September 15, 2010

What the O'Donnell victory means (to me and otherwise)

It really says something when a race so splits the conservative punditry. And no race did that (to my knowledge) more than the Delaware Senate primary between Mike Castle and Christine O'Donnell. The question remains, even after O'Donnell's victory yesterday: Why? Conservatives across the land have been virtually united backing "upstart" candidates (usually supported by Tea Parties) across the country. What makes Delaware an exception to this?

It all comes down to one simple answer: O'Donnell is a lousy candidate with a lousy background.

It means something when popular conservative media outlets like the National Review and the Weekly Standard pan you. You think these magazines are big fans of Mike Castle? Hah!! You can bet your bottom dollar had there been even a marginally more qualified candidate than O'Donnell they'd be in his/her corner in a heartbeat. But there wasn't another candidate. So we were left with someone who cannot tell even the simplest of truths, who's had the sketchiest of "jobs" over the course of her adult life, and, contrary to conservative "values," initiated a meritless gender discrimination lawsuit against a Wilmington-based think tank (the ISI) for millions of dollars. Though Mike Castle's campaign manager was quite tactless when he said O'Donnell's qualifications are only good enough to "run for dog catcher," his sentiment is well-taken. O'Donnell is grossly unqualified to be a senator.

Here's the deal: If a candidate and/or a candidate's advisors/managers/whatever treat potential constituents like complete sh** because of a mere difference of opinion, I don't care if they are running for the GOP. Like perennial state GOP office candidate Mike Protack (who thankfully lost his primary last night, this time for New Castle County Council) in the past on the Delaware blogs, O'Donnell's goons have acted like nothing but cheap thugs towards those who expressed a difference of opinion -- in this case, a willingness to vote for Mike Castle. Therefore, why in the hell should they get my vote?

Therefore, I am either leaving the US Senate spot blank on my November ballot, or I'll do a write-in vote.

Posted by Hube at September 15, 2010 03:00 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

O'Donnell is a lousy candidate with a lousy background.

The problem is that things that people such as yourself tend to use as a qualifications, graduating from Harvard, having lots of money thanks to being a member of the aristocracy and so on seem more and more like disqualifications to those who are against the ruling class. It's as if you're saying that she should share their backgrounds, yet be nothing like them. Although she might be more politic if she had that background she would also most likely be just another liberal Republican as well.

As far as your disagreements with her overweight political nerd/thug, even when I agree with you about such small and petty issues it doesn't change anything. I find it remarkable that this is the sort of thing that some conservatives want to focus on. What was the most important issue for you, all the normal politics about her background and so on, the lawsuit, or the fact that her political people weren't nice to you and so on?

Posted by: mynym at September 15, 2010 04:45 PM

The problem is that things that people such as yourself tend to use as a qualifications

Don't even go there, mynym. If you're starting from this ridiculous false premise, the rest of your comment is moot.

What was the most important issue for you, all the normal politics about her background and so on, the lawsuit...

"Normal politics?" Everything that O'D's opposition brought up was right on the money. And she LIED about it all constantly. Karl Rove recognizes this (and, in return, O'Donnell calls him a "so-called political guru" this morning on GMA; hey Christine -- when you have 1% of Rove's knowledge and acumen, THEN you can talk) as do so many other conservatives across the land.

O'Donnell is a vacuous, hypocritical fraud. Period.

Posted by: Hube at September 15, 2010 04:50 PM

Don't even go there, mynym.

I'm only going where your claims take it. If she was Harvard educated, had no debts or financial problems, had wealth from being a member of the aristocracy and no money problems to hide, etc., then apparently she would be qualified.

Everything that O'D's opposition brought up was right on the money.

It's normal politics. A narrative is created, e.g. Bush didn't serve in the national guard, Kerry got out of Vietnam, Obama wasn't born here, etc.etc. There's always something. It may or may not be right on the money because every candidate is flawed. It's generally irrelevant because these types of stories are merely a gloss that is added to political disagreements and not the real reasons that educated voters are deciding to vote for one candidate or another.

O'Donnell is a vacuous, hypocritical fraud. Period.

I think that your claims may generally have more to do with your disputes with her political operatives than O'Donnell. If she got rid of that Evan fellow would you vote for her?

