Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 15, 2010, 01:54:35 PM
-
I keep hearing about the NRSC making an announcement last night that they wouldn't support O'Donnell in the general election. (This morning the NRSC made crystal clear that they do support O'Donnell.)
I'm looking for evidence one way or the other that the NRSC actually did decide not to support her. Is there any?
My own search has turned up a few passing remarks on TV news reports last night, and a few news and opinion articles referencing those TV reports, but no evidence of an actual announcement or decision issues last night. This morning lots of people are talking about the announcement/decision, even including O'Donnell this morning on one of the TV shows, but I've not seen anything to solidify the notion that it actually happened as reported.
I'm curious because such a decision seems both unlikely (the NRSC wouldn't have decided not to support O'Donnell) and impossible (the NRSC people wouldn't have been working after hours last night to formulate any decisions or issue any announcements). The first opportunity the NRSC had for formally addressing the O'Donnell victory would have occured at open of business this morning, and from that moment onwards the NRSC has clearly, vocally, and fully behind O'Donnell.
I wonder if this wasn't just one more example of the media trying to paint the Tea Party as being at odds with the formal organizations within the Republican Party. If so, and if I can turn up the evidence, it would make a great black-and-white example of the process at work.
-
Although I'm all for a great media conspiracy, that theory doesn't make sense.
The media narrative has been that the Tea Party IS the Republican Party.
To paint it as fighting against the Republican establishment gives the impression that it is an independent force. That would be a Bad Thing for Democrats. Thus, unlikely the main-stream media would push that narrative.
My bet is a bunch of sore losers within the NRSC started leaking that to teach the Tea Partiers a lesson. And then got handed their heads, leading to the very strong statement by Cornyn this morning.
-
Further, the fact that so many people believed those reports and began denouncing the NRSC ought to tell you something about people's opinion of the establishment Republicans.
The American people were fooled by Obama. We were fooled prior to that by RINOs and RINO-lovers. We won't be fooled again.
-
Further, the fact that so many people believed those reports and began denouncing the NRSC ought to tell you something about people's opinion of the establishment Republicans.
The American people were fooled by Obama. We were fooled prior to that by RINOs and RINO-lovers. We won't be fooled again.
which folks believed? if its just the tea party folks you have no net gain
-
which folks believed? if its just the tea party folks you have no net gain
Honestly? It's just Tea Party folk because they're the only ones paying attention right now.
"Normal" people don't pay attention till some time next month.
-
and thats what needs to change, i wish i knew how if i figured a way i'd be famous no change equals preaching to the choir
-
Although I'm all for a great media conspiracy, that theory doesn't make sense.
The media narrative has been that the Tea Party IS the Republican Party.
I don't mean to suggest that it's a conspiracy of any sort. Probably just a natural result of the preconceived notions, prejudices, and biases of the media.
The narrative lately is that the Tea Party people are "insurgents" at "war" against the Republican Party (complete with a barely stifled cheerful smirk) and that neither side can succeed due to the conflict. There has been an ongoing media drumbeat to pound this conflict home in their reports, both to cement the existence of conflict and to amp up the conflict for better affect.
It wouldn't take much for an over-eager journalist, steeped in this conflict narrative and anxious to further it, to elevate a minor, unofficial comment from a sour-grapes underling at the NRSC into a full-blown news report that the NRSC opposed O'Donnell. In normal times and with honest journalists, such a comment would never make it into the national discussion.
Further, the fact that so many people believed those reports and began denouncing the NRSC ought to tell you something about people's opinion of the establishment Republicans.
Another example of people acting on their own prejudices and preconceived notions.
I want to get past the biases and knee-jerks and get on to the real facts, if there are any.
-
and thats what needs to change, i wish i knew how if i figured a way i'd be famous no change equals preaching to the choir
I know how to get "normal" people to pay attention. Unfortunately it would involved a near collapse of this country. People would pay attention then.
