance of winning? No, he said exactly what people say when they are trying their best NOT to be fingered as someone who is hurting a candidate’s chances.

She was NOT a good candidate. She proved it. She may be a great person, but she has not been, and was not, and probably will never be, a good candidate for Deleware.

But she will enjoy playing with the almost $1 million she still has in the bank after her campaign ended.


28 posted on 12/07/2010 1:42:58 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

If McCain turned against republicans in 4 years, and became a democrat, I doubt anybody here would hold it against Sarah Palin, so I don’t know why they don’t understand what you explained about Rick Santorum.

I don’t think he’s the best conservative in the world, but he seemed a good enough guy not to be dumped on by conservatives like he is.


29 posted on 12/07/2010 1:44:39 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: vette6387

Sharon Angle WAS electable, she simply made too many mistakes against a well-oiled democratic machine. Appealing to hispanic voters by telling them they look asian was probably just the last straw.

O’Donnell never had a chance, both because of her lack of any experience at all, and her inability to stand up to scrutiny, defend herself, and articulate a message. Which was wierd because she was a great speaker, she just didn’t speak the message.

When your first words to introduce yourself to the general election audience is “I am not a witch”, you have already lost the race. (I know, Nixon managed to come back after his “I am not a crook” speech, but that wasn’t a campaign advertisement, and it took a while).

But she never had a chance. She was 16 points down before she stepped out of the gate, and then she decided to hang around in the gate for 3 weeks, collecting millions and cementing “Senator Coons” in the voter’s minds.


30 posted on 12/07/2010 1:48:34 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

stupid is as stupid does.

Santorum must want the RINO insider support.


31 posted on 12/07/2010 2:10:45 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

“Gosh you guys. Maybe he is disappointed in the way she ran the campaign. He supported her when it counted and now thinks she either could have done better or ran a poor campaign. I don’t see why this is news or that he should be bashed...”

I agree with you entirely. Personally I thought O’Donnell was an inadequate candidate who had no chance of winning, but once she won the nomination you shut up, be a good team player, and get behind her and support her like Santorum did, no matter what you think, not throw stones like Rove or Krauthammer.

We’d be better off with half a conservative than no conservative at all. Castle was a lock to win, and had a 54% rating from American Conservative Union. Coons is 0% conservative with 100% chance of beating O’Donnell; O’Donnell is a 100% conservative with 0% chance of beating Coons. Either way it works out to Zero.

O’Donnell should have run for mayor of something and built at least a minimal record of achievement, not going straight from Kindergarten to the Major Leagues. Then go after the Senate slot when Castle retired.


32 posted on 12/07/2010 2:21:23 PM PST by lowtaxsmallgov (This Administration has absolutely no idea how to grow an economy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: earlJam

I don’t know who wrote her stuff. Worse yet, he/she got paid partially with money I sent to O’Donnell campaign :-(


33 posted on 12/07/2010 2:29:23 PM PST by Undocumented_capitalist (Obama&Pelosi are the killers in chief of the unborn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Undocumented_capitalist

Cheer up. Maybe O’Donnell’s advertising person does not have your money.

It was announced yesterday that she is still sitting on a million dollars of campaign donations.


34 posted on 12/07/2010 2:34:02 PM PST by earlJam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
Santorum has been on my no-buy list for a few years now. He's immature and overbearing. I've had enough of that sort of representation in my lifetime. We need real men (that's right -- I said men) at the helm.
35 posted on 12/07/2010 2:35:59 PM PST by Glenn (iamtheresistance.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

To: CharlesWayneCT

Do you know if they are going to pursue charges against her or drop them since she lost?


37 posted on 12/07/2010 9:44:27 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Whether a candidate has won or lost will have nothing to do with whether charges are pursued.

Charges will not be pursued because they are totally frivolous and without any merit.


38 posted on 12/07/2010 11:18:28 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
O’Donnell never had a chance, both because of her lack of any experience at all, and her inability to stand up to scrutiny, defend herself, and articulate a message.

This is where you are fundamentally mistaken, and you are the cancer destroying the country.

It is the party's responsibility to defend its candidate and defend the candidate.

That is your fundamnetal error. ALL candidates will come under attack from the other side, unless they pose no threat whatsoever. That is why you are what is wrong with politics in America.

