NRSC rejection of O'Donnell?

[makattak]

HTG, I'm generally behind you on avoiding pointless Republican bashing.

The NRSC has earned its distrust, though. Maybe there weren't discussions that the were not going to support O'Donnell.

I think there were. My bet is they planned to do it quietly but the disgruntled RINOs wanted to trumpet their victory in the establishment.

People are angry with both parties for spending, pork, and manipulation. When a story comes up that reinforces their anger with the Republican party, people will grant it credence.

The question, then, is not why are people believing these reports, but what did the Republican Party do to make people believe these things so readily? (As I believed and still believe them.)

Oh, right, the past 10 years of RINOism. People are angry and not just about Obama. He was the last straw.

Should the Republican party leaders not recognize a need to clean up their act as well, voters will come for them, too.

I just wish Lindsey #@$)%(^#*(&%@ Graham were up for election this year.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The NRSC has earned its distrust, though.

How?  To my knowledge, they've done nothing like what they're accused of.  Ever.

Maybe there weren't discussions that the were not going to support O'Donnell.

I think there were. My bet is they planned to do it quietly but the disgruntled RINOs wanted to trumpet their victory in the establishment.

No doubt there were discussions of all sorts amongst all sorts of people within NRSC.  Unless those discussion are backed by action, the don't amount to anything.

My bet is that nobody at the NRSC expected O'Donnell to beat Castle.  Any anti-O'Donnell discussions would have been hypothetical until they came back in to work yesterday morning after she won.  And from then on, the NRSC has been 100% behind O'Donnell.

Maybe there are some rogue personnel at the NRSC trying to undermine both the NRSC and O'Donnell.  I don't know.  But to date the news reports and our own discussions have all centered on the NRSC's actions, not the actions of specific underlings within the NRSC.

The question, then, is not why are people believing these reports, but what did the Republican Party do to make people believe these things so readily? (As I believed and still believe them.)

Oh, right, the past 10 years of RINOism. People are angry and not just about Obama. He was the last straw.

I look back on the actual voting records and find that the Reps have done a fair, if not perfect, job over the past 10 years.  

I think it's an issue of unrealistic expectations.  Many on the right expect the Republicans to usher in some sort of laissez-faire utopia, and they expect it to happen RFN.  When it doesn't happen, regardless of why, they get pissed at the R's.  

Should the Republican party leaders not recognize a need to clean up their act as well, voters will come for them, too.

No doubt.  I just hope the results of the cleanup are not worse than what we had before.  Lately, our side has shown a serious lack of foresight and a disregard for unintended consequences.

We wanted to send a message to the R's back in 2008.  As a result we got Obama and a congressional supermajority for the libs.  Oops.  Will we learn from that blunder or will we keep repeating it?

[roo_ster]

HTG:

Why might folks believe the reports that the NRSC would tell O'Donnell to piss off?
1. Castle was the NRSC-endorsed candidate in the primary.
2. Non-Delaware GOP mucky-mucks ("Establishment Republicans") opposed O'Donnell and endorsed Castle.
3. Non-Delaware GOP mucky-mucks ("Establishment Republicans") trashed O'Donnell during the primary campaign with personal attacks as well as citing the conventional wisdom.
4. The Delaware state GOP apparatus opposed O'Donnell and trashed her, up to and including the head of the Delaware GOP organization.
5. Castle is not willing to endorse her candidacy, now that she has won the primary, and a named Castle campaign official was still trashing her while hte votes were being counted and going her way.
6. Carl Rove's (and other Republicans') ravings and trashing of O'Donnell after she won.  I heard Rush commenting that he had never heard Rove talk in those terms about any Democrat.  None of this "Come together and unite behind the O'Donnell candidacy since the people of Delaware have spoken."
7. Two mutually-reinforcing reports, from two different journalists, from two different organizations, citing contacts in the NRSC stating they will not support her Senate run.

Given 1-6, it is not too hard to believe #7 when it popped up.

#1 - #6 are foolish reasons, because we know how that's not how these things work.

Whatever, dude. 

Obviously, you are not willing to consider the pattern of behavior exhibited by the GOP poo-bahs in this case and that past behavior by them could possibly color the perception of GOP non-poo-bahs.

Past behavior matters and it is about the most important factor when judging both people and new information.  GOP poo-bahs acted like asshats during the primary campaign, during the counting, and went ballistic in their asshattery after it was confirmed O'Donnell won. 

One more bit of information about poo-bahs in accord with what has come down the pike for months is going to be credible. 

For the love of Pete, HTG, you sound like Medved in your water-carrying for the "not-so-Republican" wing of the GOP.

How?  To my knowledge, they've done nothing like what they're accused of.  Ever.