Barring that, rational ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance) will still rule. Until the costs of not being informed outweigh the price of being informed, people will remain ignorant.
-
i think you overlook a way to bring people around. though not sure how normal i am. continue to present both your ideas and yourself in a reasonable way. folks notice that and lil by lil your ideas gain credibility. that credibility is inextricably tied togother so the more balanced you seem the better recieved your ideals you are doing pretty good keep it up
-
I keep hearing about the NRSC making an announcement last night that they wouldn't support O'Donnell in the general election. (This morning the NRSC made crystal clear that they do support O'Donnell.)
I'm looking for evidence one way or the other that the NRSC actually did decide not to support her. Is there any?
My own search has turned up a few passing remarks on TV news reports last night, and a few news and opinion articles referencing those TV reports, but no evidence of an actual announcement or decision issues last night. This morning lots of people are talking about the announcement/decision, even including O'Donnell this morning on one of the TV shows, but I've not seen anything to solidify the notion that it actually happened as reported.
I'm curious because such a decision seems both unlikely (the NRSC wouldn't have decided not to support O'Donnell) and impossible (the NRSC people wouldn't have been working after hours last night to formulate any decisions or issue any announcements). The first opportunity the NRSC had for formally addressing the O'Donnell victory would have occured at open of business this morning, and from that moment onwards the NRSC has clearly, vocally, and fully behind O'Donnell.
I wonder if this wasn't just one more example of the media trying to paint the Tea Party as being at odds with the formal organizations within the Republican Party. If so, and if I can turn up the evidence, it would make a great black-and-white example of the process at work.
http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/looks-like-there-is-dissension-in-the-republican-party-tonight/
FNC's Carl Cameron spoke with some NRSC folk and reported what he heard.
-
http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/looks-like-there-is-dissension-in-the-republican-party-tonight/
FNC's Carl Cameron spoke with some NRSC folk and reported what he heard.
Which NRSC folks? What are their positions at NRSC (are they in a position to make such decisions)? What, exactly, did they say?
Why were they so dead wrong?
-
Which NRSC folks? What are their positions at NRSC (are they in a position to make such decisions)? What, exactly, did they say?
Why were they so dead wrong?
Email Carl Cameron.
-
Email Carl Cameron.
You don't know any of the details?
I kinda figured you knew more, given how much you've been pimping the story around.
=(
-
You don't know any of the details?
I kinda figured you knew more, given how much you've been pimping the story around.
=(
I have been linking in all the posts. RTFAs.
Here's another that ought not be too wordy for you:
http://twitter.com/PrestonCNN/status/24529570442
-
I have been linking in all the posts. RTFAs.
Here's another that ought not be too wordy for you:
http://twitter.com/PrestonCNN/status/24529570442
I have been reading the articles. That's why I wonder if there was any substance behind the story. None of the articles or clips I've seen, including the few you've linked, have been able to cite any evidence that the NRSC had a position on O'Donnell prior to their endorsement this morning. Hearsay and rumor, yes, but no evidence.
This story has been on your mind all day, too, if we're to go by your posts here on APS. Haven't you noticed the lack of substance and wondered about it? Haven't you given it any thought?
It's a fascinating story, a fascinating process. Everyone is talking about this story, but nobody can point to anything solid to back it up. Lots of folks are investing emotion and passion into it, but nobody notices (or cares?) that it's based on unofficial hearsay that turned out to be wrong. People want it to be true, want to use it to confirm their biases, even though it couldn't possibly have played out the way it was reported. Even after it's been refuted, people still hold on to it.
-
HTG:
It is not so fascinating.
It was a leak by NRSC folks to 2+ media critters expressing sour grapes and their heartfelt desire to take their toys and go home.
That's the sort of folks working at NRSC. It took Cornyn coming in the the AM to see what the kids had done to the place to administer some (message) discipline and then everybody jumped on the band wagon, even "Pancake" Romney. Good for Cornyn.
The GOP is got the Tea Party tiger by the tail and is more than a little unsettled not to be calling the shots.
