Just how stupid...

[AZRedhawk44]

... is the Stupid Party?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/christine-odonnell-upsets-mike.html

"I'm sad to say the Delaware primary results tonight are straight out of Harry Reid's dream journal," said prominent Republican strategist Mike Murphy of the O'Donnell win.

Why is a MORE POPULAR candidate, with honest grass-roots support, a dark horse for the general election?

The GOP needs to put money and faith behind this candidate... not sabotage her in the news and backbite and nitpick from the sidelines.  Whatever happened to the old GOP motto of "speak no ill of a Republican?"

I guess it only applies to the New England blue blood country club, and RINO, "Republican" set.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

O'Donnell isn't more popular than Castle.  In fact, quite the opposite.  Castle polls ahead 20% in the general election ballot, O'Donnell polls behind by 20%.  Naturally, those who wanted to win that seat are disheartened by the new prospects.

I imagine there will be considerable discussion and debate on whether to allocate scarce resources towards such a long shot candidate in the general election campaign.  I further imagine that certain folks will confuse this with sabotage, but it's really just common sense.

[longeyes]

We're learning a lot about The Grand Old Party, thanks to the upstart Tea Party, aren't we?

[AZRedhawk44]

I imagine there will be considerable discussion and debate on whether to allocate scarce resources towards such a long shot candidate in the general election campaign.  I further imagine that certain folks will confuse this with sabotage, but it's really just common sense.

"Scarce resources" such as not speaking ill of her win in the nooz?  I didn't know that was so costly to the GOP.

[Monkeyleg]

We're learning a lot about The Grand Old Party, thanks to the upstart Tea Party, aren't we?

Not on this race. Neither party will allocate money to races that polling shows can't be won. If O'Donnell shows some stronger numbers in the coming weeks, I would expect the RNC to give her money. Of course, it's always possible that they wouldn't just out of spite.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

"Scarce resources" such as not speaking ill of her win in the nooz?  I didn't know that was so costly to the GOP.

Are you referring to the Mike Murphy quote?

He isn't speaking ill of O'Donnell personally.  He's speaking ill of the prospects of a Republican win in Delaware in November, and of the wider goal to retake the Senate.  He's absolutely right, too.  The O'Donnell win is probably going to benefit Harry Reid more than it benefits anyone on the right.  Maybe Murphy should have bit his tongue, but the truth remains.

The point of the exercise isn't merely to indulge ourselves by throwing tantrums in the primaries.  The goal is to change the course of government, to implement our policies.  Retaking the Senate furthers this goal.  Electing a centrist Republican to the Senate over a liberal Democrat furthers this goal.  Electing a liberal Democrat over a conservative Republican hinders this goal.

[makattak]

Are you referring to the Mike Murphy quote?

He isn't speaking ill of O'Donnell personally.  He's speaking ill of the prospects of a Republican win in Delaware in November, and of the wider goal to retake the Senate.  He's absolutely right, too.  The O'Donnell win is probably going to benefit Harry Reid more than it benefits anyone on the right.  Maybe Murphy should have bit his tongue, but the truth remains.

The point of the exercise isn't merely to indulge ourselves by throwing tantrums in the primaries.  The goal is to change the course of government, to implement our policies.  Retaking the Senate furthers this goal.  Electing a centrist Republican to the Senate over a liberal Democrat furthers this goal.  Electing a liberal Democrat over a conservative Republican hinders this goal.

I have to disagree with you on this. Whether the Republicans retake the Senate this election is not important. So long as they retake the house, nothing pernicious the Senate passes will pass the house. Not only that, but the filibuster will be stronger after this election.

We cannot get a veto-proof majority in the Senate this election. Currently it is more important to send a message to the Republican party that while SOME moderation may be acceptable, someone who only votes for us 50% of the time is not an acceptable choice.

The message out of Delaware was to the Republican party. If, by a miracle, Ms. O'Donnell wins the general, that's just gravy.

The Republican party needs to learn not to dictate to its voters. The Republican party needs to learn top-down decisions will no longer be tolerated.

I hope they learned it this year because 2012 will be bloody if they didn't.

[roo_ster]

Did someone mention throwing tantrums in the primaries?

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.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-national-republican-senatorial-committee-wont-fund-christine-odonnell/
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/14/rove-attack-nrsc-refusal-will

The NRSC won't even link to her campaign web site or give her a Bio blurb:
http://www.nrsc.org/senate_races

As for O'Donnell's chances, Angle was in a similar situation after her nomination vis a vis Harry Reid.  I'd expect a bump in her numbers merely from name recognition after last night.  If she had party backing (NRSC) & funding and the GOP Establishment manages not to throw hissy fits and disparage her, I'd expect her to be within the margin of error before the general election.

[grampster]

Castle could be considered a liberal democrat.  RINO.  If the Stupid Party wasn't so stupid, they'd get behind every primary R winner full bore.  That's what the whole idea is about, to change the Stupid Party from being Stupid.

A great American philosopher once said..."Stupid is as Stupid does."

If the freaking R party would just begin to grasp that the purpose of the congress is to work in the best interests of America rather than as a job creator for rich arrogant people, maybe we'd go back to being a country of, for and by.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I have to disagree with you on this. Whether the Republicans retake the Senate this election is not important. So long as they retake the house, nothing pernicious the Senate passes will pass the house. Not only that, but the filibuster will be stronger after this election.

We cannot get a veto-proof majority in the Senate this election. Currently it is more important to send a message to the Republican party that while SOME moderation may be acceptable, someone who only votes for us 50% of the time is not an acceptable choice.

The message out of Delaware was to the Republican party. If, by a miracle, Ms. O'Donnell wins the general, that's just gravy.

The Republican party needs to learn not to dictate to its voters. The Republican party needs to learn top-down decisions will no longer be tolerated.

I hope they learned it this year because 2012 will be bloody if they didn't.

I think it's a mistake to discount control of the Senate.  If we're to accomplish anything other than dragging our heels, we must be able to get bills to the floor of both houses, get them up for a vote.  

We might not win the votes, but then again, we might.  We we not not be able to override a veto, but then again, we might be able to prevent the veto from being used.  It'll take a lot of political pressure, and much continued hard work from the ground up.  But we have possibilities, we have a chance.

I think it's also a mistake to discount the groundswell political pressure we're able to apply these days.  Even with Dem supermajorities, we managed to use political pressure to kill most of the health care takeover.  We killed cap and trade.  Killed card check.  We're about to kill the Bush tax cut expiry/Obama tax increase.  This kind of political pressure can also get bills passed, not just killed, but only if we can get those bills up for debate and vote.

"Sending a message" is not worth giving up all possibility of favorable policy change.

[makattak]

I think it's a mistake to discount control of the Senate.  If we're to accomplish anything other than dragging our heels, we must be able to get bills to the floor of both houses, get them up for a vote. 

We might not win the votes, but then again, we might.  We we not not be able to override a veto, but then again, we might be able to prevent the veto from being used.  It'll take a lot of political pressure, and much continued hard work from the ground up.  But we have possibilities, we have a chance.

I think it's also a mistake to discount the groundswell political pressure we're able to apply these days.  Even with Dem supermajorities, we managed to use political pressure to kill most of the health care takeover.  We killed cap and trade.  Killed card check.  We're about to kill the Bush tax cut expiry/Obama tax increase.  This kind of political pressure can also get bills passed, not just killed, but only if we can get those bills up for debate and vote.

"Sending a message" is not worth giving up all possibility of favorable policy change.

ONE Senate seat to send a message is important. I'm not talking about every seat like this, but the National Republican Party needed to be sent this message because of just how many times they've tried to pull this top-down crap this year and last.

They need to learn to stay out of primaries. If we lower our chances of picking up one Senate seat that's acceptable.

If we fall short by one vote in the Senate (already a long shot), so be it.

I don't think it as important as you do at this juncture.

(Incidentally, imagine if they had prevailed in Florida and we'd have Crist <shudder> as the nominee rather than Rubio.)

[roo_ster]

It looks like the adults have arrived at the NRSC:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/09/christine-odonnell-on-roves-un-factual-remarks-and-republican-cannibalism.html

The head of the NRSC, John Cornyn, has said the NRSC will support O'Donnell.

I do suspect the NRSC has received quite a response to its initial decision to give O'Donnell a kick in the *expletive deleted*ss.

[makattak]

Oh, looks like the Stupid Party™ wised up fast:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0910/Cornyn_embraces_ODonnell.html

Guess they realized that alienating your base is a Bad Idea. Especially in an internet age where they can donate to their preferred candidate and bypass you. (Which, judging from O'Donnell's fundraising numbers, donors are doing exactly that.)

Edit: Dang it Roo, beat me by a minute.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

I don't doubt that the national committees will withhold funding for her if they think she can't win.  If you think she can win, you can always spend some of your money to help her.

I've no idea what's up with Rove.  Everybody has a bad day now and then, and it's certainly understandable that a strategy and numbers kinda guy like Rove would be dismayed by the probable loss of a Senate seat.

Or, you know, it could be some sort of grand conspiracy by "The Establishment" to poke you in the eye.

The NRSC won't even link to her campaign web site or give her a Bio blurb:
http://www.nrsc.org/senate_races

Impatient much?  The election returns haven't even been finalized yet.
 

Give 'em time to absorb the results and decide how to proceed.  They'll be on board, you'll see.

As for O'Donnell's chances, Angle was in a similar situation after her nomination vis a vis Harry Reid.  I'd expect a bump in her numbers merely from name recognition after last night.  If she had party backing (NRSC) & funding and the GOP Establishment manages not to throw hissy fits and disparage her, I'd expect her to be within the margin of error before the general election.

Angle is playing in mostly conservative Nevada.  Delaware is a different matter altogether.

You need to be prepared to accept the possibility that a far right conservative won't go over well in the heart of liberaldom, and that the reason for her failing there would have nothing at all to do with lackluster Republican funding.

If she improves significantly in the polls over the next week or two, shows that she has reasonable chance at willing, then she'll get support from the national committees.  If she doesn't, then nobody is going to waste any effort or money on her campaign.  

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

And it turns out that those reports of the NRSC turning away from O'Donnell were complete BS, the NRSC has made no decisions not to support her.  

So far this afternoon (in the past half hour) I've heard quotes from Cornyn, Boehner, and Steele all expressing support for O'Donnell.  

Sure had people worked up, though, didn't it?  It's amazing what a little bit of false news can do to tweak the passions.

I'll have to wait until after work to look up the Rove clip, but I did catch some soundbites from it on Limbaugh's show just now.  Limbaugh sounds more unhinged than Rove.  I'll withhold judgment until I see the actual clip, though.

All in all, this O'Donnell reaction stuff seems to be a lot more heat than light.

[HankB]

The Republican party needs to learn not to dictate to its voters. The Republican party needs to learn top-down decisions will no longer be tolerated.

They're slow learners.

Last year in NY's 23rd Congressional District, party leaders picked a RINO named Scozzafava to run as the GOP nominee in a special election. A conservative Republican, Doug Hoffman, was passed over, and decided to run as a 3rd party candidate. He was outpolling GOP selectee Scozzafava by a large margin, so she pulled out of the race just days before the election.

She then endorsed the Democrat, helping him defeat the conservative by just over 2%.  

Think about it - GOP "leaders" could have selected the conservative Hoffman who almost certainly would have won the special election, but instead they selected a RINO, who later went on to endorse the Democrat. Calling this "Poor judgement" would be a masterpiece of understatement - this was bad even for The Stupid Party.

Maybe the GOP leadership needs to be smacked upside the head with a 2x4, just to get their attention . . .

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Add McConnell, Gingrich, Romney, DeMint and Giuliani to the list of Republicans who've gone on record in support of O'donnell.

Just more of the ongoing effort by "the Republican establishment" to sabotage O'Donnell, I'm sure.

 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

there exists an impression amongst the public at large that our newest addition to the ploitical landscape is a tuch reactionary and tends to go off before checking facts.  that is not listed as an asset on their political ledger.  well it might be amongst themselves but then that means that they lose sight of their goal which is to convert new folks as opposed to giving happy dance moments to the already converted.

[makattak]

Add McConnell, Gingrich, Romney, DeMint and Giuliani to the list of Republicans who've gone on record in support of O'donnell.

Just more of the ongoing effort by "the Republican establishment" to sabotage O'Donnell, I'm sure.

 

DeMint was already on board.

Gingrich went out on a limb and said she would win. (Not could, would.) I respect that.

McConnell is doing damage control.

Romney is late to the party, as usual.

Guliani I hadn't heard. Welcome aboard, Rudy.

Maybe the message is finally getting through. We'll see.

[Jamisjockey]

Winning with RINO candidates is apparantly more important to the stupid party than putting up principled conservative candidates and risking the loss. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i think you are treating it as a moral ethical decision whereas politics is a business and the decisions get made accordingly

[AZRedhawk44]

i think you are treating it as a moral ethical decision whereas politics is a business and the decisions get made accordingly

The win has no meaning if it translates into a policy loss on the Hill, if the Dems get a "yes" vote with an (R) next to their name.

At that point, it IS a business of maintaining the appearance of being a winning political party... for the purposes of campaign donations to the top-heavy bull-$#!+ of the GOP institution that leech off of that money.  The campaign business depends on campaign wins, but care not one whit about the policy wins/losses that result from that campaign.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Winning with RINO candidates is apparantly more important to the stupid party than putting up principled conservative candidates and risking the loss.  

It's a risk/reward/benefit decision, not a moral issue.  How likely is the gamble to pay off, how much do you stand to gain if you win, and how much do you stand to lose if you fail?

It all comes down to whether you think O'Donnell can win in November.  If you think she can, then she's the obvious best choice for nominee.  If you think she can't, and Castle can, then he's the obvious choice nominee.

Politics is an incremental game.  You take what you can get when you can get it, and then try for more next time.  A centrist RINO is better than a liberal Dem, and a conservative Republican is better than either.  Take what you can get.

[MicroBalrog]

i think you are treating it as a moral ethical decision whereas politics is a business and the decisions get made accordingly

There's no point to a politics divorced from morality.

[AJ Dual]

There's no point to a politics divorced from morality.

Can't be repeated enough.

And I think the GOP is learning it today as well.