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 previous 1-5051-92 last
To: CharlesWayneCT
(I was always nervous with her love affair for Hillary Clinton though).

DUDE, GROW UP....

Christine is trying to divide and conquer. Get with the program, man.

Delaware has 110,000 more Democrat registered voters than Republicans. The only way for a Republican to win in Delaware is to peel away Democrat votes from the Democrat candidate.

Christine is trying to get female votes and divide the Democrat side. Remember that Rush Limbaugh encouraged people to vote for Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama to create chaos in the Democrat party.
51 posted on 12/11/2010 2:40:33 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
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.

Delaware has 110,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans. In 2010, 18% of Republicans voted for Chris Coons. That is 32,940 Republicans who voted for the Democrat because moderates cannot unite.

With 110,000 more Democrats registered than Republicans, the results were actually exceeidngly good for Christine O"Donnell. The problem is with the Republican Party, which increased voter registration by only 2% while the Democrat party increased their voter registration by 11% in the same period from 2008 to 2010 (BEFORE the primary when they all thought Mike Castle would be the nominee).
52 posted on 12/11/2010 2:45:29 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I believe it is absurd to expect entrenched political powers to help us decapitate them.

But you somehow think that the Democrats will NOT attack your mythical, unicorn, over-the-rainbow perfect candidate?

You somehow think that you can find a candidate whom the Democrats won't attack, lie about, misrepresent, and ridicule? You make me laugh.

So in your fantasies, you will find a mythical unicorn candidate and the Democrats will all lay down and let you walk all over them?
53 posted on 12/11/2010 2:50:03 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Why did she not file those reimbursements, or are you claiming they aren’t shown on the publically available files?

Or are you claiming that her reimbursements consisted of a small portion of the rent/util?


54 posted on 12/11/2010 2:59:33 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 48 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

All candidates should expect criticism. Unfortunately, Miss O’Donnell didn’t face it, but just lied or misrepresented or misdirected.

If she had been upfront, I would have had respect for her.


55 posted on 12/11/2010 3:01:21 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 53 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
Christine never lied or misrepresented anything.

Christine did face the criticism.

However, the criticism was coming from her own party, from the Tom Ross / Mike Castle SORE LOSER squad.

The difference with Delaware was that the SORE LOSER faction of the GOP were the ones spreading the slander.

http://www.FireTomRoss.com


56 posted on 12/11/2010 3:05:42 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
Why did she not file those reimbursements,

She did. You are an ignorant moron.
57 posted on 12/11/2010 3:06:39 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

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

A fact not at all contradicted by my statement. She used to work, but then found that mooching off others was more to her taste, I suppose.

She claimed that her income was so low because of volunteering...well, I would love to live off others and just volunteer, but some of us feel an old-fashioned thing called "responsibility"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJYjGAGPZHc -- "something happened between 2008 and 2010"

Yes...people got to know her. So she dropped from tied to losing by 16 points. She got fewer votes than previous elections despite having $6 million available. You'd think that by spending over $4 million they would have successfully kept people from getting to know her so she could have at least gotten as many votes as before.

And I have to say, "WOW! Didn't that guy get together a lawsuit for her, claiming she turned down working on TPotC for ICON, but now he credits her for working on it? Or was it that she worked on it on ISI time but then said she didn't? Or what?"

And actually, the name is "Grifter"...people think of her when that word is said.

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

Supports my point. Thank you.

58 posted on 12/11/2010 3:33:51 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 45 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Show me the repayments. They don’t match her words and I have gone through both the images and the spreadsheets.


59 posted on 12/11/2010 3:35:03 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 44 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
Show me the repayments.

Show me why anyone should give a damn what a moron like you thinks.
60 posted on 12/11/2010 5:19:21 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Heh...I thought you couldn’t.


61 posted on 12/11/2010 6:24:00 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 60 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Your lies come easy. Backing them up does not, I see.


62 posted on 12/11/2010 6:24:34 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 60 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

It is your responsibility to document your attacks.

Nice try, but nobody is falling for that old trick.

If you want to attack someone, YOU have to prove your attack.