I am not a big fan of Podhoretz the Lesser, but I think he hit the nail on the head:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/357216
-
As of yesterday, O'Donnell had ~$25K in her war chest and the Democrat had $300K.
Today, O'Donnell has had over $100K $500K+ (as of 1645CDT) in campaign donations.
Also, the distance between her & the Dem has been reduced by ~10 points in 24 hours and she is trailing him by 10-16 points, depending on the poll.
-
It was a leak by NRSC folks to 2+ media critters expressing sour grapes and their heartfelt desire to take their toys and go home.
Ok, let's go in that direction...
If you believed this all along, that it was leaked info by a few unhappy employees and not representative of the NRSC, why did you repeat so often that it was the NRSC opposing O'Donnell?
The Republican voters in Delaware handed her the nomination. The NRSC has announced it would not lift a finger to help her in the general election.
The NRSC has announced it would not lift a finger to help her in the general election and Rove was raving after the loss of Castle, his butt-buddy.
If the NRSC made an announcement against O'Donnell as you said, then I'd love to see it. I don't think there ever was one. I don't think there could have been one. And now, based on your current statements, it seems you never thought so either. Yet you said it anyway.
I'm not trying to single you out for your false statements, so please don't take it that way. I'm trying to illustrate the power this story has to make people deny sense and reason. I've seen it here in meatspace today, too. I've not seen a news story with this sort of power in a long, long time. At least, not on the right, where reason is supposed to trump emotion.
Everyone knows and understand that after a close primary there's going to be some unhappy folks out there. Some of them might even work at the NRSC or other official party orgs. You know it, I know it, Carl Cameron knows it, everyone. And yet nobody stopped to think that maybe those unofficial accounts from the underlings at NRSC might just be someone blowing off steam, not representative of anything at all except their own personal feelings. Everyone assumed, (or hoped?) against all reason and sense, that those underlings spoke for the entire organization and that the NRSC would take the unprecedented and unbelievable action of withholding support from O'Donnell. And people still don't want to give up that assumption/hope.
And since when has the winning camp in a close primary every been so pissed after their victory? Weird stuff all around.
Yeah, this fascinates me. Definitely. It's a microcosm for everything that's going on right now in politics, at least on the right. It's that same discrepancy between hype and substance that I've been seeing over and over again lately, from people I never expected to see it from.
You may not care. That's cool. It's still instructive to me to be able to talk it over with you. Thanks. Seriously. =)
-
To bring this back around to the beginning, is it safe to say that there's no actual evidence that the NRSC had a position on O'Donnell until their announcement this morning?
-
KLBJ radio in Austin is reporting that Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) has said that the GOP will give their full support to O'Donnell in the general election....
-
Never mind.
-
To bring this back around to the beginning, is it safe to say that there's no actual evidence that the NRSC had a position on O'Donnell until their announcement this morning?
Probably. My understanding from reading the articles is that some 'anonymous' official made off the cuff comments out of frustration. Probably not speaking for the organization.
-
The NRSC has to support O'Donnell or they'll look like they've lost control of their constituents (heaven forbid!). However, I'll be surprised if O'Donnell doesn't implode before the general election, even with their help.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/15/5118608-links-for-the-915-trms
(the cspan video containing the issue of women at the Citadel is very long; the segment with O'Donnell starts at 16:45)
-
If you believed this all along, that it was leaked info by a few unhappy employees and not representative of the NRSC, why did you repeat so often that it was the NRSC opposing O'Donnell?
You are making assumptions and putting words in my mouth to fit your preconceived notions, rather than run with the plain meaning of my words and using common sense to figure out why folks would believe such a notion as the NRSC giving O'Donnell a kick in the *expletive deleted*ss.
A little more common sense and a little less lawyerly parsing of text will get to my meaning.
The employees who leaked are likely perfectly happy to work at the NRSC and not alienated from it, as your statement implies (especially since this is an up year for the GOP). They are unhappy with O'Donnell's victory and have personal animus toward her, as they backed the other guy. Matter of fact, Castle was the official NRSC preferred candidate in the primary just as Crist was the preferred candidate of the NRSC in Florida.
They may not have been "representatives of the NRSC" in that their name was on a NRSC-approved press release, but they were representatives of the NRSC in that both reporters said they worked there. IIRC, one mentioned "staffer" and the other mentioned "aide."
Not only that, one has to assume one or both (given two, mutually-reinforcing reports) of the following occurred:
1. Aide/staffer calls journocritter to tell him the NRSC is not going to support O'Donnell
2. Journocritter calls aide/staffer and asks for comment or the inside scoop and is told the NRSC is not going to support O'Donnell
I doubt the reporters ran to the NRSC and shook down the Democrat-registered (or illegal alien) janitor for a comment to get the skinny.
Also, the NRSC opposed O'Donnell in the primary. Castle was their boy, just as Crist was before Crist went independent.
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.
Matter of fact, I'd bet that the staffers/aides were telling it straight. The NRSC wasn't going to endorse O'Donnell and only the outrage you decry is what caused Cornyn and cooler heads to try to salvage the NRSC's chestnuts from the fire of their incompetence and arrogance.
It is not about media hype. The media didn't need to hype bupkis and just had to report the noise coming out of GOP mouths.
The NRSC has to support O'Donnell or they'll look like they've lost control of their constituents (heaven forbid!). However, I'll be surprised if O'Donnell doesn't implode before the general election, even with their help.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/15/5118608-links-for-the-915-trms
(the cspan video containing the issue of women at the Citadel is very long; the segment with O'Donnell starts at 16:45)
NRSC is definitely in damage control mode. This is not the first time they have stepped on their richard this election cycle. IIRC, they still have given more money to Crist than Rubio in Florida, and Crist isn't even a Republican anymore.
It is not nicknamed "The Stupid Party" for nothing.
O'Donnell has been active in conservative and R Catholic issue advocacy for more than two decades. Puh-lenty of tape on her out there, both brilliant and not-so-much. I am not surprised the left is digging for some of the latter. Maddow was also pushing the ancient MTV tape where O'Donnell was part of a campus R Catholic group opposed to extra-marital sex of all kinds, to include self-service. IIRC, that is R Catholic doctrine, so it ought not ab a big surprise that an "O'Donnell" hews to it.
I suspect it will be less effective than they hope, as 2010 smells very much like 1994 in that the election both has a higher ideological content and is more nationalized than the usual election year...and that the pollsters are consistently reporting GOP results 5-6% less than they will turn out in the end, when folks actually go to the polls that count.
-
The employees who leaked are likely perfectly happy to work at the NRSC and not alienated from it, as your statement implies (especially since this is an up year for the GOP). They are unhappy with O'Donnell's victory and have personal animus toward her, as they backed the other guy. Matter of fact, Castle was the official NRSC preferred candidate in the primary just as Crist was the preferred candidate of the NRSC in Florida.
We know that some of the employees at NRSC are unhappy with the O'Donnell win. This should be no surprise, it happens in every hot primary. These employees probably aren't alienated from the NRSC, either. I never said they were, and it doesn't matter a hill of beans either way.
Yep, the NRSC backed Crist in FL. And when Rubio beat Crist, the NRSC moved over to backing Rubio. Just like they're doing with O'Donnell in DE. This is the way these things work.
They may not have been "representatives of the NRSC" in that their name was on a NRSC-approved press release, but they were representatives of the NRSC in that both reporters said they worked there. IIRC, one mentioned "staffer" and the other mentioned "aide."
They presented their personal opinions, which everyone should have known had nothing at all to do with the real position of the NRSC. Yet folks like you keep insisting that it was the NRSC snubbing O'Donnell, and not those few employees.