There will never, ever, ever be a candidate who can simply sail into office without being attacked. You are foolish and naive for trying to find a candidate that will NOT be attacked. It will never happen.

Your attitude is a prescription for failure, 100% of the time.

It is the party's responsibility to defend its candidate.

Barack Obama has said all kinds of idiotic things.

See:

http://ObamaGaffes.org

Yet the Democrats circle the wagon and defend their candidate and refuse to allow attacks on Obama. They fight back.

But shallow and foolish Republicans like you form a circular firing squad AND GUARANTEE THE DEMOCRATS WIN.

It is your desire to have a candidatd that can rip power away from the statists WITHOUT ACTUALLY REQUIRING ANY *EFFORT* ON YOUR PART that is the cancer destroying the country.
39 posted on 12/07/2010 11:25:54 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: earlJam
Who wrote her stuff?

Fred Davis was the campaign guru behind the "I'm not a witch ad." He was hailed as a genius, the best TV ad man in the entire GOP.

I hear that he is Sen. Inhofe's nephew.

But he was supposed to be greatest genius ever in campaign TV ads.

I hope that he never works again. I would hope that no one will ever hire him again for the rest of his life.


40 posted on 12/07/2010 11:30:07 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

I don’t think she violated any laws. I think those stories were overblown opposition attacks. I just think she was a poor candidate. I don’t think she was a crook.

There are legal ways a candidate can live off campaign contributions — for example, she could announce a run for the other senate seat, and then pay herself a salary for the campaign, up to the amount she would make if she WON the election.

My GUESS is that she will use the money in support of other candidates. At least, that’s what she SHOULD do, and it is a legal way to use the money. She can also return the money if she wants.


41 posted on 12/08/2010 5:39:21 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Sorry, while I agree with your assertion that a party is responsible for defending candidates, in the end getting elected in the personal responsibility of the candidate.

And if we are going to have a tea party, and it is going to challenge the establishment, and push candidates that will oppose the establishment, we have to get candidates who can win election without much help from the establishment.

You can rail against the establishment all you want, and complain that they didn’t help us topple them out of power, but I believe it is absurd to expect entrenched political powers to help us decapitate them. We either play with them and get the best candidate they can support, or we rise up against them, in which case we need candidates that can make it with our help alone.

IN this specific case, there was nothing the delaware establishment could have done to save O’Donnell. They might have made the race closer, but it is absurd to think that even a perfect republican committee can rescue a fatally flawed candidate in a state that is 2/1 democrat.

If it was that easy, we’d never win elections.

Christine O’Donnell proved herself to be a fairly principled conservative on issues, and a failure as a candidate getting her message out and making it appeal to the voters of Delaware.

She had $6 million, and only got 5% more of the vote in this election (against a placeholder democrat candidate in a wildly republican year) than she did in 2008 against Joe Biden, in a year she had no money.

If she had lost by a few points, like Sharon Angle, I think you could argue that a full-court blitz of support, AND a quick endorsement by the other primary candidate, might have been enough to swing the election.

But this was a rout, it was always going to be a rout, and that is because the candidate was a poor choice.

It’s a pretty bizarre world where what is “wrong with politics” is people who see a candidate lose by 16 points, and after the loss point out that they were a lousy candidate.

I sent her money, even though I knew she couldn’t win. I would like to have had her win. I don’t think she would have been a bad senator, and she was mostly right on issues (I was always nervous with her love affair for Hillary Clinton though). But it was easy to see she had no chance of winning. General elections aren’t primaries, where the electorate is your base.

That is the lesson the tea party movement has learned in this election, and they are already working around the county to vet and pick better candidates to support.


42 posted on 12/08/2010 5:52:08 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I don’t think she violated any laws. I think those stories were overblown opposition attacks. I just think she was a poor candidate. I don’t think she was a crook.

I believe the evidence is very clear--if she didn't violate the laws, then there must be some odd explanation. She should share that explanation if she wants to concince anyone that what her filings show is in line with the law and FEC regs. But look how she has dealt with issues over and over--red herrings. She evades the question and if pinned down just denies things without giving any evidence why we should believe her.

Maybe I'm letting other information and her repeated dishonesty bias my look at this issue, but in any case, if she were a Dem, nobody here would give her a pass on things half as bad.

There are legal ways a candidate can live off campaign contributions [...]