Wrong.

The NRSC has in the past not supported candidates financially. 

What is relatively novel is trying to force primary candidates on GOP primary voters.

Maybe there are some rogue personnel at the NRSC trying to undermine both the NRSC and O'Donnell.

Oh, please. 

There needs be no Grand Conspiracy by moles at the NRSC.  Occam's Razor, common sense, and past performance will be surer guides than conspiracy theories.

I look back on the actual voting records and find that the Reps have done a fair, if not perfect, job over the past 10 years. 

I think it's an issue of unrealistic expectations.  Many on the right expect the Republicans to usher in some sort of laissez-faire utopia, and they expect it to happen RFN.  When it doesn't happen, regardless of why, they get pissed at the R's. 

"Fair" in bizzarro world. 

"laissez-faire utopia?"  How about just not expanding the welfare state (Medicare medication plan), Federal mandates (NCLB), and a smidgen of respect for the Constitution (campaign finance reform)?  How about just not doing more evil stuff that buggers Lady Liberty?  Would that have been too hard?

Bush the Lesser helped to expand the state, reduce liberty, and usurp power.  My lily white backside may be described as "fair," but GWB's and the GOP leadership in the House & Senate record was awful and was a discredit to the GOP and a bitch-slap to conservatism.

[tyme]

that is R Catholic doctrine, so it ought not be a big surprise that an "O'Donnell" hews to it.

The first point is that the Pope is not trying to get elected by popular vote.

The second point is that regardless of official R Catholic doctrine about lust or adultery or females in the military or any other point on which Ms. O'Donnell has made (IMO) a fool of herself on national TV, it's an open question how many American Roman Catholics actually believe in those doctrines.  I was particularly impressed (okay, not really) by O'Donnell in the 1998 Politically Incorrect talk show (video is on youtube) where, after she insists that lying is always disrespectful, Eddie Izzard asks her, if Nazis came to her door in WW2 Germany and asked if she was sheltering any Jews, would she lie?  Her answer would have made Kant proud.

I have trouble understanding on what basis she would support ever going to war, if she cannot under any circumstances stomach a simple lie.  War kills people, no?  If she believes that killing people is not proscribed by categorical imperative, yet lying is, then I have serious concerns about her moral framework.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Ok, roo.  Clearly we're not going to be able to talk sense on this one.

I started the thread seeking actual evidence that the NRSC had a position on O'Donnell's win prior to their endorsement yesterday morning.  (Still looking - show 'em if you got 'em.)

Myself, I haven't found anything substantive.  I've found evidence of some underlings spouting off, underlings who don't speak for the NRSC and who turned out to be dead wrong.  And I've found lots of confirmation bias.  But no evidence.

Without evidence, I must conclude that it didn't happen as you and others have described.  The NRSC made no announcements that they wouldn't support her, had no real intentions not to support her. 

You can believe what you will, based on whatever you think sensible.  I will do the same.

[Perd Hapley]

So there's something wrong with a moral stance against masturbation, now?  Seriously?  We're not voting for people because they're Catholic, and express a belief in mundane details of Catholic doctrine?  I mean, if it was skinning the heretics and burning them, that would be one thing.  But being opposed to masturbation is some kind of unreasonable point of view? 

I have trouble understanding on what basis she would support ever going to war, if she cannot under any circumstances stomach a simple lie.  War kills people, no?  If she believes that killing people is not proscribed by categorical imperative, yet lying is, then I have serious concerns about her moral framework.

Lying under duress has long been a controversy for Christian thinkers, and the Bible is much less fuzzy on the subject of killing in (national) self-defense. It's not that hard to understand.

[sanglant]

perhaps, just perhaps. the gop drones thought the same thing i did the first time i heard the story, that Rosie O'Donnell was running as a tea party candidate.

[tyme]

Okay, so now we have a former WITCH running as a Christian candidate for office?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100919/ap_on_el_se/us_delaware_senate_o_donnell

Witches are well known for their lies and deceit... how can we know she's really not a witch anymore?  I know!  We can do a trial by ordeal!  On live TV!  O'Donnell: SINK OR SWIM!  In the Potomac!

Lying under duress has long been a controversy for Christian thinkers, and the Bible is much less fuzzy on the subject of killing in (national) self-defense. It's not that hard to understand.

That makes perfect sense?  Senators might have to go to war to protect U.S. interests, but it's inconceivable that they would ever have to lie or omit information to protect national interests?  What about security clearance, if someone asks a no-lies Christian point-blank about classified information?

