A couple of Christine O’Donnell fans didn’t like yesterday’s post on the radio interview.
My mistake, fellas. You’re right. It was a terrific interview. A candidate who doesn’t like the questions she’s being asked should always tell the host that there are rumors he’s taking bribes from the other campaign. When she says she won two out of three counties, no one should acknowledge that she lost both, one by 14 percentage points. Conservatism is best served when we all close our eyes and pretend we don’t see a false statement by a candidate we prefer!
Now, I’m not going to tout Mike Castle as anything other than what he is. He has a lifetime ACU rating of 52.49. That’s pretty darn “meh” for conservatives. But the moderation of the other guy isn’t sufficient reason to give a thumbs-up to a candidate who makes blatantly, easily verified false statements on the trail, nor to countenance her attacks on those who have the audacity to bring her the bad news.
I’m listening to the audio of Mark Levin, who in O’Donnell’s defense, declared, “If she’s a moral, ethical person who follows the law, I don’t care about the rest of this stuff.” Looking at that Weekly Standard interview . . .
Asked about a financial disclosure showing that O’Donnell only had $5,800 of earned income last year, O’Donnell told me that she actually made more but didn’t have to and wouldn’t disclose how much. “The only thing they can use against me is that I’m not a multi-millionaire,” said O’Donnell.
It says on the Senate financial disclosure report that O’Donnell filed and signed, ”Any individual who knowingly and willingly falsifies, or who knowingly and willfully fails to file this report may be subject to civil and criminal sanctions. See 5 U.S.C. app 4, 104, and 18 U.S.C. 1001.” The only listed exceptions are for amounts less than $200 and spousal income, although the employer of the spouse must be listed. (O’Donnell is not married.)
It’s fascinating that Levin and others lament the “backstabbing” among conservatives. I wonder how they would characterize the O’Donnell campaign’s response to Rasmussen polls showing her losing to the Democrat quite badly:
There haven’t been any recent public polls on the Castle v. O’Donnell primary, though an August 5 Rasmussen poll showed Castle leading Chris Coons, the Democrat, 49 percent to 37 percent, while O’Donnell was trailing Coons 36 percent to 46 percent.
O’Donnell’s campaign manager Matt Moran thinks that this poll isn’t accurate, calling it “more of a push poll.”
“Scott Rasmussen has to pay his bills,” says Moran. “We understand that the RNC and NRSC have long tentacles.”
I see. You’re suggesting RNC and NRSC pressure prompted Scott Rasmussen to change his results. If O’Donnell is losing, it must mean the numbers have been fudged.
Doesn’t Rasmussen, who has a bang-up record, get enough grief from liberals who don’t like his results? Doesn’t he deserve better for polling every interesting statewide race and for using a likely-voter screen that will inevitably lead to liberals screaming his results couldn’t possibly be true and, obviously, a pollster who offers results they don’t like must have no integrity? Who’s the backstabber here?
UPDATE: I would note that O’Donnell fans raging at me probably can’t find the words to express their views about Red State’s Erick Erickson departing the O’Donnell bandwagon.
I would note that I disagree strongly with vast swaths of Erick’s post, including . . .
I’d rather see the Democrat get elected than see Mike Castle get elected. Seriously, I know many of you disagree with me, but if the majority depends on Mike Castle, to hell with the majority.
And most particularly . . .
“I would rather die a thousand times over via crushing by an anaconda while being torn limb from limb by a jaguar than see Mike Castle in the Senate.”
Seriously, Erick, the Senate has Al Franken for the next four years. Mike Castle won’t be so bad. Put the anaconda away.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Mark Levin responds. He has some kind words in there, and so I’m grateful; I’d note that if Mike Castle strikes you as too close to a Dede Scozzafava–level intolerability, that’s fine. Every candidate has to earn your vote; no candidate is owed it.
I also love:
Geraghty all but finds O’Donnell guilty of perjury given her radio interview and financial disclosure report. I guess that means Joe Biden is headed to prison for campaign violations since campaign reports are also filed under penalty of perjury.
Well . . . yeah, in a perfect world!