Not only that, one has to assume one or both (given two, mutually-reinforcing reports) of the following occurred:
1. Aide/staffer calls journocritter to tell him the NRSC is not going to support O'Donnell
2. Journocritter calls aide/staffer and asks for comment or the inside scoop and is told the NRSC is not going to support O'Donnell
I doubt the reporters ran to the NRSC and shook down the Democrat-registered (or illegal alien) janitor for a comment to get the skinny.
I, too, doubt they asked the janitor for an opinion. Nonetheless, it's obvious that they didn't go high enough up the food chain to reach someone able to speak for the organization. They got someone who could only speak for his/her own sour grapes.
This is the crux of the issue, ascribing a position to the entire organization without bothering to get anything solid or official from the organization.
It'd be like callig up fistful to ask what he though about an issue, then saying his position is the official position for APS. It'd be shoddy journalism and fuzzy thinking.
Journalists are professionals who should now better. They know that every organization has legitimate channels they use when issuing statements or announcements. They know underlings speaking personally off the cuff are not speaking for the organization and should not be reported as speaking for the organization.
You and I know this, too. One of us "forgot".
Also, the NRSC opposed O'Donnell in the primary. Castle was their boy, just as Crist was before Crist went independent.
And again, once the NRSC's boy lost in FL, the NRSC went over to the winner. Just like they doing with O'Donnell in DE. This is how these things work.
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. The NRSC and others at the national level don't turn their backs on primary winners just because their preferred guy lost. They didn't do it with Rubio. They didn't do it with O'Donnell. This just isn't the way these things work.
Even in the minor league of local politics, where anything is possible, it's extremely rare for the official party orgs to oppose the fair winner of a primary. I can think of a handful instances where an individual candidate lost a primary and then refused to back the winner. And I can think of one or two instances where a local podunk party organization snubbed a primary winner. But I can't think of a time when this was done by a national arm of the party like the NRSC. It just doesn't happen.
Basically, it defies common sense and real-world experience.
And #7 was addressed earlier.
Careful reading of the news reports should have been enough to register a blip on anyone's "that-don't-make-sense" meter.
Matter of fact, I'd bet that the staffers/aides were telling it straight. The NRSC wasn't going to endorse O'Donnell and only the outrage you decry is what caused Cornyn and cooler heads to try to salvage the NRSC's chestnuts from the fire of their incompetence and arrogance.
This is wishful thinking on your part, supported by your biases but by fact or reason.
It is not about media hype. The media didn't need to hype bupkis and just had to report the noise coming out of GOP mouths.
I was referring to internet hype, though there is plenty of media hype out there, too. The hooples eat it up either way.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ???
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
the group that outed her isn't normally partisan
-
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. ;)
;/
-
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.
-
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.
-
much like junkies, they tolerate what they do. a smack junkie can't stand a crack head etc. :angel:
and yeah, that MIGHT have been a joke. =)
oh and vote for crack not for smack. >:D 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. =D
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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/
-
CREW has posted their complaint against O'Donnell and their evidence for it.
What part of CREW's evidence is false or misleading?
-
chirp chirp
thats whats makes em so mad
-
I asked this before, of either side in this argument:
What are O'Donnell's views on specific issues? What specific policies does she want to pursue?
-
I don't see what the big deal is. She did stupid stuff while in high screwl 20+ years ago. It's not like there's no one else who didn't do dumb things when a teenager.
I mean it's not like she plagiarized her law school writings or lied about her college experiences. [cough] Joe Biden [\cough]
-
i bet she didn't take any foreign aid for collage either. :laugh:
-
I don't see what the big deal is. She did stupid stuff while in high screwl 20+ years ago. It's not like there's no one else who didn't do dumb things when a teenager.
I mean it's not like she plagiarized her law school writings or lied about her college experiences. [cough] Joe Biden [\cough]
I don't have a problem with the witchcraft thing.
I do have a problem with the stealing campaign contributions thing.
And if the allegations pan out, I also have a problem with the lying about having a college degree thing. Haven't done enough research on that to know if there's substance behind this allegation, though.