[makattak]

Okay, so now we have a former WITCH running as a Christian candidate for office?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100919/ap_on_el_se/us_delaware_senate_o_donnell

Witches are well known for their lies and deceit... how can we know she's really not a witch anymore?  I know!  We can do a trial by ordeal!  On live TV!  O'Donnell: SINK OR SWIM!  In the Potomac!

That makes perfect sense?  Senators might have to go to war to protect U.S. interests, but it's inconceivable that they would ever have to lie or omit information to protect national interests?  What about security clearance, if someone asks a no-lies Christian point-blank about classified information?

Wow. Seriously?

I've redacted most of the rest of my post because I'm overwhelmed by the foolishness above.

Oh, and: "I can't/won't tell you that." "That's a matter of national security, I won't comment on that." WOW it's tough keeping a secret.

[Monkeyleg]

I'd read over the weekend that her opponents, of which there are many, were looking high and low for absolutely anything they can get on her.

I saw the video in which she discussed witchcraft, and she just seemed like another screwed-up high school kid. I sure wouldn't want the world to know many of the things I said when I was in high school.

It's fascinating that they're going after her with almost the same intensity they did Sarah Palin in September of '08. She must be striking a similar nerve.

[tyme]

Wow. Seriously?

In the youtube video of her on the Politically Correct talkshow in 1998, she was fairly clear that the idea of not lying to people was a matter of respect, and it's not very respectful to say "no comment" when asked a direct question.  I am not sure she would agree that "no comment" is an acceptable response.

She as much as admitted that if SS came to her door in WW2 Germany, and she was harboring Jews, she would tell them as much, and depend on God to provide some sort of solution.

[makattak]

In the youtube video of her on the Politically Correct talkshow in 1998, she was fairly clear that the idea of not lying to people was a matter of respect, and it's not very respectful to say "no comment" when asked a direct question.  I am not sure she would agree that "no comment" is an acceptable response.

She as much as admitted that if SS came to her door in WW2 Germany, and she was harboring Jews, she would tell them as much, and depend on God to provide some sort of solution.

Alright. Let's say that's still her position today.

Is that enough to support an admitted Marxist over her?

I mean, seriously, you object that she believes in honesty too much?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

better hope this is wrong
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/20/watchdog-group-asks-feds-investigate-odonnell/

bad when campaign manager turns on you

[Perd Hapley]

it's not very respectful to say "no comment" when asked a direct question.  I am not sure she would agree that "no comment" is an acceptable response.

   "No comment" would be preferable to B.S. lines like the above.

She as much as admitted that if SS came to her door in WW2 Germany, and she was harboring Jews, she would tell them as much, and depend on God to provide some sort of solution.

Again, this is a perfectly ordinary point of view, held by many people; much like her comment on masturbation. Besides, there's nothing in the Bible that says you can't just shoot the Nazis.

[Perd Hapley]

better hope this is wrong
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/20/watchdog-group-asks-feds-investigate-odonnell/

Thieves belong in jail, not the United States Senate.

She must be a Tea-Party-er.

[roo_ster]

better hope this is wrong
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/20/watchdog-group-asks-feds-investigate-odonnell/

bad when campaign manager turns on you

I agree on the latter, but Congress a while back made it legal to pay yourself a salary & such out of campaign contributions.

The idea was that elections are long and drawn out and you can't keep a real job while campaigning and they did not want only the affluent to be able to run for office.

Now, if she didn't report the income to the IRS and pay income tax, she's in deep kimchee.  No way to determine if this accusation is credible or just lawfare.  Awfully convenient timing.  If it really was a law-and-order sort of deal, I would have expected it to be reported before she won the primary.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the group that outed her isn't normally partisan

[Sergeant Bob]

Now, if she didn't report the income to the IRS and pay income tax, she's in deep kimchee.  No way to determine if this accusation is credible or just lawfare.  Awfully convenient timing.  If it really was a law-and-order sort of deal, I would have expected it to be reported before she won the primary.

She'll probably just get a pass, just like Timmy Geithner and Bawny Fwank. 
                                                                                                           

[Perd Hapley]

So it looks like she has a problem with slight miscalculations. Instead of the Senate, she should have aimed for the House, where tax evasion won't keep you from being elected (ask Rangel). And instead of Wicca, she should have dabbled in Islam. Only nice, thoughtful people convert to Islam.

[MicroBalrog]

I like how leftists - supposedly so tolerant - will assault a man's reputation for having once worshipped a non-conventional religion.

The Welfare Statists are not liberal, really. They are, like Bismarck, a form of conservative in the traditional sense. They will tolerate two or three things that they are 'expected' to tolerate. Anything outside that circle is thrown to the sharks.