Posted by: mynym at September 15, 2010 07:51 PM

The problem is that things that people such as yourself tend to use as a qualifications, graduating from Harvard, having lots of money thanks to being a member of the aristocracy and so on seem more and more like disqualifications to those who are against the ruling class.

Where did he indicate that ANY of those things were reasons for voting against a fiscally irresponsible candidate with a history of lying, questionable uses of campaign funds, and dirty-trick attacks on her opponents --not to mention poll numbers that are below the freezing mark.

Frankly, if you think O'Donnell is qualified for the US Senate, then you must also believe that Barack Obama is a statesman of Churchillian stature who merited his Nobel Prize.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at September 15, 2010 08:01 PM

mynym: What Rhymes just said.

Posted by: Hube at September 15, 2010 08:11 PM

Having voted for castle, I am now throwing luke warm support behind O'Donnell in the general election and will pull the lever for her...question: what does qualified for the senate actually mean, and all of thos e who sit there now, are they 'qualified'...if so, why are we in the financial straits we are in? Plus, I believe Obama is a puppet of chicago politics who is sent out to give a speech...he is a campaigner only, not a political thinker or statesman. I do believe O'Donnell will be fiscally conservative, and at this stage of the game, that is enough for me...
When I voted for castle, I was looking for the long range potential to defeat a liberal Coons. Now that he is defeated, I am closing ranks and hoping to still defeat a liberal, taxing Coons...Republicans who voted for castle- could you look yourself in the mirror with your shiny conscience, and say proudly, 'my vote for Coons, or non vote for the seat, or a write in vote for that matter resulted in the liberal democrats retaining control of the senate by one seat, and I am ok with that?!? Independents- if there ever was an anti establishment vote, this is it...Coons has been involved in county government and is part of the establishment...and his radical liberal, marxist statements from his college days are shocking. Or do we fall for it again just as the nation did with Obama? Southern Democrats- vote Republican, then change political parties! You missed the Reagan Revolution, don't miss the grassroots tea party revolution too!

Posted by: cardinals fan at September 15, 2010 09:43 PM

Sorry Hube, but I have to differ with you on this issue.

In your previous posts on this matter, you said that voting for O'Donnell was like voting for Coons. The problem is that your attitude is a self-fulfilling prophecy. What would be your feelings toward O'Donnell fans who swore they would leave their ballot space blank, rather than vote for Castle?

Had Castle won last night, the establishment Republicans would have been demanding that all Republicans stand behind their flawed left-wing candidate. Is it too much to ask for the same solidarity with the shoe on the other foot?

Posted by: W.R. Chandler at September 15, 2010 10:12 PM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36726.html
Coons a 'bearded marxist'. Winston Churchill, a top five world statesman once said...'if you aren't a liberal in your twenties, you have no heart....if you aren't a conservative by your forties, you have no brains'....me thinks Coons got it wrong...he went the opposite way! read the article!

Posted by: cardinals fan at September 15, 2010 10:13 PM

Hube, I respect you and your opinion. I understand where you are. My primary argument (pun intended) is why the hell would I vote for Mike Castle if he's going to shove cap and trade down my throat. I'd support my garbage man if he said he opposed cap and trade.

If you want to see what a weasel Castle has turned into, check out (it's my latest post) the News Urinal's twitter that mentions that VP Biteme and Obummer have called Mike Castle today.

Interesting that he's withholding his endorsement. Wanna bet he gets a cushy appointment?

There's a guy named Rash running as a libertarian btw. I agree that C.O. isn't a great candidate but I would seriously rather have Chris Coons sell us down the road than Mike Castle.

Posted by: BadIdeaGuy at September 15, 2010 11:22 PM

W.R.: I believe, as cardinals fans expressed earlier, that CASTLE should endorse her and the party should too. That's Castle's duty after being supported by the GOP for some 40 years. It is not, however, MY duty to support O'Donnell. I am not refusing to back her merely b/c my choice did not win. I am refusing to back her b/c she is, frankly (again), a lying, conniving con artist whose closest friends and advisers are a bunch thuggish goons. The evidence is provided here on this therad, not to mention many others on other DE blogs.

O'Donnell backers are fond of citing "standing on principle." Well, I'm standing on MY principle that I will not back who is most likely the most pathetic candidate ever to run for such a high office from this state, and perhaps others.

