Posted on 10/14/2010 11:05:31 AM PDT by pissant
By some reckonings, Christine O'Donnell had a bit of a rocky time at her Delaware Senate debate with Dem Chris Coons last night. She wouldn't say whether she believe in evolution, described Coons as a Marxist, and appeared to stumble over her answer on discretionary funding.
And yet, as Dana Milbank notes, in comparison to recent revelations about her and the national caricature that is the result, her performance was clearly an improvement.
If that's so, there are two people she has to thank for that, and they're both Sarah Palin advisers: Randy Scheunemann and Michael Goldfarb. They were the ones who took on the job of prepping O'Donnell for the debate, Goldfarb confirms.
Palin, in a conversation with O'Donnell, recommended the two men to her, and the O'Donnell campaign reached out to them to enlist their help, Goldfarb says. They spent the day with her yesterday in Wilmington getting her ready.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
Sarah Palin advisers prepped Christine O’Donnell for debate
..... it shows.
Democrats wouldn't know what to do with the most mild 'gotcha' question, they've had it their way for so long.
Oh sure the did.... /s
Why would a politicians personal belief in a scientific theory be relevant? I was a biology teacher and the kids frequently asked me my personal belief in evolution. I told them it didn’t matter, I was teaching them what the State of TX told me they needed to learn, not my personal belief system. As a representative of the people she is not their science advisor. And in fact, unless she has a science background I don’t think her opinion really matters.
If she had ahd a Reagan moment. (”I paid for this microphone”) and said to Blized.”Get your hand and that pen out of my FACE” She would have KO’d them. But her immediate reastion at the threat was to recoil. Then they knew they could attempt to intimadate her. That is why you saw B and the B***h sitting with him start talking oveer each other trying to make her lose it.
She didn’t which I’m sure was considered a loss for them.
That’s why you see them trying to pump up the criminal Coons.
Therein lies the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals, and why liberals are clueless about who we are.
OHH a Pissy twofer...a Sarah Slam and an O’Donnell Slam...2 for the price of sleeze.
Oh well now there’s the scandal of the decade.
And now back to our continuing non-coverage of the 2008 Obama campaign’s foreign sources of funding.
Congress is NOT going to pass a law either for or against evolution. Of course, the flip side to the "evolution" issue is Creationism or some variant thereof. Well, now we're into religion, aren't we? Is Congress going to pass a law about religion? I don't think so. Are we going to have religious tests for candidates? I don't think so.
The candidate's views on this are inconsequential. The question is intrusive and designed to trip up anyone who is not a leftwing secular humanist. It's a grenade lobbed by the moderator. Asking a candidate about evolution is like asking "Have you stopped beating your husband?" or "Will you take orders from the pope?"
Idiots think these are good questions.
I heard Coons lied almost as much as “Bite me” Biden did in his debate with Sarah Palin.
We should expect more uneven debates from tea party candidates.
The professional political class (which includes people like Coons) has a large percentage of people that have been preparing all their lives to be politicians (taking debating classes, etc...)
Tea partiers have been living lives. Their dream from youth hasn’t been to be a profesional politicians or to see their names in the headlines.
Hey retard, I’ve been supporting O’donnell since before you or Palin heard of her.
She did well. But she needs help if the polls are accurate.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/10/027460.php
The only hope is Del voters come to their senses.
I didn't see the debate but it reads as if O'Donnell fell for a few traps but overall, did O.K. against the 'seasoned' politician, Coons. She really does need to hit a 'home run' against Coons, and, as has been noted, try to get in a 'signature' line that would give her a positive identity. O'Donnell can win this but the deck is stacked against her with Delaware's Democrat voter registration advantage and weeks of the lib media bashing her as everything from crazy to financially irresponsible to the usual slam that she's not a liberal, ergo, she is automatically stupid and thus, 'unqualified'. The left always use that line.
Thirty years ago Ronald Reagan was demeaned by the liberal media as not just 'stupid' but probably senile and a 'third rate actor' reciting lines written by someone smarter than he was. Because the left will always want to believe they're all 'brilliant' (for being leftists) they'll always revert to calling a conservative 'stupid' in some way, shape or form. The attacks on Christine O'Donnell are just the latest in a very long history of this mode of attack on conservatives. It only works if the target is inarticulate (G.W. Bush) or doesn't fight back (G.W. Bush, again). Sarah Palin fights back. Christine O'Donnell has to do the same. The debates are an opportunity for her to do so.
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.