The Kneecapping of Christine O'Donnell (Nikki Haley Redux?)

There are two candidates for the GOP nomination for the Senate in Delaware. One is a liberal, and he will vote that way. The other is a conservative, and she will vote that way. That is the only part of the equation that should matter to anyone in Delaware or elsewhere.

Delaware Congressman Mike Castle, a career politician for the last 40 years, is the liberal. He supported TARP, Obama's Second Stimulus, Cap and Tax, the auto bailout and the anti-First Amendment Disclose Act. He is proabortion and supports federal funding of abortion. And he opposes the repeal of ObamaCare. He voted for Obama's agenda sixty percent of the time, more than any other GOP Congressman and more htan many Democrats.

Christine O'Donnell is the conservative. She will vote against Cap and Tax, against Obama's wild spending, against his liberal, anti-Constitutionalist Judges, in favor of the Right to Life and for the repeal of Obamacare.

But Mike Castle, who has always voted like a Democrat, is now running for office like a Democrat, employing the Alinsky-ite tactic of personal destruction of one's enemy in order to camouflage one's own record. Christine O'Donnell, you see, has had some financial difficulties. Never mind that that has nothing to do with HOW SHE WOULD VOTE as a U.S. Senator. She has been stalked by political opponents over the years, which makes her "paranoid". Again, the charge--whether true or false--has nothing to do with how she would vote. Yet some people are actually rejecting her based upon these wholly irrelevant considerations and choosing to support a man who will vote to raise the cost of energy, will vote for federal funding of abortion, will vote for endless bailouts and takeovers of private industry, will vote to confirm statist left wing judges who will be on the bench for 40 years....all becasue Christine O'Donnell had financial trouble and because she was stalked.

The smear campaign appears to be coordinated and timed to coincide with Christine's surge. Unfortunately, it appears to have enlisted some members of the so-called conservative punditocracy, who seem to be rushing at her as one man. Jim Geraghty at NRO trashed her, although this is not much of a surprise since NRO ceased some time ago being anything more than a pipe organ for the GOP Establishment. Erick Erickson at Redstate was a big surprise, since he had endorsed her earlier. Erickson's stated reason for abandoning her rings hollow though. He claims that her campaign did not distance itself quickly enough from a website, apparently controlled or frequented by former O'Donnell staffers, who posted a video suggesting Castle was gay. Although O'Donnell condemned the ad and said it had nothing to do with her campaign, Erickson was not appeased. Which I found quite curious in light of Erickson's own personal peccadillo of just last year in which he himself made the following comment on Twitter about Supreme Court Justice David Souter's retirement:

"The nation loses the only goat f------ child molester to ever serve on the Supreme Court in David Souter's retirement."

I find it odd that Erickson would go public with his lame denunciation of O'Donnell for failing to adequately distance herself from something someone who once worked for her did. Yet he himself is personally guilty of slander far worse and in the recent past . He even had the temerity to compare her to the odious Will Folks (who spread the Nikki Haley rumor) which scandal he became involved in in a way that, to put it mildly, did not enhance his credibility. It bears mention that he signed on as a commentator with CNN five months ago.

Inane and irrelevant as they are, are the allegations true? They are really only two. First, there is the allegation that she had financial difficulties. I think she did. So what? I will concede that her financial difficulties exclude her from consideration for public office as soon as Castle explains how he amassed a net worth of over $8 million, after 40 years in public (not counting his multi-million dollar Congressional pension).

Why isn't Castle being asked to explain that which seems to me far more relevant?

Second , is O'Donnell paranoid? She told a radio host that she was stalked which, if it is not true, would suggest paranoia. Well, was it true? After all, it has happened in a political context. It happened to Sarah Palin repeatedly. To answer the question, I had recourse to Bill Colley, conservative radio talk show host on WGMD in Delaware, who knows both Christine and Delaware Politics quite well. In his blog, Colley writes that he is still on board with her and he gives the lie to the suggestion that the stalking is imaginary:

"There have been people following O’Donnell for months with cameras in tow. They hope to find evidence the candidate leads an extravagant lifestyle on campaign donations. An O’Donnell neighbor is a World War Two veteran and recently suffered a stroke. He’s spotted people outside at strange hours. While I don’t think Castle is personally trolling for a “John”, I do believe there are Republican operatives looking for the money shot, in the parlance of photographers. Perhaps the morally bankrupt folks at the Wilmington Daily Democrat can assure us they’ve not assigned any photographers to work the same beat?"

http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/still-on-board-with-christine?xg_source=activity

Colley acknowledges that she got "off message" and flustered, but again, is that so offensive that anyone would vote for a huge carbon tax and bankruptcy for the country just so O'Donnell doesn't get to sit in the U.S. Senate?

The atmospherics of this race are reminiscent of South Carolina in May. Nikki Haley began to move up and Sarah Palin endorsed her and she took off. Then the bottom fell out. The politics of personal destruction was holding high carnival. There were orchestrated attacks by former friends (Folks had been a high profile supporter of Haley's, as had Erickson had for O'Donnell). A picture was painted of Nikki Haley that was an ugly distortion. And, the particular charge had absolutely nothing to do with the election. It was all about preserving the status quo.

The smears against Christine O' Donnell have the same character and the same objective. There is a mixture of truth (she did have financial difficulties,but so what?) with malicious falsehood (she is paranoid). The twin smears are sophistic (mixing truth and fiction), but both are irrelevant to the only material question: How would she vote in the U.S. Senate?

But there is a deeper issue here. An injustice is being perpetrated in Delaware. A woman is being attacked because she has had some financial difficulties (as have 80% of Americans at one time or another). And she is being accused of being crazy because she is being stalked by her opponents. The words of Edmund Burke still ring true: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Now that Castle has fired all his soiled artillery, he must brace for the onslaught to come next week when the Tea Party begins to examine his record and remind the voters of Delaware that a vote for Castle is a vote for Obama. In the latest Tea Party poll, O'Donnell is within 5 points of Castle (43-38) and is gaining ground. Although she trails Coons, the deeply flawed Dem candidate by 10, in July, O'Donnell was ahead of him and she can overtake him. The smears are generating a backlash in Delaware, according to Colley:

"Let’s stay on the message. Conservatives know we’re never going to get fair treatment from a soulless media. If that’s the case then let’s not let them shape our views. What we believe is immutable. O’Donnell shares what we believe.

Last night I was at the Millsboro Fire House when she was introduced to a couple of hundred members of the 9/12 Delaware Patriots. The applause nearly shattered the windows."

Let us wish Christine O'Donnell well and let us hope that Sarah Palin will ride to the sound of the guns in Delaware. I think she will, first and foremost, because it is the right thing to do.

“I know Sarah Palin has met O’Donnell. She’s got a tough decision to make on this one with all the crap flying. WTH, go for it Sarah!”

Agreed. She will take some heat for stepping into the race, but idea of Castle in the Senate for even four years is intolerable. Plus, he will push cap and tax in the lame duck session because many of his banker friends want to get in on the ground floor of the new commodity market in carbon futures.

Most importantly, and I don’t think this has been pointed out, Castle will likely only serve until 2014 so he will never have to face the voters again. Even if coons on, he would be at least somewhat restrained because of the need to face the voters in four years.

As I look at the race, I believe O’Donnell can win the general. She was ahead of Coons in July. She would not be able to win in every year. But this year, she will be able to win. And once she wins, she will have a chance to hold the seat for a long time, like Bill Roth did.

A Palin endorsement is definitely worth the risk; it is the right thing to do; and Palin is not risk averse. I think she will do it this week.

If I were her, I would do it on Labor Day. She could announce that she was endorsing Christine and contrast to some of Christine’s financial difficulties (A hardscrabble story that most Americans can identify with, especially now) and with Castle’s “born to the manor” pedigree (direct descendant of Ben Franklin according to Wiki LOL) and the $8.7 million fortune he “miraculously” amassed during 40 years at the public trough. She could also allude to the fact that she has been stalked numerous times by weirdos like Jo McGinniss and the creep with the minicam at the Fairbanks airport and that Christine, as a single woman, has even more reason to be cautious. (After all, Sarah has Todd, who is worth a couple of battalions of bodyguards all by himself). Sarah Palin could turn this race on its ear with a single facebook post.

I just don't understand why Castle didn't run for Biden's seat in 2002. His run just reeks of pompous elitism.

I mean, the guy is 71 years old. What does he have to gain by running for the Senate? He's been in government for 40 years. This is exactly why the Tea Party and conservatives are backing O'Donnell. It's all about removing these career politicians who believe that they are entitled to office.

O'Donnell has some inconsistencies, and she's probably more comparable to Hayworth than she is to Joe Miller. But I would still gladly back her over a liberal like Castle.

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.