Looking forward to the next Rasmussen poll on her race. It will be interesting to see if she's gained or lost ground since the election.
-
I don't have a problem with the witchcraft thing.
I do have a problem with the stealing campaign contributions thing.
And if the allegations pan out, I also have a problem with the lying about having a college degree thing. Haven't done enough research on that to know if there's substance behind this allegation, though.
Looking forward to the next Rasmussen poll on her race. It will be interesting to see if she's gained or lost ground since the election.
It is legal to pay yourself from your campaign funds. The problem comes from not reporting such income, or bypassing the middle man to pay bills.
-
Federal election law specifically names housing and utilities as items that cannot be paid from campaign donations, so she clearly broke the law by paying for her housing and utilities from campaign donations. And the fact that she falsified the expense reports over those payments tells me she probably knew she was doing something wrong.
If she'd decided to set aside her regular career to run for office, paying herself a reasonable salary to make up for the time off work, then I'd be a lot more sympathetic. As it is, it looks like she's a financial train wreck, robbing from the campaign coffers to make ends meet. Running for senate year after year appears to be her only real source of income and the only way she can support her lifestyle. I'm not sympathetic to that.
Couple that with the allegations of fraud elsewhere in her life, and the personal accounts from several people deeply involved in her campaigns, and it adds up to something pretty nasty. Again, I haven't had time to thoroughly review some of these other issues, and I withhold judgment until then, but if they pan out...
-
it would have behooved her to not tick off former campaign manager.
-
I ask again: what is so awesomely conservative about Christine O'Donnell? What are her policy positions on specific issues?
What exactly is it that people are so excited about her?
-
I ask again: what is so awesomely conservative about Christine O'Donnell? What are her policy positions on specific issues?
What exactly is it that people are so excited about her?
She is being heralded as a RINOvirus©. ;)
-
when you thought you were getting rosie, anything is good? =)
-
I ask again: what is so awesomely conservative about Christine O'Donnell? What are her policy positions on specific issues?
What exactly is it that people are so excited about her?
She supports most or all of the Tea Party's "Contract from America" platform. Basically, smaller government, more constitutional government, and trying to get spending under control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Tea_Party_agenda_.22Contract_from_America.22
The conservative Christian right also loves the fact that she's a Christian, anti-abortion, and anti-unChristian-sex. How sincere she is in those beliefs I have no way to know. It is slightly suspicious that after claiming such conservative values, she shared a 3-bedroom townhouse with a campaign staffer, David Hust. This after she railed against coed dorms earlier in her career.
-
The conservative Christian right also loves the fact that she's a Christian, anti-abortion, and anti-unChristian-sex. How sincere she is in those beliefs I have no way to know. It is slightly suspicious that after claiming such conservative values, she shared a 3-bedroom townhouse with a campaign staffer, David Hust. This after she railed against coed dorms earlier in her career.
Wow, you sound like a scandalized, Bible-thumping blue-hair. Besides, you forgot to mention that plenty of non-religious people also agree with her views on sex and abortion. =)
-
In a toast to secular leftist profundity I would offer the following:
Let he/she who is without fault, cast the first latte'. :O
-
Wow, you sound like a scandalized, Bible-thumping blue-hair. Besides, you forgot to mention that plenty of non-religious people also agree with her views on sex and abortion. =)
I'm quite sure plenty of non-religious people have a variety of outdated views. :D
My outdated view is this: I am completely aware of the fact an actual freedom-loving candidate cannot be run at this juncture. As such, Tyme's description is entirely satisfactory to me. I can see why people are excited about O'Donnell.
I predict, however, disappointment.
-
I predict, however, disappointment.
Me too, but only because she's a politician.
-
I predict, however, disappointment.
We're conservatives. Disappointment with politicians is a big part of our lives. :lol:
-
I think this whole thread just reflects the deep distrust of the Republican Party, that has been building and building among conservatives for some time.