Posted by: Hube at September 16, 2010 07:38 AM

Where did he indicate that ANY of those things were reasons....

Right here: ...had there been even a marginally more qualified candidate than O'Donnell they'd be in his/her corner in a heartbeat. ....who's had the sketchiest of "jobs" over the course of her adult life....

And I don't disagree, I'm just questioning the whole process by which America has come to develop its ruling class. People who have graduated from Yale and Harvard do not seem particularly intelligent and wealthy members of the class like Bush, Kerry, Obama, etc. do not seem fiscally responsible either. They tend toward the same view of the world but that's about it, otherwise they can be quite stupid, ignorant and incompetent.

...a fiscally irresponsible candidate...

Being poor is not the equivalent of being fiscally irresponsible.

...with a history of lying...

I agree, we shouldn't elect politicians who have a history of being disingenuous in any way.

...and dirty-trick attacks on her opponents...

No lying and no dirty tricks... Ironically there's a headline to the side right now which reads: "She's a nutty, mentally unhinged liar who 'cannot be elected dog catcher in Delaware.'" Not to mention that her political nerds are thugs who will probably kill someone and so on.

I'm surprised at how weak and impotent DE conservatives are when it comes to politics, so easily bent out of shape by normal politics.

Had Castle won last night, the establishment Republicans would have been demanding that all Republicans stand behind their flawed left-wing candidate.

They share the same view of the world.

Is it too much to ask for the same solidarity with the shoe on the other foot?

I would suggest that they and Hube do what I was going to do if Castle won, generally just ignore the campaign and vote for him. It's not like you have to avidly campaign for and support a candidate that you don't really support. It's generally enough just to stand aside without repeating and supporting every narrative that the Left manufactures.

I don't know about Hube but yes it's probably too much to ask of the establishment Republicans because they tend to share the mechanistic and progressive worldview of Democrats. E.g., the "economy" (i.e. your free-will decisions) is really just an engine determined by mechanisms that they need to tinker with to get working. Social issues that may matter to you generally don't matter to them because everything is mechanistic/amoral. It's ironic that the ruling class view of the world tends to lead them to have a fetish for intelligence when there is increasingly little evidence that they are actually intelligent, competent, etc.

Posted by: mynym at September 16, 2010 10:33 AM

Being poor is not the equivalent of being fiscally irresponsible.

Except that O'Donnell WAS and IS fiscally irresponsible.

Posted by: Hube at September 16, 2010 12:08 PM

If Castle won I was going to give him tacit support. I.e. I wasn't going to support him but I also wasn't going to repeat the narratives that are typically manufactured or disseminate all the Democratic opposition research that would inevitably come up and so on.

I'm curious, are you going to keep on choosing to focus on or support whatever new negative narratives come up all through the campaign?

You said: Here's the deal: If a candidate and/or a candidate's advisors/managers/whatever treat potential constituents like complete sh** because of a mere difference of opinion....

That's fine. Her associate was mean to you so you're not going to vote for her. It's not unreasonable to want your politicians to be nice and to surround themselves with nice people. I've never really cared about how nice people are.

I doubt that all these other manufactured narratives actually matter as much as the issue of being nice and if it wasn't one, another could be created. There's always something. They're generally merely a gloss that is added after people make up their minds for other reasons.

Posted by: mynym at September 16, 2010 12:36 PM

but I also wasn't going to repeat the narratives that are typically manufactured or disseminate all the Democratic opposition research that would inevitably come up and so on.

Neither was I. But see what happens when you bully others?

Posted by: Hube at September 16, 2010 01:50 PM

Neither was I. But see what happens when you bully others?

I suppose in politics it is usually important to be politic above all else. I half wonder what a moral degenerate good at being nice or pretending to be nice could accomplish in politics given that most people are so easily swayed.

In any case, her associates were wrong to bully you and the people merely videotaping her and she should put a stop to it. Of course, many things that Castle has done are wrong and I'll bet his political operatives may have even been mean to people that they disagreed with, yet we were still going to be expected to vote for him. Anyway, it's too bad that she lost your vote because you do good work for the Right.

Posted by: mynym at September 16, 2010 03:45 PM

mynym:

You know, if you keep on practicing all that "ruling class" rhetoric and keep throwing it at Republicans and you'll be ready for a job working as a community organizer with ACORN in no time. After all, that stuff is classic Alinsky/Socialist rhetoric.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at September 16, 2010 05:59 PM

You know, if you keep on practicing all that "ruling class" rhetoric and keep throwing it at Republicans and you'll be ready for a job working as a community organizer with ACORN in no time.

It's ironic that O'Donnell and her associates should not suggest that people who disagree with them are liberals, yet apparently when I disagree you're just as quick to do the same.

After all, that stuff is classic Alinsky/Socialist rhetoric.

Using logic of that sort you may as well suggest that John Adams was a classic socialist because he also criticized the natural tendencies and corruption of the aristocracy.

E.g. "You very justly indulge a little merriment upon this solemn subject of Aristocracy. I often laugh at it too, for there is nothing in this laughable world more ridiculous than the management of it by almost all the nations of the Earth.
....
When I consider the weakness, the folly, the Pride, the Vanity, the Selfishness, the Artifice, the low craft and meaning cunning, the want of Principle, the Avarice, the unbounded Ambition, the unfeeling Cruelty of a majority of those (in all Nations) who are allowed an aristocratical influence; and on the other hand, the Stupidity with which the more numerous multitude, not only become their Dupes, but even love to be Taken in by their Tricks: I feel a stronger disposition to weep at their destiny, than to laugh at their Folly." --John Adams to Thomas Jefferson
15 Nov. 1813

Political tricks to manipulate the stupid Herd by appealing to its vanity? Who would think that the grand old party would be capable of such things given its supposed nobility, high intelligence and responsibility?

At any rate, there will always be a ruling class and occasionally they will need to be reformed by the natural tendencies of the country class. This is why the Founders structured our system of government the way that they did instead of having pure aristocracy, monarchy or democracy.

I am glad that you are disagreeing with me.

Posted by: mynym at September 16, 2010 07:09 PM

It's interesting to point out that the Founders created the Senate to represent and manage the vanity and corruption typical to the aristocracy. In that context the rather overwrought reaction to someone who is clearly more a member of the country class than the ruling class seeking to join it is not surprising. It's just not the way that things are done, after all.

Posted by: mynym at September 16, 2010 07:13 PM

It's ironic that O'Donnell and her associates should not suggest that people who disagree with them are liberal...

WTF?????

That was the entire basis of the woman's campaign, especially her stretch-run!

And since you are clearly sarcasm-impaired, let's spell it out for you -- the entire "ruling class" analysis you offer is precisely the same one used bby folks on the far left to explain why less "progressive" candidates don't accomplish the "progressive" agenda. I was not ACTUALLY suggesting that you are a liberal, but merely pointing out that the "ruling class" talking point you have wedded yourself (drawn from an article you no doubt did not understand) as the "one-size fits all" explanation why anyone would not support your girl enthusiastically is identical to a major talking point of your left-wing counterparts. Proving once again that the political spectrum is not a line but a circle, and that the extreme meet up on the far side and become indistinguishable from one another.

As for the Adams quotes, don't waste your time -- I've understood more John Adams than you've read in your lifetime, to the point that I even have an Adams quote on the masthead of my blog. You are taking a quote that fit one era and trying to fit it to the contemporary political structure, and it does not really correspond to the current reality.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at September 16, 2010 08:34 PM

But I'm becoming more and more convinced that Christine O'Donnell might be a perfect fit for DC -- but only because she'll be joining the upper ranks of the criminal (not ruling) class, and she's already shown she can lie, cheat, and steal along with the best already there.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at September 16, 2010 08:36 PM

That was the entire basis of the woman's campaign, especially her stretch-run!

I know, yet apparently she was not supposed to define her opponents as liberal according to moderates. That's why it's ironic that supposed moderates here seem to be the first to suggest that a person disagreeing with them is indistinguishable from a socialist.

...the entire "ruling class" analysis you offer is precisely the same one used bby folks on the far left to explain why less "progressive" candidates don't accomplish the "progressive" agenda.

That's because it is true because the corruption of the aristocracy acts as a check on the volatility typical to democracy, just as the Founders intended. Is your argument really merely that I agree with Leftists about something, therefore I am a Leftist?

...the extreme meet up on the far side and become indistinguishable from one another.

In other words I'm just like a socialist or some such, just as you suggested before.