I'm with you on this one, Mr. G. I have been giving (very modest) contributions to Club For Growth candidates for years, partly to get rid of RINOS. But this O'Donnell person sounds like the sort of loose cannon that could really hurt the conservative cause.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry. This is one of those times to decide if you are truly a conservative or just an opportunistic Republican. Holding your nose, hoping for the best and pulling the lever for candidates like Castle are what got us in this mess. It took nearly a century of rationalizing to get the country in this horrible state, it will take more than one election to get us out of it. If that means voting with your principles, or at least not voting against them costs you one election or one session of Congress - it is still a step in the right direction - forcing a fake like Castle to the sidelines and setting the stage for a Roth-like revival.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can almost perfectly equate this with the last presidential election. If McCain would have won, the morass would continue - and he would have been doing many of the same things as Obama has accomplished. Sure, Obama has initiated some damaging efforts - but by this, he has also brought about an informed, energetic populace that would have still been dormant if McCain was president.
I'm sticking with leader vote logic. None of us like RINOs, but Castle will vote for GOP leadership. I'll take that over Reid or Schumer any day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseErick Erickson and RedState have lost a lot of credibility with Castle vs O'Donnell.
Check out Erick's 8/02/10 article on Castle -
External Link
"f Mike Castle becomes the next United States Senator from Delaware he is going to get sworn in, serve a bit, then become a Democrat, resign, and let Beau Biden get an appointment.
It’s a done deal. The deal has been made already. I’m hearing this not just from Christine O’Donnell people, but party regulars in Delaware, some of whom support Castle."
Erick never offered any proof, or retracted this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If that means voting with your principles, or at least not voting against them costs you one election or one session of Congress - it is still a step in the right direction.."-Philoec
This is NOT adult thinking. Exactly what principle are you upholding when you vote for a dishonest conservative who can't win?
You claim that Obama has "initiated some damaging efforts". This is euphemistic silliness. Obama has driven this country into the ground economically and instituted the take over of 1/6th of the US economy.
How will we turn any of this back by nominating a candidate that can not win? You have to WIN to change this.
I also point out that thanks to your kind of thinking, we now have two ultra liberal Supreme Court Justices that will be leaving their mark on this country for a long time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLevin devestated National Review and you Jim. He did it kindly, but he did it all the same.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseO'Donnell has proved herself to be a loose cannon, and exactly fitting of the stereotype that the left likes to draw about conservative "wingnuts." Sadly, she has the right ideas but lacks the temperament for the Senate. Castle, for all his faults, is a disciplined fiscal conservative. He never wavered on the health bill, the stimulus or finreg (finreg isn't good news for Delaware's loose usury climate). Despite the vitriol, he's not a Snowe or a Collins. He's the only Republican in blue Delaware who can win, and he deserves our support.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOops, Castle did vote for the final finreg bill after opposing the earlier version. Otherwise, I still stand by what I said. He's the only Republican who can win in Delaware.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI remember when folks were invited to vote for Charlie Crist. They told us he was the safe establishmentarian bet.
I remember when Charlie Crist told Florida rebublicans to vote for McCain. He told us McCain was the safe establishmentarian bet.
I remember National Review told Arizona to vote for McCain. He was the safe establishmentarian bet.
I remember Jim telling us to vote for Castle....well, you know the rest.
And who is calling who the loose canon?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOK, I listened to the interview and it was not a good one on the part of either the host or the candidate. I'll grant you that all candidates should be vetted, but the questions being asked seemed a little OCD here. And true, she did remind one of one's ex-wife at the start, but if you listen all the way through, she regained some composure and made some solid points. I didn't hear the part about the host being on the take. The campaign debt seems to me very small potatos. You and the host are correct about her falsely claiming to have won 2 counties. But she acknowledges the mis-statement. Whether or not she tied, almost tied, or whatever seems like simply a distraction. Using this interview to entirely discredit the candidate is a real stretch. As for her reported income, that to me is a concern, but more from a substantive POV as opposed to ethically. Keep in mind that most of these life long politicos like Castle would have a pretty tough time making an honest living in the real economy as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCastle is a likely win for the primary and general, so O'Donnell's presence pulls Castle to the right a bit by reminding him that blowing off conservatives is now career ending(see Specter & many others). McCain got that same message this year.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOur guidepost of 'vote for the most electable conservative' should always be a one way ratchet, with the primary and/or the general election moving the center of gravity always to the right regardless of how red or blue is the state.