It is a dishonest old trick to expect someone else to respond to your baseless attack for which you have no evidence whatsoever.


63 posted on 12/11/2010 7:22:37 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

However, I will point out what an idiot you people are.....

Remember that there are TWO (2) completely different townhouses involved.

You, being dumb, talk about “half” of Christine’s rent.

That’s the “half” for 1 of 2 townhouses.

1 townhouse is 100% dedicated to office space, and David Hust lived there.

That’s the half paid for by the campaign.

THE OTHER townhouse (#2) is the half *NOT* paid for by the campaign.

That is living space for Christine and her sister.

My don’t you feel stupid now, don’t you?


64 posted on 12/11/2010 7:24:58 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

YOu essentially replied 4 times to my posts, all of which agreed with my premise while thinking you were arguing against me.

I said we need a candidate who can get elected without the establishment, and you argue against that by saying that any good candidate will be attacked and ridiculed by the elite. Who are, in fact, the establishment.

I argue we need a candidate who can cut through the crap thrown at them by democrats AND establishment republicans, and appeal to the people without help from those we are trying to beat. And you ARGUE against that by pointing out that no good candidate WON’T be attacked and ridiculed — which is precisely my point.

And yet somehow you are blaming the republican establishment in Delaware, even though you seem to fully understand that they acted PRECISELY as we would expect them to act. And you pretend I’m living in the unicorn world, when I’m the one who is arguing that O’Donnell was a bad candidate PRECISELY becuase we DON’T live in your unicorn/rainbow world where the establishment will bust their butts to elect candidates who will oppose their interests.

However, since your arguments all fit well with my point, the fact that you can’t see that isn’t important — your arguments simply support my conclusion: O’Donnell was a bad candidate, because she was an attack on the establishment but failed to win without establishment help.

Now, let’s see if you get it, or if you will argue that we should live in your world where the establishment signs up for their own destruction.


65 posted on 12/11/2010 9:02:34 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Hard to believe I once supported this clown. What a disappointment he turned out to be.


66 posted on 12/11/2010 9:11:34 PM PST by Antoninus (Fair warning: If Romney's the GOP nominee in 2012, I'm looking for a new party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

CharlesWayneCT: We must be prepared to win without the establishment. But that has very little to do with the candidate. It has to do with our own infrastructure and abiltity to function as a team independent of the insider elites.

Charles, where do you think you will ever find a better candidate than Christine O’Donnell?

You want one who is part of the establishment? Is that the answer?

Shall we get behind PART OF THE PROBLEM and elect a candidate who has so much invested in the system and the GOP establishment that he or she owes allegiance to the insiders, not to us?

Let us puzzle for a moment about this unicorn fantasy candidate. You want a candidate so deeply entrenched in the establishment that they side with the insiders, instead of you?

You will never have a better candidate than Christine O’Donnell was — and IS, and WILL BE soon.

However, what is lacking is US, not the candidate.

When you listen to the attacks of our opponents, YOU JOIN THEIR RANKS.

Every time the liberal media or activists attack our candidate, ANY candidate, AND YOU BELIEVE IT — YOU JUST CHANGED SIDES AND JOINED THE RANKS OF THE LIBERALS.

And that is the point. They tricked you.

You no longer fighting on our side, you are fighting for the liberals, the moment you LISTEN TO the attacks against our candidate by the liberals.

That is the whole idea. They seek to divide and discourage and demoralize, and confuse the conservative ranks. Their lies might be disproven.

But if they can cause donors to hesitate, volunteers to stay home, dissension within the ranks, time wasted on debating these issues within the campaign being attacked... they have gained an advantage.

The fault, dear Charles, is not in our candidates.... the fault is in ourselves.


67 posted on 12/11/2010 9:34:04 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
We can't change "ourselves", because "ourselves" is the entire voting population. The candidate must change "ourselves". Because the candidate is the part that is outside the system. The system is the voters. The voters won't CHANGE THEMSELVES to vote for the people we want.

The CANDIDATE needs to be able to change the voters, so the voters will select the candidate (50%+1 at least).

Charles, where do you think you will ever find a better candidate than Christine O’Donnell?

Pretty much off of any street corner. In a year where republicans were up dozens of points in some cases over their numbers in 2008, and with $6 million dollars, O'Donnell managed only a 5% improvement over her own 2008 campaign, even though 2008 was against a popular incumbent, and 2010 was against a fairly unknown throw-away candidate.

Fortunately, I don't have to "believe" anybody to make my judgments. I can simply look at the facts.

68 posted on 12/11/2010 9:49:50 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
No, Charles, "ourselves" is the the team campaigning for for the candidate, normally a political party or the candidate's campaign or in the case of an outsider campaign something like the tea party.

For example, Barack Obama says idiotic things all the time. SEE:
http://www.ObamaGaffes.org

It is not Obama who fixes this. It is the fact that Democrats understand how to close ranks and defend against attacks.

Democrats defend their man. It is not Obama who personally shouts down the attacks, it is all of Obama's followers, including liberals in the news media, and other Democrat officials, etc.

When ANY Democrat comes under fire ALL OTHER Democrat officials, VIP's, pundits, and opinion-makers comes to his defense.

When any Republican comes under fire REPUBLICANS JOIN IN THE ATTACK and do the liberals work for them.

DEMOCRATS UNDERSTAND THAT ATTACKS ARE INEVITABLE -- NOT A REFLECTION OF THE CANDIDATE'S MERITS.

DEMOCRATS UNDERSTAND THAT THE MORE EFFECTIVE A CANDIDATE IS THE MORE HE OR SHE WILL BE ATTACKED.

DEMOCRATS UNDERSTAND THAT THE OTHER PARTY WILL ATTACK THE GREATEST THREAT. ATTACKS WILL NOT COME AGAINST UNIMPORTANT CANDIDATES WHO DO NOT POSE ANY THREAT.

The liberals do not waste time attacking unimportant candidates who do not pose any threat.


69 posted on 12/12/2010 7:15:23 AM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Pretty much off of any street corner. In a year where republicans were up dozens of points in some cases over their numbers in 2008, and with $6 million dollars, O'Donnell managed only a 5% improvement over her own 2008 campaign, even though 2008 was against a popular incumbent, and 2010 was against a fairly unknown throw-away candidate.

Then you are completely ignorant of Christine O'Donnell and of Delaware (even if you live there.)

Democrat voter registration exceeds Republican registration by 110,000 votes in Delaware.

Democrats increased their voter registration by a whopping 11% from 2008 to 2010.

In 2008, the party was united behind Christine O'Donnell. No one objected to her in 2008. She ran alongside the Presidential candidate and the Republcian candidate for Governor. Everyone thought O'Donnell was terrific in 2008.

But in 2010, the "our way or the highway" sore loser crowd of Mike Castle began a campaign of personal destruction -- that is * L I E S * against Christine O'Donnell -- in which you have Republicans attacking Republicans.

There is * N O * candidate in Delaware stronger than Christine O'Donnell. You apparently believe the lies. Again, you have joined the ranks of the liberals doing their dirty work for them, because you believe their lies. You have volunteered for the opponent's armies.

ANY candidate who is nominated, the liberals will spread lies, and you will BELIEVE the lies, and you will join the ranks of the liberals attacking ANY conservative candidate. That is because you will believe, adopt, and recirculate the lies.

In 2010, everyone knew that control of the US Senate was at stake, and Barack Obama's agenda was at stake. Voting for Chris Coons was voting for Barack Obama. And everyone knew it.

Exit polls showed that 57% of voters in Delaware strongly support Barack Obama.

And 57% of voters voted for Chris Coons over Christine O'Donnell.

In other states, a referendum on Barack Obama caused the GOP to win because Obama was NOT popular.

In Delaware, Obama REMAINED POPULAR and a referendum on Obama caused the Democrats to win.
70 posted on 12/12/2010 7:23:18 AM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

DO you know anything about Delaware? I don’t live there, but I know that “everybody” didn’t like O’Donnell in 2008.

There was no primary in 2008 — nobody else even cared to bother to run against Biden. They all knew it was a lost cause. She had come in 3rd in the 2006 senate primary. But she was the only one campaigning for the republican ticket in 2008.

She was unable to raise any money, and ended up in debt, and failed to pay everybody who worked for her campaign (I’m hoping that’s beeen straightened out now that she has a million dollars in her campaign bank).

She underperformed the McCain/Palin ticket (her 65%/35% vs 62%/37%). Fact is, in a state like Delaware, people register democrat because they get to vote in the primary, where they know they will get a choice. It was the same in Maryland when I lived there — a LOT of conservatives were registered democrat because being registered republican meant nothing. 35% was pretty much what the republican line was going to get in an election, regardless of who’s name was on that line.

I’m fine with an argument over how much we should expect a candidate to do. But there’s no point in ignoring the evidence. In 2010 the tea party fully backed O’Donnell, and you keep saying that the tea party is one of your “ourselves” that can support a candidate, and O’Donnell was crushed.

You act like O’Donnell was cut off from the world. She had two major national players endorse her in the primary. She was a tea party darling. She had Rush, Mark, Sean, and a host of 2nd-tier conservative talk shows working for her. She had web sites pushing her.

What she did NOT have was the delaware establishment republicans — and you have stated the facts that explain that, even if you think they should have. We were FIGHTING the establishment in delaware, they rejected the establishment candidate who was likely to win the general election. Our side said repeatedly we’d rather LOSE to the democrats than win with the establishment.

And yet you seem shocked the establishment didn’t support our candidate. You probably are upset Castle didn’t endorse her — forgetting that Castle was savaged personally during the race. Do you remember THIS gem:

“A conservative firm until recently employed by the Delaware primary campaign of conservative Christine O’Donnell against Rep. Mike Castle casually leveled an extraordinary — and unsupported — charge of a gay affair against Castle in a video posted to its website today, the ugliest salvo yet in an extremely bitter primary.”

It wasn’t O’Donnell’s campaign, but she never denounced the smear. Castle DID stay out of the race, didn’t run 3rd party, and didn’t campaign for or endorse the democrat.

Still, it seems silly to recognize that democrats own the state, and then suggest that a far-right candidate can win regardless of how bad a candidate they are, if the pathetically weak republican party apparatus would simply support her.

Oh, if it were that easy — then we’d win a landslide, because in most cases the republican party committees DO support candidates. That doesn’t win you elections — you win elections with a good candidate.

Maybe your problem is that you think O’DOnnell’s problem was simply that she made some gaffes. IN fact, she wasn’t really gaffe-prone, and she didn’t really stick her foot in her mouth (like some other candidates). She simply had severe baggage, FACTUAL baggage, that could not be overcome by a weak campaigner who refused to get out and sell herself, who came across as scared of interviews, and who dissappeared for almost 3 weeks after the primary, by which time her large deficit in the polls was cemented.


71 posted on 12/12/2010 10:42:11 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
DO you know anything about Delaware?

Yes, I ran Christine's primary (convention) campaign in 2008. I went all over Delaware, met with political leaders and voters all over Delaware.
72 posted on 12/12/2010 11:14:47 AM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
It wasn’t O’Donnell’s campaign, but she never denounced the smear.

Absolutely false. See yuu have unknowingly enlisted the liberal army. You are marching for the liberal elites. You spread lies without knowing what is going on. Where are you getting your information from?

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/09/odonnell-denounces-video-challenges-castle-to-call-off-his-attack-dogs.html Christine O'Donnell CONDEMNS personal attacks on Mike Castle, including attempts to question Castle's private sexuality
73 posted on 12/12/2010 11:16:38 AM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
She was unable to raise any money, and ended up in debt, and failed to pay everybody who worked for her campaign

Charles, first I WAS THE PERSON OWED THE MOST MONEY FROM 2008. SO IF I AM NOT COMPLAINING, YOU ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO DO SO.

I know that Christine paid as soon as she could, never stopped raising money to pay off those debts as soon as she could, and paid everything she could, when she could.

Second, THE OTHER PEOPLE COMPLAINING NEVER SUBMITTED THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION TO BE REIMBURSED. Those who have publicly complained were not paid because they did not document their expenses and have failed to present proper invoices to the Treasurer.

Third, anyone who works on a campaign imagining it is job security SHOULD NOT BE PAID because they are incompetent. Anyone who knows anything about campaigns knows that they are notoriously unreliable financially, and MOST campaigns do not raise enough money to pay all their debts.

Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign ended with $22 million in debts.

Why do you think that is significant? MOST campaigns end with debt.

Charles, it sounds like you do not know enough about politics to really be qualified to comment on these topics.

Christine did not wilfully withhold money from people from 2008. She never gave up. She never quit. She continued to raise money and continued to pay off expenses as fast as she could. AGAIN, CHARLES, YOU HAVE ENLISTED IN THE LIBERAL ARMY. YOU ARE MARCHING UNDER THE BANNER OF THE LIBERAL ELITES. And you have sold yourself CHEAP. You do their work for them.
74 posted on 12/12/2010 11:23:58 AM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
She underperformed the McCain/Palin ticket (her 65%/35% vs 62%/37%).

First, Christine O'Donnell was running against Joe Biden. Joe Biden was a former Presidential candidate with decades in the Congress, on senior committees.

Joe Biden spent over $4 million in the US Senate race against Christine O'Donnell. O'Donnell spent about $119,000, and did about as well as John McCain in Delaware running for President.

John McCain in 2008 got 36.9% of the vote for President

Christine O'Donnell got 35.3% of the vote for US Senate.

http://elections.delaware.gov/archive/elect08/elect08_general_election/html/elect08_gen_KWNS.shtml

Where did you get your 32% number?
75 posted on 12/12/2010 11:32:29 AM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
She simply had severe baggage, FACTUAL baggage,

Christine had NO baggage, she had people LYING about her.

You really don't know very much about politics, Charles.

EVERY candidate will be slandered if they pose a threat.

The difference is that the Democrats don't believe it, and fight against it.

You enlist in the liberal army and do their dirty work for them.
76 posted on 12/12/2010 11:35:13 AM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

I’m not complaining about her owing people money. I’m offering evidence against your claim that she was a successful candidate in 2008, that “nobody had any trouble with her then”.

You clearly have a personal interest in this discussion that makes it difficult to speak logically with you on the matter. I make it a point not to try to have dispassionate, logical discussions with people who were personally involved with things, because emotion is a tricky thing.

Thank you four correcting my misunderstanding regarding the liberty video.


77 posted on 12/12/2010 11:40:15 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
came across as scared of interviews, and who dissappeared for almost 3 weeks after the primary, by which time her large deficit in the polls was cemented.

CAME ACROSS? She has been on national TV for years. She debated Alan Dershowitz and Chris Matthews declared Christine the winner over Alan Dershowitz. Bill O'Reilly said "YOU'RE TOO SMART FOR ME" to Christine O"Donnell.

Go do your homework:
www.MeetChristineODonnell.com

OH... You mean people LIED about a conservative candidate AND YOU FELL FOR IT BECAUSE YOU ARE GULLIBLE. NOW I understand.....

Disappeared for 3 weeks?

You really are clueless about politics.

When the primary is over, the primary campaign is dismantled, and a new general election campaign is created with a much larger staff, usually incorporating experts from the State party and the other campaign.

As the party unites, a much bigger general election team is created to run the general election that includes people who supported both (or all) of the primary candidates ina unified team.

It is normal for the primary team to stop and to reorganize a new, general election campaign team.

In most states, this process might take 1 to 2 months before the new general election campaign starts to go into gear.

Christine has explained that she had to spend an enormous amount of time meeting with the moderate Republicans trying to get them to come together and work together.
78 posted on 12/12/2010 11:41:56 AM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

No, Charles, she was considered a perfectly acceptable candidate in 2008.

MOST campaigns end with debt.

That is not unusual.

Christine was considered a perfectly fine canddiate in 2008.

What changed was the SORE LOSER crowd of Mike Castle decided to go into smear mode with FALSE personal attacks in order to (so they hoped) deprive the Republican primary voters of an opportunity to choose the nominee.

The “Lords of the back room” wanted to make the decision instead of letting the voters decide.


79 posted on 12/12/2010 11:44:55 AM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
Christine had NO baggage, she had people LYING about her.

So she didn't go on Bill Maher's show? She didn't run a commercial that started with "I am not a witch"? She didn't end 2008 with a campaign debt? She didn't take years to settle her college stuff?

She didn't cancel all her national sunday show appearances after she won the nomination? She didn't go through a year with $5800 in total earnings? She didn't publicly state she won two of three delaware counties?

I won't assert any of the disputed pieces of baggage are true; I don't know. I only listed the inctrovertable things, things she didn't deny or where she's recorded. You probably know better than I do what happened with her 2008 campaign manager, who I presume O'Donnell picked for that position but who now isn't so kind to her.

Oh, and before you get all hung up in an argument over "truth" of "falsehood" -- we were talking about baggage. When Castle was accused of being gay, that became BAGGAGE for Castle. Makes no difference if it's true or not, the question is whether it influences the electorate.

In a year when we were running on fiscal responsibility, all the questions surrounding O'Donnell's personal finances, campaign finances, home ownership, and school finances were BAGGAGE. Baggage that it was highly unlikely ANY amount of help by the Delaware repbulican party would have helped.

Nobody would expect a primary opponent to completely ignore these issues; and with Delaware having so late of a primary, the stories from the primary were fresh in the minds of the voters.

So far as I can tell, Coons never brought up any of that baggage, nor did it get publicity after the first week after the primary; Even Maher's threats petered out.

But that baggage, the perception of the voters, was cemented by that time. Nothing the talk show hosts said could help. Nothing the national or local republican committees did could change it. No amount of "defending" against that baggage by the tea party would make a difference.

IN fact, I argued at the time that it was impossible. But if there was ANYTHING that could have turned it around, it was only ONE thing -- the candidate. And she was unable to do so, because she was NOT a good candidate. Not for that election, at that time.

Someday she may be a great candidate somewhere. She could move back to New Jersey -- I actually think there's more opportunity there, although she'd have to re-settle in to reclaim her "home" status.

I love O'Donnell personally; I wish I had been able to make it to her speech here last week. But I don't let that personal attraction to her message and beliefs cloud my mind from the basic truth -- she is responsible for her loss.

BTW, If you want to argue that the establishment is so powerful that they can sink any candidate, or make them win, you are simply arguing that we might as well let them run the elections -- we can't beat them, according to your pitch. I don't think you believe that, and I KNOW I don't believe that -- but that is the logical consequence of your argument that O'Donnell isn't responsible for her own loss.

80 posted on 12/12/2010 12:07:39 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Again, if you are saying she had no chance of winning because of the establishment, the logical conclusion is that we can’t buck the establishment.

I disagree with you, but because of your personal involvement in the 2008 campaign, I’m not going to debate logic with your emotion.


81 posted on 12/12/2010 12:11:29 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I am saying that *NO* candidate has a chance of winning if conservatives take sides with the liberal attacks.

Christine O’Donnell was AHEAD of Chris Coons in the polls in the Summer — until the lies started flying.

*NO* candidate will fare any better if they are lied about and attacked, and we do not know how to respond.

If you listen to the liberal attacks, and JOIN THEM, then you are part of the liberal army fighting against conservatism.

The founder of the Republican party famously reminded us: “No house divided against itself can stand.”

Remember: I WON the primary in 2008. The campaign that I ran was successful.


82 posted on 12/12/2010 3:11:15 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

o Bill Maher’s show was a *COMEDY* show. Nothing she said on a COMEDY show a decade ago would be baggage if Republicans knew how to run campaigns.

o Fred Davis was an *ESTABLISHMENT* TV ad guru who created the “I’m not a witch ad.”

Fred Davis was the best of the best — the Mozart of our time for TV ads. So if you hire the very best in the business, you expect them to deliver.

Fred Davis is Sen. Inhofe’s nephew.

Hiring the best political TV ad man in the business was a MISTAKE — not “baggage.”

Christine told me personally that if she could do one thing over — only one thing — it would be NOT listening to the top people in politics twisting her arm to hire Fred Davis.

One can only hope that Fred Davis will never work again in politics. Can you imagine the job interview: “What have you done before, Mr. Davis?” “I did the ‘I’m not a witch ad.’ Okay, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

But a campaign mistake is not “baggage.” When you have only 6 weeks for the general election from Sept. 15 to Nov. 2, mistakes are inevitable.

o Nearly ALL campaigns end with a debate, Charles. How is that BAGGAGE, Charles? Hillary Clinton ended her campaign with $22 million of debt.

o CHARLES: CAN YOU TELL US THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF CHRISTINE’S DEBT FROM 2008?

If you think it is significant, surely you must know how much it is, right?

o Can you tell us how much of this campaign debt is becuase of people or vendors WHO NEVER SUBMITTED THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION TO GET PAID?

I can. Can you?

o Why is it baggage that Christine changed her media schedule?

Christine appeared at local Delaware churches and at a Sussex County rally — far more important for winning votes than going on TV.

o Why is it baggage that while running for office she could not also earn a lot of money?

Are you saying that only rich people can run for office?

o Christine said that she tied 2 of 3 counties, which by percentage she did.

However, everyone mis-speaks.

Obama says all kinds of idiotic things. SEE:
http://www.ObamaGaffes.org

Why does a slip of the tongue matter for Christine, but not for Obama?


83 posted on 12/12/2010 3:21:33 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I won't assert any of the disputed pieces of baggage are true; I don't know.

That's the whole point, Charles.

If Person A tells the world that you are a child rapist....

o Do you have baggage because someone called you a child rapist? o Or is Person A lying about you? If people LIE about Christine O'Donnell.... o Are those people LIARS o Or does Christine -- the victim -- now have "baggage?"
84 posted on 12/12/2010 3:24:06 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I only listed the inctrovertable things, things she didn't deny or where she's recorded.

See, again, you are clueless. Christine has denied all of these things repeatedly. You claim she did not deny it? You simply are not paying attention.
85 posted on 12/12/2010 3:26:15 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
When Castle was accused of being gay, that became BAGGAGE for Castle. Makes no difference if it's true or not, the question is whether it influences the electorate

No, absolutely false. No one believed that Mike Castle was gay, including because Christine immediately came out and condemned the accusaation, and praised Mike Castle's wife as a fine woman.

Since no one believed it to be true, it had no effect whatsoever.

Your ideas are a guarantee of failure 100% of the time.

ALL candidates can be subject to similar attacks. There is NO candidate who will ever be immune from being lied about. If you want to take power away from liberal elites, they are going to fight back.

ANY candidate can be lied about.

The question is whether you fight back or you fight on the side of the liberals by attacking your own people.
86 posted on 12/12/2010 3:32:09 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Similarly, the porongraphic story about Christine in the Gawker also had no effect on the election because no one believed it was true. It was not baggage. It was garbage.


87 posted on 12/12/2010 3:33:26 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Whew. That is one tough post to make sense out of.
Whatever.

I like Rick Santorum.


88 posted on 12/12/2010 3:37:51 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

I like him, too. He just needs to stay consistent and not attack other Republicans for cheap shots.


89 posted on 12/12/2010 4:31:27 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
Here is an example. Why is it that Obama can get away with this and it doesn't cause him any problems?

http://www.supportchristine.com/ObamaPledge.jpg

Because Democrats close ranks and fight together. They don't allow attacks to go unananswered.

90 posted on 12/12/2010 4:37:39 PM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: vette6387

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.

<><><><><><

You do realize that O’Donnell ran in Delaware, not Maryland, right? I mean, we’re neighbors and all that, but DE can keep her. She would not have won the GOP primary in Maryland.


91 posted on 12/28/2010 1:09:06 PM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dmz

O’Donnell is really a Jersey Girl.

Draw your own conclusions.

;)


92 posted on 12/28/2010 1:11:19 PM PST by Palladin (Stand and fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]


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