Heaven forbid she actually goes out and gets (and keeps) a real job, gaining some experience that might help her be competent at something like dogcatcher.

A good start might be to get a job where she could pick up some tips on managing money, if she wants to have a job that affects the finances of all Americans.

But I think that CREW's accounting of her violations is wrong--I think they missed that she made a few minor paybacks on the rent/utilities issue, for example.

43 posted on 12/08/2010 6:55:55 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
GONDRING embarrassed himself again: "if she didn't violate the laws, then there must be some odd explanation. She should share that explanation if she wants to concince anyone that what her filings show is in line with the law and FEC regs"

She did explain it. You are just too stupid to read.
44 posted on 12/11/2010 2:18:07 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
GONDRING LIED AGAIN: Heaven forbid she actually goes out and gets (and keeps) a real job,

As Gondring already knows, Christine O'Donnell has worked many jobs.

See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJYjGAGPZHc

and:

http://www.supportchristine.com/2008biography.pdf

Christine O’Donnell worked for the Republican National Committee under Haley Barbour crafting the marketing message that helped take over the US House in 1994 and implement the Republican Revolution in 1995 (which later went astray, but started out powerfully). She has spent 12 years influencing Federal legislation. She has lobbied in the halls of the United Nations for American interests and conservative principles. She worked at Concerned Women for America, one of the largest organizations in America and the largest political women’s organization on the planet, on public policy. She has been debating nationally on public policy since 1992. She worked at the Christian Coalition lobbying for conservative legislation in Washington, DC through their marketing operations. In Dover, Christine lobbied for conservative values and became a specialist lobbyign on bioethics and the morality of medical experimentation. She was called to testify in the Delaware legislature on these topics based upon her expertise. Christine has a proven record of 15 years of public policy success.
45 posted on 12/11/2010 2:22:35 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Undocumented_capitalist
I don’t know who wrote her stuff. Worse yet, he/she got paid partially with money I sent to O’Donnell campaign :-(

Christine told me that if there was one thing she could change in her entire life it would be the moemnt she buckled under to top level Republican experts who INSISTED that Fred Davis was this great political TV ad genius. If tehre was one thing she could change in her entire life it woudl be hiring Fred Davis to do her ads.

Hopefully Fred Davis will never work in politics again. Can you imagine being known as the TV genius who created the infamous witch ad? Hopefully he will never fool another candidate again.
46 posted on 12/11/2010 2:25:28 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Sorry, while I agree with your assertion that a party is responsible for defending candidates, in the end getting elected in the personal responsibility of the candidate

No, wrong. Democrats don't win elections that way. Republicans form a circular firing squad. Democrats work together.

Take for example the idiotic things that Barack Obama says:
http://www.ObamaGaffes.org

Yet Democrats circle the wagon, do not allow Obama to be attacked and defend him.

Democrats know how to win elections. Republicans don't.
47 posted on 12/11/2010 2:29:43 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
I think they missed that she made a few minor paybacks on the rent/utilities issue,

Christine did reimburse the campaign -- prior to any complaint -- for her personal expenses. That is correct. The campaign did not pay for Christine's personal expenses. On a couple of occasions, when the campaign paid in bulk for items, Christine paid the campaign back.

Yes, they did overlook Christine paying back the campaign to cover her personal expenses, which is routine.
48 posted on 12/11/2010 2:32:30 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

I am not a witch....great campaign strategy./s


49 posted on 12/11/2010 2:33:00 PM PST by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
we have to get candidates who can win election without much help from the establishment.

There is no such thing. You may as well say we need to get a goose that can lay a golden egg. There is no such thing as a candidate who won't be attacked by the opponent. If you want to take power away from the establishment and statists and the huge interests they represent, THEY ARE GOING TO FIGHT BACK. They are going to attack ANY candidate.

What it takes is an entire tea party movement and conservatives who are GROWN UPS -- not infantile children.

You will never find any candidate who poses a threat to the elites who is not attacked, ridiculed, lied about, and slandered. NEVER.

You are searching for the EASY WAY OUT. There is NO easy way. There are no short cuts. It takes hard work to save America.

SO what it takes is an entire movement who is not gullible and naive, who knows how to fight back, who knows who to defend their candidates, who will nto believe the liberal lies about their candidate.
50 posted on 12/11/2010 2:35:46 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-92 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson