You can find my as-it-happened quick reactions during the Christine O’Donnell–Chris Coons debate on my Twitter feed.
If Delaware voters tuned in expecting a bubble-headed, wacky ditz to ramble about masturbation and Satanism, they probably wondered where she was and why some woman who seemed to know about the issues was on stage instead. All of those cable-television appearances paid off for O’Donnell. She was polished, serious, engaging, and nothing like the caricature painted in recent months by Saturday Night Live, her old Politically Incorrect or MTV appearances, editorial cartoons, etc.
I’m not inclined to agree with the positions of Democrat Chris Coons, but he struck me as terrible. I wondered if he felt a bit like Al Gore taking on Dan Quayle in 1992 or Joe Biden taking on Sarah Palin in 2008; the opponent was supposed to be a blithering idiot and anything less than a TKO would be a disappointment. But Coons seemed intent to play it safe, to the point where the local moderator, Schoolmarm McFavoritism, had to invite him to jump in twice. Several times he said he didn’t have the required time to answer the questions, and so he punted. His answers were pat, predictable, almost rote recitation of standard-issue Democratic talking points. As I said on Twitter, the generic-ballot numbers in Delaware may be strangely relevant, since it seems Chris Coons is the Generic Democratic Candidate.
The moderators were pretty awful. Both Blitzer and the local reporter seemed hell bent on . . . well, the metaphor burning a witch comes to mind.
Yes, Christine O’Donnell has a lot of quirks, a lot of questionable decisions in her past, and a lot of evasive answers about those bad decisions. But it was pretty clear that neither moderator was all that interested in holding Coons’s feet to the fire, or interested in what he had to say at all. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the better of the two, was hell-bent on pinning down O’Donnell’s view on evolution. And he was the better of the two. This was the moderators’ chance to play hardball with their designated Villain Du Jour, and the fact that CNN aired much of this debate live illustrates that the MSM doesn’t just want to see O’Donnell beaten; they want to see her . . . well, metaphorically burned at the stake in the town square for her audacity.
Look, you read this site. You know I’m not a fan of Christine O’Donnell. But she deserved better than this, and so did the voters. This was supposed to be a debate, not a show trial.
Did this night help her? When you’re 21 points down, you have to simultaneously build yourself up and tear down your opponent, and it’s tough to do simultaneously. In the end, she’s a very conservative candidate in a state that isn’t very conservative at all, and that’s going to be a tough sell.
You must have been watching a different debate then I was...O'Donnell refused to answer questions, could not name one recent Supreme Court case that she disagreed with, and thought that the U.S. fought the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The polls may definitely change after this debate, but only in Coons' direction.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think that at times she was fighting three people simultaneously. If the Senate floor is anything like that, then she acquitted herself quite well. Another note; compare her performance of any ten minute time span when Joe Biden is conscious. If he were held to this standard, there would be blood on the walls.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI too thought the debate moderators were outrageous. It was 3 on 1 against Christine O'Donnell. The local reporter was the worst. The debate reminded me of why no one watches CNN. We have a 9.6% unemployment rate and a President who jammed through an unpopular, job destroying health care bill and CNN is asking Chrstine about her views on abortion. A joke.
Unfortuntaely, I thought Coons came off relatively well, at least at the beginning. He pretended to be a moderate and I thought got away it. Christine got better as the debate went on, but she should have asked him over and over again, "Would you have voted against your party on Stimulus? On health care? On reversing the Bush tax cuts?" She should have said it over and over again.
The whole debate should have been about the economy. Unfortunately, I don't think she delivered a punch that will move her poll numbers. I hope I'm wrong.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWolf Blitzer's obvious hostility toward Christine O'Donnell was similar to that exhibited by Charlie Gibson during his interview of Sarah Palin. Hopefully, Blitzer will suffer the same consequences for his unprofessional behavior that Gibson suffered for his.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusejanmaxwell seems to forget it was the mantra of the left that the US had armed the Afghani's who where now fighting us. The fact is we did supply arms to the Afghani's, under Reagan, to help them fight the Soviet Union. So, yes, we were.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe debate that is the topic of the next entry in this blog (McGovern-Lamb) might be a contender for the worst moderated debate, ever. The "impartial" moderator was the director of the Massachusetts League of Women Voters. Marty Lamb was asked to compare his approach to the economy and job creation. He began to talk about McGovern's poor rating (35%) by the Chamber of Commerce. The moderator interrupted him and told him that, under the rules of the debate, he was not allowed to engage in "personal attacks." Incredulous, he had to argue with the moderator whether discussing his opponent's voting record was a personal attack.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLooks like Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove were right about this race. Castle would have won the seat, and, though perhaps not a staunch conservative, would have fought to block or to reverse most of the Obama agenda. Now, the GOP will surely suffer defeat in this race.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusejanmaxwell,
Afghanistan in the 80s and early 90s was a proxy-war, in which the US was supplying some of the rebels as well as sending advisers to train them because they were fighting our enemies.
Just because we didn't have regular troops on the ground didn't mean that we weren't involved with the fighting against the Soviets there in an indirect fashion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI see many lefties share Coons knowledge of history. The U.S. did fight the Soviet Union in Russia via the CIA and proxies. As far as the Supreme Court case, maybe there isn't one she has disagreed with recently. Plus her job will be to make the laws, not interpret them, unlike the lefties on the Supreme Court who think their job is to make laws.
Sure Coons is a master debater, but he came across as an angry marxist last night. Plus he has a face made for radio.
If the voters of Delaware want to help turn this country around and see the U.S. succeed then they will vote for O'Donnell. If they don't vote for her, they will get what they deserve...Harry Reid's "pet".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePolitical Science 101: Coons was expected to be the clear winner. It was a draw. Therefore, Coons lost. And given how high his expectations were, he lost badly. I expect to see this reflected in the polls.
Coons made one mistake over and over again. When asked to follow up on O'Donnell's remarks, he'd say smugly, rolling his eyes, "There's so much there, Wolf, I can't possibly respond to it all." And he said on at least five occasions, "I can't respond because I don't even understand what she just said." He was so utterly dismissive of the notion that his opponent has an IQ remotely equal to his. He came off as a snob, and for no good reason, because O'Donnell was his equal for the entire debate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree to some extent with madisonian. Even Dana Milbank at WaPo had criticism for Coons. I think it was very narrowly a net plus for O'Donnell
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"some woman who seemed to know about the issues was on stage"
Don't leave me hanging like that. Who was the woman on stage with Ms. O'Donnell?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy favorite aspect of the debate? Glad you asked. Coons attacked O'Donnell for disagreeing with Roe v. Wade, saying that he believed stare decisis was critically important and that he supported all SCOTUS precedents. Then, minutes later, he criticized the Court for Citizens United saying it was wrongly decided and identifying it as a precedent he strongly disagreed with. Of course, Citizens United only had to do with free speech and not an important constitutional right, like abortion, but still...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm tired of the SCOTUS question. I honestly don't know how many others are asked that. It seems to me it's only brought up in order to create a story from the response. It feels like the answer they wish to get is Roe v. Wade.
I also challenge people, mainly a liberal, to name a case they disagree with that isn't CitizensUnited or a gun rights case. The cases aren't well known if you don't specifically look into them.
I hope the next time it's brought up, the candidate sends it back at the questioner. Maybe even state that he/she does not study law nor is it practiced, so they are not familiar with the hundreds of cases.
Can anyone tell me if any non-conservative has been asked about a SCOTUS case? Preferably without the answer as noted above. I'm in FL so this race is inconsequential to me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJohn Kettlewell:
I think the SCOTUS question is a fair one to ask senatorial candidates, even if it does tend sometimes to be a gotcha-type question. After all, senators vote on judicial nominees from the Supreme Court on down, and they should have at least a general knowledge of the Court's recent decisions. The rest of us might not have the time to look into all the cases, but shouldn't someone who aspires to be a senator "specifically look into them"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Geraghty,
I am as conservative as 95% of the people on this site, but there is no way O'Donnell came out ahead in this debate.
The woman seriously can't identify a Supreme Court decision she doesn't agree with? That is really, really, bad, and it makes all her lines about using the Constitution as a guide seem like empty rhetoric that she doesn't even believe herself.
I thought of several as I was watching. Without opening herself to criticism as an extreme social conservative, she could go with Kelo (eminent domain) or Grutter (affirmative action) -- these would be safe answers in Delaware. If she wanted to fly the social conservative flag she could go with the 10 Commandments case, Texas sodomy law, or any substantive due process case. I'm sure there are more, and if I were running for the U.S. Senate, you can be darn sure I'd have a better answer than "I'll put it on my website." The Tea Party really shot itself in the foot with this woman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Castle would have won the seat, and, though perhaps not a staunch conservative, would have fought to block or to reverse most of the Obama agenda." - m-conservative
You have absolutely no way of knowing this, and I'm getting more than tired of hearing it.
But for the sake of argument, let me try your method.
Castle would have won the seat, and more than likely would've pulled a Jim Jeffords and switched parties in order to keep the Senate in Democratic hands.
Now, what makes my prediction a bit more plausible? Mine actually happened.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@TheFacelessBureaucrat
"The woman seriously can't identify a Supreme Court decision she doesn't agree with?"
Single *recent* SCOTUS decision (that was the moderator's stipulation). What you consider "recent" is subjective, of course, but most conservatives have to go as far back as Kelo (2005) to find something to object to. SCOTUS has been good to conservatives in recent years.
The question was stacked against a conservative candidate. A more even-handed question would have been inviting O'Donnell to speak for or against recent decisions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse