Posted on 11/03/2010 11:31:04 AM PDT by Qbert
(CNN) – The thing about Delaware is: it's no Kentucky. The Tea Party's first Senate loss of the night may be no big surprise - the only question heading into tonight's been how big a victory margin Chris Coons would capture over Christine O'Donnell. But the exit polls lay out the political and demographic roadblocks facing any Tea Party favorite here.
[Snip]
If GOP voters are feeling any buyer's remorse, they may take some solace in one surprising stat: despite pre-election polls that showed longtime Republican Rep. Mike Castle handily beating Coons in a hypothetical matchup, the voters who turned out today said they would still probably have sent Coons to Washington over Castle, backing him 44-43 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
“He was president of the Screen Actors Guild before he was Gov.”
Yeah, and O’Donnell already had previous experience running as a Senate candidate, and working for various political-oriented groups.
It is an embarrassing joke for you to continue to compare Christine O’Donnell to Ronald Reagan.
Hell yes, they would.
Pay attention, here.
There a lot of people in Washington D.C. making a killing off the status quo, including at least a few 'country club' Republicans. Power is worth something.
The TEA party movement is a very real threat to that situation, and they will work quietly but surely to undercut it at every turn. If that means they 'advise' badly, underfund, leak details of a candidate's history, etc, well, that figures in as 'acceptable losses'--especially if it preserves their personal power base.
The Republican Party has consistently thrown Conservatives under the bus, especially the day after the election results are in.
Just watch, they're going to do it again if they can.
Miller, Angle, and O'Donnell are the type of candidates who could get people riled up, and had to be cut from the herd because to the establishment GOP they are loose cannons on a tilting deck. After all, they might unload on some errant RINO, and the Party can't be having such.
Recall, if you will, the comments about co-opting TEA party candidates as soon as they get to DC, and it all fits, because the most vocal will get media slammed hardest to shut them up, so the same ol' same ol' can keep running us down the rails to Global Socialism while a few stash it away.
“It is an embarrassing joke for you to continue to compare Christine O’Donnell to Ronald Reagan.”
Predictable- I knew you would say something like that...
Look, Reagan was a one-in-a-billion guy, one of the greats of all time. Nobody alive today IMO can be compared to him. My point- which I’m sure will be lost on most establishment zombies- is that Reagan was demonized by the left and the Rockefeller-Ford right for being a “mental lightweight”; a guy who just gave a good speech, etc. Go back and actually read the things that were said about him at the time- they were very similar to all the epithets that are hurled at O’Donnell. He was a C student at a no-name college, a washed-up B-movie actor, a divorcee pretending to be a social conservative, an aloof father (according to his own kids), blah, blah, blah...
But that would take a little honesty to accept this, wouldn’t it?
Liberal demonize all republicans, it’s par for the course. My point is that Reagan was an accomplished man, even before he ran for office. You can demean being an actor, but that’s falling into the same mindset as his liberal critics. O’Donnell’s resume is paper thin in comparison. Critics called Reagan a mental lightweight and it didn’t stick because it Reagan had the charisma/intelligence/experience to parry it and make the critics look like the fools. For whatever reason, it did stick to O’Donnell (and I don’t think she is an idiot).
” You can demean being an actor, but that’s falling into the same mindset as his liberal critics. O’Donnell’s resume is paper thin in comparison. Critics called Reagan a mental lightweight and it didn’t stick because it Reagan had the charisma/intelligence/experience to parry it and make the critics look like the fools. For whatever reason, it did stick to O’Donnell (and I don’t think she is an idiot).”
First, I’m not “demeaning” him for being an actor- any actor will tell you that it’s not as easy as it looks, and making it famous is extremely difficult. I’m paraphrasing what critics said about him.
As for his experience before running...well no, he really wasn’t very experienced in a political sense (and he struggled his first two years as Gov. to learn the ropes, signing legislation that he later really regretted). Sure, Reagan had a lot more charisma- but who else can even compare to him today, especially his disarming sense of humor? I can’t think of anyone. Is this what you’re really driving at, then?
And no, the attack that he was supposedly not-so-bright did “stick” with a lot of people (I’ll say it again- go back and actually read things that were said about him at the time). The real difference between Reagan and O’Donnell on this aspect is that establishment Republicans wanted to make a big issue out of this with O’Donnell, whereas they didn’t with Reagan.
“This is pretty silly.” Toomey said. “Joe Sestak is so worried about his own record, he's trying to -- trying to run against somebody that I've never met, that I don't agree with.” Then Toomey jumped in with his own attempt at linkage.But I'm not sure he ever made a direct statement about hurting him. He just, as one pundit said, "But Toomey tacitly acknowledges the damage O'Donnell has done him", by speaking out about differences he had with her -- something that you normally don't want to have to do while trying to win an election.
It was clear that the democrats used O'Donnell to attack other tea party candidates like Buck and Angle, who were endorsed by Palin.
Appreciate your link, that is media trying to use her as a means to get Toomey off message- which, naturally, he didn’t fall for. She didn’t rate a mention in this review and nothing in it indicates she had a negative impact on Toomey. http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20101104_How_Pat_Toomey_outpaced_Joe_Sestak_-_and_his_own_campaign_s_expectations.html
In keeping with my radical ‘politics is local’ thesis... I add that Colorado’s losses were led by Party Chairman Dick Wadham- infamous for “the year’s worst campaign” in George Allen’s loss in 2006 (I think he has to report to local police if he enters Virginia LOL!). In 2008, he managed Bob Schafer’s doomed Senate run in Colorado, while also serving as the state’s GOP party chair. The state went to Obama. (Wadhams is a longtime friend of Karl Rove.)
The state Party mess in Alaska is self-evident.
Haven’t seen any coherent explanation of Nevada, that may be a better example of a poor candidate- but , even if so, I’d ask ‘how and why did that candidate get there’?
Wadhams is an idiot, and I don’t know how he ever gets jobs after the disaster in Virginia.
Can you dig up some of these quotes about co-opting the Tea Party?
I feel a vanity coming on about how the press for > 1 week has been "leaking" tales of "imminent caves" and "deals" : and they have been proven wrong every time.
If the House can hold on a FEW days longer, we can get the press to overplay the "informed *fictitious* sources" card much as the march of the Obamacare gavel lie about the word "n-gger" being called out, overplayed the race card.
Cheers!
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.