[Pilsner]

She lost by 17. In the best Republican year since 1946, running against a Democrat second stringer, because the Democrat first stringers were afraid of losing to Castle, O'Donnell lost by 17. If you think Karl Rove has 17 points in his hip pocket, in DE, you never caught on that the Karl Rove hurricane control machine pics posted on Free Republic were a joke.

O'Donnell supporters argued before the primary that it was better to lose with her, than to win with Castle. OK. I think we will probably never elect a more conservative DE Senator than Castle, lifetime ACU (American Conservative Union) rating of just over 50%, but I can see some merit in an argument that, assuming we hold the House, it is better to not take the Senate, unless we have 51 conservative Senators.

But many O'Donnell supporters want it both ways. They want to say that it is better to lose with her, than to win with Castle, then, when she loses, in a landslide, just as people like Rove said she would, blame Rove for her loss.

Either losing with O'Donnell beats winning with Castle, or it doesn't. If it does, then O'Donnell supports can say that she may not have won, but that Collins, Graham, Hatch and Snowe will look at happened to Castle and vote more conservatively, and we won't have the problem of conservatism being held responsible for what happens in the Senate, without having a conservative majority.

If losing with O'Donnell doesn't beat winning with Castle, then O'Donnell supporters, not Karl Rove, are to blame.

[Notary Sojac]

But many O'Donnell supporters want it both ways. They want to say that it is better to lose with her, than to win with Castle, then, when she loses, in a landslide, just as people like Rove said she would, blame Rove for her loss.

Bears bumping and repeating.

By the way, I donated $250 to O'Donnell via Jim DeMint. But I was never under the illusion that she was anything other than an extreme long shot.