Again, it's ironic that people who are supposedly against accurately calling people liberal and the like almost immediately suggest that a person disagreeing with them is indistinguishable from a socialist. You're the moderates? You're doing the same thing that you accurately accuse the O'Donnell campaign of.

You are taking a quote that fit one era and trying to fit it to the contemporary political structure, and it does not really correspond to the current reality.

Another irony, you're avoiding what Adams said based on the mythologies of Progress typical to progressives. He's still correct because when it comes to human nature there is nothing new under the sun. Perhaps we've invented some new technology which makes people less vain or selfish or any of the other things he mentioned? What he said has everything to do with the ruling class and the Senate/aristocracy throughout history and continuing to our day.

...O'Donnell might be a perfect fit for DC -- but only because she'll be joining the upper ranks of the criminal (not ruling) class, and she's already shown she can lie, cheat, and steal along with the best already there..

O'Donnell the imaginary criminal... well, at least that's new. I was getting tired of O'Donnell the bully, mainly because it seems ridiculous to me. Given all the national attention and the fact that my friends know I keep up with local politics and so on I've been asked a lot of questions lately. Some of this sounds ridiculous when I merely summarize it for them: "Well, some conservatives aren't supporting her mainly because they feel that they were bullied. Yes, apparently they were bullied by this political nerd of her's..."

Shrug...

Posted by: mynym at September 16, 2010 11:15 PM

mynym:

Do I think you ideology is socialist? No. Do I think your tactics are indistinguisible from those of the socialists you claim to oppose? Yes, I do.

Especially in terms of your constant use of the "Big Lie" to attack your opponents as supportive of some sort of "ruling class" litmus test.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at September 17, 2010 06:22 AM

Especially in terms of your constant use of the "Big Lie" to attack your opponents...

Attack? You are too quick to flop down on the ground as Victims. The ruling class is not some Big Lie, it's a fact of life. And given Hube's inclusion of the qualified narrative in with all his other narratives he is using it and therefore supporting it as a test. I.e. if she graduated from an elite school, if she was wealthy and didn't have any money problems and so on then she would be more qualified. On this issue I disagree, there is an increasing amount of evidence that such a background might make a person more likely to be stupid and corrupt.

Most of her other problems are linked to her "bad" background or attempts to hide it but on the issue of the lawsuit I agree, it shows problems with her character.

Posted by: mynym at September 17, 2010 09:40 AM

You've decided what Hube means by "qualified" and continued to accuse him of that, even when he and I have both stated that he never give the word the definition he ascribes to it.

But I'll say it -- Chriastine O'Donnell is not qualified to be a US Senator beyond the minimum standards set by the US Constitution. She is over age 30, a US Citizen, and lives in the state she is going to represent. other than that, she really has nothing. Business experience? Not really. Leadership positions in conservative organizations? Some, but not terribly significant? Educational credentials? Mixed -- has a degree, but didn't get it until a few weeks ago after stiffing the university for years and making false claims about those credentials in the past. Personal life? A mess on every level. Significant personal accomplishments before this year? Talking head and sacrificial lamb. Indeed, if pushed to make a description of her profession, I'd argue it was "professional political candidate".

See, nothing about wealth or breeding, and only the only educational issue was her academic and financial dishonesty with regard to her degree.

If this were a liberal Democrat running for office, you would ridicule them for nominating her. So would I. I just apply the standard to my party too.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at September 17, 2010 06:54 PM

It's actually embarrassing to me to read the comments by mynym.

She lied to Delaware for 4 years about being a college graduate, then she lied and said it was about money. You can see mynym using the same line of distortion, "aw, poor Christine couldn't pay her bills like many Americans." When the reality is that O'Donnell was a typical slacker college student who dropped out of an undergrad program. It wasn't loans, I graduated college with loans, she did not finish the coursework to graduate until less than a month ago.

She dropped out of college and pretended to be a college graduate. She even tried to collect 7 million dollars from a conservative think tank because she claims she had to drop out of the Master's program at Princeton because of the workload at ISI. She's a con artist and a grifter.

It sickens me that the GOP has taken this disgusting direction. I, like Hube, will leave that vote blank. I can't vote for a liberal, and I can't vote for a liar. And those are unfortunately my choices.

Posted by: anon at September 25, 2010 11:41 AM