[samtheman]

From the comments on the NR site:

reldim

09/07/10 14:44

I don't like Mike Castle. But somebody really needs to make the case about why O'Donnell is a good candidate beyond just "she's not Mike Castle." The basic argument I hear is "she's a conservative". Okay, granted. But she's also a disaster and strikes me as a basket case. She is her own opposition research.

A conservative can win in Delaware. But I do not believe that this particular conservative can win in Delaware. And I think the movement beclowns itself by latching on to flawed candidates in the name of purity. Are we really saying Christine O'Donnell is the best candidate conservatives could find in Delaware? If that's true maybe we shouldn't win any elections there.

I haven't followed this one closely and I'm interested in what others think of this comment.

[deport]

In reality it doesn’t appear there is a good candidate in the race. Apparently in either case you have to take the bad with any good you may find.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2588135/posts?page=4#4

[MNJohnnie]

Typical Establishment politics of slime, rumor and innuendo. This sort of campaign tactic is why Mike Castle may lose Tuesday. People are totally fed up with this sort of campaign. They want people who run on issues, not character assassination and slime.

[Non-Sequitur]

A conservative can win in Delaware. But I do not believe that this particular conservative can win in Delaware.

Electing Castle will guarantee that a conservative will never win in Delaware for the forseeable future because the seat will be filled with a moderate Republican RINO who will run again in 4 years.

[AuH2ORepublican]

I think that comment is spot-on. A serious, qualified conservative *can* win in Delaware, and it’s a shame that no one fitting that description is running for the Senate there. O’Donnell can’t win not because she’s conservative, but because she’s an irresponsible, dishonest gadfly with no prior accomplishments.

[longjack]

I haven't followed this one closely and I'm interested in what others think of this comment.

In this interview:

Christine O'Donnell / Dan Gaffney Radio Show

Christine O'Donnell talked live (I believe) with a radio station.

It raised a lot of eyebrows because the host called her out on a comment she had made to a group of people in which she claimed that she had won 2 of the 3 Delaware counties against Joe Biden in 2008. In fact, she did not win those counties.

This isn't innuendo since the host had an audio of the statement, and you are able to listen to both parties in the audio link.

If you have time, listen to the interview or skim through the comments at the site to get a better idea of what the discussion is about.

My opinion is that she doesn't have that bedrock image that candidates such as Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer, Scott Brown or Joe Miller have.

That doesn't necessarily mean voting for Castle is better.

[Antoninus]

And I think the movement beclowns itself by latching on to flawed candidates in the name of purity.

Beclown? Good gravy.

Here's the story. Mike Castle is basically a Democrat running as a Republican. He's pro-abortion which basically eliminates him from any consideration in my personal opinion. The fact that he's also a fiscal liberal is just another nail in his coffin.

Conservatives should never "beclown" themselves by voting for slimy career politician liberals like Mike Castle.