Keep it up, Jim. Conservatives who see no difference between Castle and the Dems or worse, would rather leave control of the Senate to the Dems than to elect Castle are, frankly, out of their minds. I should add that the commenter above who complains about being advised that "McCain was the safe establishmentarian bet" illustrates perfectly how crazy they are. So which other Republican in 2008 could have held back the Dem tide and prevented Barack Obama from winning the White House and gaving the Dems huge margins in Congress, the better to wreak the havoc they have wrought?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseConservatives of good will can obviously disagree on individual races and the value of a Republican Senator who votes almost as often with Harry Reid as with the party. But let us at least agree on the importance of running qualified candidates for high office.
Christine O'Donnell's resume wouldn't get her hired as my sales assistant, and she's running for one of the 105 highest offices in the U.S. government. I live in Illinois, where we are mocking the Democrats for running an absolute imbecile for Senator, Alexi Giannoulias. He's as serious as a frat boy organizing a toga party; he's a clown.
Delaware should have done a better job of finding a qualified conservative to run against this 50-50 liberal twit Castle. O'Donnell clearly isn't up to the task.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHi jerburke, my name is Tom. I am not really a commentator, I am a conservative. But thanks. At least you are consistant with being a poor judge of character.
You see, we in Florida have been burned for too long. Like it or not, Jeb Bush dissappointed conservatives in Florida.
So when Bush, Ann Coulter, the establishment, Mike Reagan, and everyone else told us to vote for the established rebublican, ("its my turn candidate,") McCollum, we rejected him for the Conservative in the race Rick Scott.
After McCollum's phony attacks on Scott, Jim Geraghty looks like an ankle biter. Like the cocktail party liberal elites, the so-called conservative elites do not know what is coming in November. If it takes us this year, next election, or 20 years we are going to defeat RINOs like Castle and their supporters at the ballot box.
Thanks for nothing Jim.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo not give me the resume clap trap.
Is Sarah Palin correct on every issue you can think of or Obama? Palin was more correct on every issue than John McCain.
So do not give me this resume clap trap. A senator does not make balony sandwiches. A senator votes.
The question for all Americans should be; is this candidate gonna vote the way I like. That is all that senators do.
Jim thinks that Castle can make better balony sandwiches than Christine.
If that is the case, I will take my sandwich with yellow journalism mustard. (Oh, did I call the coward Jim "yellow?")
You bethca!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAZSEN and DESEN this year seem like they've been highly instructive object lessons on the challenge of discerning the difference between electoral pragmatism and accommodationism.
If nothing else, it would behoove us conservatives to study well the example of popular backlash against drastic partisan shifts of policy exemplified by the 2008-2010 period. On the one hand, we don't want to waste this precious opportunity of sympathetic public opinion. On the other, we don't want to foster just as dramatic a swing back in the leftward direction.
Patient, persuasive, persistent pragmatism, I say.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOops! I did not mean to say:
"If that is the case, I will take my sandwich with yellow journalism mustard. (Oh, did I call the coward Jim "yellow?")
You bethca!"
I meant to say:
"You betcha!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem in the Republican party is the tendency to back the next candidate who is "due" the nomination, while doing little to encourage and foster the development of candidates with better principles. Where's the criticism of the Delaware Republican party?
The problem with Mr. Geraghty's coverage is his tendency to put lipstick on a pig. See his coverage of the Michigan gubernatorial campaign, where again a dysfunctional state party detonated the prospects for two decent conservatives, ending up with a potential Schwartznegger as the nominee.
My concern centers around the fact of incumbent electoral strength; it's tough to get rid of the Arlen Specter's once elected. And the Geraghty acceptance of any 'R' is an 'R', emphasizing winning at all costs, makes no allowance for the emergence of candidates like the now Governor Christie.
Yes, I'd rather lose than dilute the brand further. The unwillingness to go down in flames while backing a conservative makes no allowance for the fact that it may take just one more election cycle for the voters to realize just how bad the Dem's are. Voting for the next candidate due (McCain?) or the RINO is what got the Rep. party declared dead just two years ago. So we should continue to focus on the win over first principles still?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFunny, my comments just got erased but Capt G said it much better in any case. Rome was not built in a day!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnly a year ago did I call Conor Friedersdorf a coward and defended Mark Levin and Rush.
Look how that turned out for yourselves National Reviewers:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse