Posted on 09/08/2010 11:30:38 AM PDT by Superstu321
Have you never been a political candidate then? I have. It’s all about controlling what’s talked about. For the alleged intruder, there will be no immediate conviction, only a complaint, and possibly no crime, depending on the exact circumstances. Linkage to Castle can then be disputed and spun indefinitely and made to further enhance her image as paranoid. No, if you are O’Donnell, you do not want the other side controlling the content of your message. You want to set the focus on the issues that make you the winner, not the victim.
BTW, she has a right to feel somewhat intimidated. Before any of this occurred, her home had been vandalized and burgled by persons unknown. It is just so bizarre to me how wide is the psychological gap between people who have been crime victims and those who have not. Before your first event, you think yourself invincible, or at least safe wherever you go (as long as you avoid those “really bad places”). Then the inner sanctum of your home is violated, and no place ever seems as safe again. But to the wider public, most of whom can’t feel what you’re feeling, you’re just some hysterical woman with imaginary fears. How nice we are as a culture, eh?
Ok then. Now I have a new tagline.
Because many people don’t want to waste their time filling out police reports?
What do I win?
Sweet!
There is also lots of evidence of O'Donnell campaign workers engaged in juvenile intimidation tactics of these trackers. It seems to be a common theme.
You're talking 2 different things--the normal rough and tumble of politics and then allegations of illegal activity. Obviously the latter is much more troubling and atypical of a political campaign than the former, which is the context of your reply.
EVERY POLITICIAN IS OUT TO "GET" THEIR OPPONENT. But that expression has very different meanings doesn't it, most of them not sinister. Could it mean out to catch their opponent saying something ridiculous they can then plaster the airwaves with? Of course. It almost always means an easy win for the opponent who so benefits, ala George Allen. Nearly every campaign salivates at that opportunity--and sends operatives to the opposite campaign to catch it in the act. But that doesn't translate into people stalking you BY TRESPASSING ON YOUR PROPERTY OR FOLLOWING YOU HOME AT NIGHT. Stick to the specific charge here--that people are lurking in her bushes. Where's the evidence or even the 911 call? Do you know anyone to whom this would happen, including alleged vandalism of her home and property, who then wouldn't report it to the police?
And just because the NRSC thinks she's unelectable in a general election in a liberal state like Delaware, about which they're right, and preferring to take a seat for the GOP than to sink vital resources into a suicide campaign on a conservative who won't win in a state like Delaware doesn't mean they're "out to get her" in every other way the term could imply. Come on. Wipe the stars from your eyes. Could it POSSIBLY BE that the GOP just has 2 candidates here that suck?? You know, not every conservative running is automatically a quality candidate--Castle, who's clearly not a conservative, isn't. O'Donnell, who clearly isn't honest, isn't either. It's a choice between bad and bad.
It’s like the old line from Casablanca “I’m shocked...SHOCKED I tell you to find politics going on in politics.” Campaigns monitor the other side’s rallies ALL the time hoping to catch their opponents in a FUBAR. No news there.
Ace of Spades has a good analysis here: Stay Classy Christine
Obviously, people who run for office are typically interested in winning the office.
Sometimes, they try to win the office by behaving honorably,
sometimes they try to “get their opponent” and to win that way.
And sometimes when they try to “get their opponent” they go too far. Having the Delaware GOP attack the conservative, goes beyond “honorable” mudslinging. Having the NRSC (which is supposed to help Republican Senate Incumbents, not ancient RINOs seeking a promotion) attack the conservative is not “honorable” mudslinging.
Honest debate on the issues - ok
Mudslinging - a bit dirty, but comes with the territory
Dishonorable Mudslinging by parties that should not be involved - beyond the pale, the type of thing that makes one “paranoid”.
The good conservative Christine, when analyzing the race going in thinks she needs to beat Castle. Now she finds out that her opponent is not Castle, but Castle, plus the State GOP, plus the NRSC. It is reasonable for her to question the foundations of this race.
I’m not talking about illegal activity. Christine may be, and I personally haven’t studied the stories about people in the bushes and whatnot, and I don’t really plan to.
I’m just saying that if I was running for office, and if the NRSC was not supposed to be involved, and suddenly it was, I’d say “WTF is happening?” and get paranoid. Things that should not be happening are happening.
The NRSC helps incumbents. Period. They should not be involved. Period. They are going out of their way to hurt a Conservative. This is a Republican organization we’re talking about. If this, which should not be happening, is happening, it’s not far fetched for her to think what other bad, wrong, inappropriate things might or might not be happening.
She hasn’t been in office 44 years like Castle. She doesn’t know which sleazy, awful, bs dirty tricks are somehow acceptable and which aren’t. She’s an outsider. So, she didn’t anticipate the impossible threat from the NRSC. She thinks “well, the NRSC couldn’t be involved because they ONLY help incumbents, what other “impossible” things might happen?” And she decided to check the bushes.
humblegunner is wily but Pablo is very wily.
Castle’s answer for fixing the economy is to help small businesses with job fairs! That is just plain stupid! So, we have correct, but vague, vs. stupid. I just don’t see where the problem is.
It’s hard to top old Pablo for wiliness.
I just told you about his plan for tax exemptions for small business. It's not enough, but it's concrete.
O'Donnell's attitude seems to be: "Elect me, because I've got all the right opinions. I'll figure out policy and strategy after the election."
Mike Castle’s radio ads mention his Job Fairs! That is stupid!
At a Diamond State Tea party event in June during a speech, I mentioned the Tea Party Express assistance in Angle's campaign and how effective it was.
Someone must have been listening to that speech. : )
It's galling the attention the petty complaints against O'Donnell receive on the part of some, while Castles major offenses such as voting for Cap and Trade (now that's nuts) and the Disclose Act are ignored. Those votes, and in fact his entire 45 year career prove, Castle's the one unfit for office.
The good ole boys should lay off of Christine.
GO CHRISTINE!!!! : )
Good for you! : )
This is nothing more than an election year sham and you know it.
Mike Castle voted for cap and trade and the bailouts--none of which helped small business, nor will they.
And after 18 years in Congress, he should know by now what is "enough".It is obvious he doesn't have a clue.
Teri, Amen to your post—well said.
Glad to “see” you around. Say hello to Don, too.
It certainly is not a choice beteween bad and bad. Bad is what we have now in Delaware. Christine would be an immense improvement over Castle.
And why do you say she isn't honest--she's answered all of her detractor's claims.What is not honest is Castle's radio commercials, and the charges they level about financial items that have been taken care of already, including the erroneous IRS lien and the paid college loan.
And who cares what the NRSC thinks--they are a bunch of losers anyway.The only reason there is a GOP tsunami in the amking is because of the common folks of America rising up and outting a stop to the madness in DC--you know, where the NRSC operates.
By the way, your positions don't line up with your tagline.Try replacing "angry" with the word "wimpy".
If he wants to repair the damage with tax breaks for small business, that's a concrete proposal.
I repeat: O'Donnell's message seems to be: "I have the right opinions about everything. I'll worry about policy initiatives, implementation, etc. later."
You actually need to put together proposals that can get enough votes to pass - or at least make it out of committee.
The more I learn about O'Donnell, the less she seems up to the boring, mundane details of policy.
Also, I was a little disturbed by her willingness to file a complaint with the EEOC, of all departments, against ISI, of all employers, on a "gender bias" claim.
If ISI fires someone for cause, that's an issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.