[sanglant]

much like junkies, they tolerate what they do. a smack junkie can't stand a crack head etc.




and yeah, that MIGHT have been a joke.




oh and vote for crack not for smack. Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr. where have you gone? you could have saved the country with nothing more than 7 hoes and a sack of crack, in the oval office.

[Scout26]

the group that outed her isn't normally partisan

BULL HOCKEY

A quick check of their website shows this list:

CREW's Crooked Candidates 2010

    * Roy Blunt (R) U.S. Senate, MO
    * Charlie Crist (I) U.S. Senate, FL
    * Jeff Denham (R) U.S. House, CA
    * Alvin Greene (D) U.S. Senate, SC
    * Jeff Greene (D) U.S. Senate, FL - DEFEATED
    * Timothy Griffin (R) U.S. House, AR
    * J.D. Hayworth (R) U.S. Senate, AZ - DEFEATED
    * Ed Martin (R) U.S. House, MO
    * Kendrick Meek (D) U.S. Senate, FL
    * Christine O'Donnell (R) U.S. Senate, DE
    * Dino Rossi (R) U.S. Senate, WA
    * Marco Rubio (R) U.S. Senate, FL
    * James Traficant (I) U.S. House, OH
    * Allen West (R) U.S. House, FL

Only three D's on the list and one is Alvin Greene, the esteemed Senate Candidate from SC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene

No mention of Maxine Waters, Charley Rangel or Jesse Jackson, Jr.  ??  Hmmmmmm

Then they list:

America's Worst Governors

    * Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS)
    * Gov. Donald Carcieri (R-RI)
    * Gov. Jim Gibbons (R-NV)
    * Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA)
    * Gov. David Paterson (D-NY)
    * Gov. Sonny Perdue (R-GA)
    * Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX)
    * Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM)
    * Gov. Mike Rounds (R-SD)
    * Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC)
    * Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA)

2 out of 11 are D's.
One of Bobby Jindal's alleged "crimes"

Refused to accept federal stimulus funds to expand unemployment insurance and to fund other important programs

Non-partsian; yeah, and monkeys fly out of my butt.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

they hunt both sides of the aisle
 you musta missed this
http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/node/2055

and this
http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/node/432


and this
http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/node/20

or this
http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/node/2059

and this
http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2010/09/07/boxer-tied-to-dubious-waters-cash-for-endorsement-scheme/


and they put up
http://www.citizensforethics.org/files/O%27Donnell%20Exhibits.pdf

http://www.citizensforethics.org/christine-odonnell-crooked-candidates




and while there are more these will finish for now
http://www.citizensforethics.org/taxonomy/term/1597


http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/node/3344

[roo_ster]

the group that outed her isn't normally partisan

they hunt both sides of the aisle
 you musta missed this

You musta missed this:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Heres-the-rest-of-the-story-about-CREW-103495774.html

The CREW BoD is, uh, crewed by lefty donors and lefty activists.

And by "lefty donor" I mean BIG lefty donors
* BoD member Craig Kaplan donoated more than $96,000 to Dem candidates from 01JAN2007 to 01AUG2010...
* BoD member Al Dwoskin is director of Democracy Alliance, a group of rich Dems who want to create a bunch of lefty think tanks.  Oh, he also has donated more than $217,000 to Dem candidates since 2007.

How left-wing are other BoD members?
* BoD member Erwin Chemerinsky, lefty law prof (anti-RKBA, pro-abortion, pro gay-marriage, pro reverse discrimination/affirmative action)
* BoD member Glenn Greenwald, lefty columnist (2)


Executive Director Melanie Sloan, yes, was a former fed prosecutor.  Before that she was a Democrat congressional staffer who worked for Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, Sen. Joe Biden, D-DE, and Rep. John Conyers, D-MI


If they had come out before O'Donnell had won the primary, they'd have a whole lot more credibility.  Given the timing of their accusations, the composition of their BoD, and the executive director's past employment for three of the most lefty senators, I am less likely to grnat they are non-partisan.




(2)

"In March, 2009, he was selected, along with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman, as the recipient of the first annual Izzy Award by the Park Center for Independent Media, an award named after famed independent journalist I.F. "Izzy" Stone..."

FTR, IF Stone was a lefty journalist and Soviet agent during the Cold War.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

is it your position that the bod is not allowed their own political beliefs?  or that those beliefs somehow discredit the work the organization does?  heck they went after both bidens

Each year, we publish a list of the most corrupt politicians in Washington, and every year we are equal opportunity antagonists.  Of the 15 members of Congress included on last year's list, there are eight Democrats and seven Republicans.  CREW does not care whether a politician is red or blue -- or for that matter -- black or white; we target politicians of all stripes who fail to meet the high ethical standards Americans have the right to expect from our elected leaders.

http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/