Skip to comments.
GOP Insiders In Delaware Violated GOP Rules And Caused Republican Losses In Nov. Elections
RED STATE ^
| November 27, 2010
| Jon Moseley
Posted on 11/28/2010 12:09:24 PM PST by Moseley
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
To: MadeMan
Mike Castle would have won. Christine lost. End of story. Was it worth it to run a candidate more in line with conservatism and lose? Or would it have been better to run a RINO who may or may not be in your corner? Your philosophy leads to more Arlen Specters and John McCains.
41
posted on
11/28/2010 1:58:28 PM PST
by
Grizzled Bear
("Does not play well with others.")
To: MadeMan
” .... would it have been better to run a RINO ... “
There is absolutely no circumstance where it is better to support a RINO, say I.
Why, you might ask? The answer is that RINOs work tirelessly to undermine and destroy Conservatives and Conservatism, and they do this deed from within the ranks, cause unrepairable damage. Better to have your enemy in a different uniform, so that he maybe engaged and defeated in an open field. IMHO
42
posted on
11/28/2010 2:09:53 PM PST
by
J Edgar
To: Al B.; onyx; Lakeshark; Clyde5445; Brices Crossroads
Not only did the Delaware GOP actively join the campaign against ODonnell and Urquhart, but Tom Ross took the extraordinary step of filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Christine ODonnell and the Tea Party Express. Tom Ross attack on the Tea Party Express and ODonnell before the September 14 primary prompted a firestorm of national criticism by seeming to validate false smears on ODonnell. And these bastards tried to turn it around and blame the losses on Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint...
To: 50mm; Jim Robinson
IATZ. De-certify them and throw them OUT of the party. I’m wondering if they weren’t democrat operatives.
44
posted on
11/28/2010 2:14:44 PM PST
by
darkangel82
(I don't have a superiority complex, I'm just better than you.)
To: MadeMan
45
posted on
11/28/2010 2:37:39 PM PST
by
glock rocks
(Wait, what?)
To: Virginia Ridgerunner
“And these bastards tried to turn it around and blame the losses on Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint...”
Make no mistake. The corrupt GOP state parties ( I don’t think they are a majority, but DE and AK are two for sure) are the enemy. Someone needs to complie a list of the state parties and when their next central committee elections/ meetings are.
The Establishment will try to use as many of these apparatuses as they can to sabotage Palin. Much the same thing happened to Reagan in 1976 and 1980. The hostile ones like Ross and Ruederich need to be outed now and removed if possible.
To: Jim Robinson
LOL,
Busy making another HUMAN Fulgurite I see.
[Fulgurite is the varietal name given to fused Quartz, Si02, which has been fused by the action of lightning striking the Earth and locally melting the sand.]
47
posted on
11/28/2010 2:41:40 PM PST
by
Col Freeper
(FR is a smorgasbord of Conservative thoughts and ideas - dig in and enjoy it to its fullest!)
To: 50mm; MadeMan
48
posted on
11/28/2010 2:42:17 PM PST
by
mojitojoe
(In itÂ’s 1600 years of existence, Islam has 2 main accomplishments, psychotic violence and goat curr)
To: 50mm
You said, re-zotted?
49
posted on
11/28/2010 2:51:52 PM PST
by
vox_freedom
(America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)
To: mojitojoe; Jim Robinson
Is that an Alaskan reindeer? JimRob just sent Christmas greetings to Made Man.
To: deport
I dont think CODs almost 51,000 vote loss can be attritubed to anything more than the voters of DE chose not to vote for her in sufficient numbers for her to win in 10 just like they didnt vote in sufficient numbers for her in 08 and 06. Its not like a 30 mile wide by 96 mile long state cant be covered if one has a good organization.... If Castle had endorsed COD she probably would have received more votes.
To: MadeMan; Moseley
Or would it have been better to run a RINO who may or may not be in your corner? Not sure, but it is what it is. This internecine finger-pointing is stupid beyond measure. Given that a RINO would have picked up a seat in a state that hardly ever elects Republcans to statewide office, I'd go with the RINO to improve that odds of taking over the Senate. What's unforgivable is to elect RINOs like Lindsey Graham from a solid red state!
To: MadeMan
Hey, domenad...
I think those little tablets you put in the dishwasher are teh awesome!
But then, I've been away for a while...
53
posted on
11/28/2010 4:29:52 PM PST
by
Allegra
(Pablo is very wily.)
To: jazusamo
54
posted on
11/28/2010 5:55:09 PM PST
by
BenKenobi
(DonÂ’t worry about being effective. Just concentrate on being faithful to the truth.)
To: deport; Moseley; Jim Robinson
"I dont think CODs almost 51,000 vote loss can be attritubed to anything more than the voters of DE chose not to vote for her in sufficient numbers for her to win in 10 just like they didnt vote in sufficient numbers for her in 08 and 06."Pure hogwash!
Tom Ross & Co. are a prime example of the 'Peter Principle'. Lacking the ability and will to build the party (both financially and in numbers of party registrants), they chose to continue to suckle from the largess that Castle brought from the lawyers and bankers contributions to his campaign. COD was a threat to their meal ticket - remember, Castle was a major funder of the State Party via his campaign funding...
BEFORE the primary, not only did Ross denounce COD, but he called for and received help from RNC and RNSC for his efforts! They funded party organizers to come into Delaware to establish offices AND to recruit and campaign AGAINST both O'Donnell and Urquhart who were challenging HIS slate. (Yes, he called Castle and Rollins 'MY SLATE' BEFORE the Convention)
While Ross was busy back-stabbing Christine and Glen before the primary, the Dems were busy bringing in new registered voters! (in pretty sizable numbers - who they later made sure were delivered to the polls)
After the primary, Ross' main party office refused to take down the banners (even though the two lower counties grudgingly went with the primary winners), signs and literature for Castle were kept up in hopes that he would run a write-in campaign. (he even said so.) UNTIL SEPT. 30th! (the write-in registration deadline)
This waffling cost both candidates valuable time during which they both had to build their own organizations on a very short time-frame - basically from scratch since the State Party was officially 'sitting on their hands'.
Any thoughts that you could count on financial, organizational or coordinating help from the State Party after the primary wins was totally devoid!!! (NO Party machine here!) Totally Ba$$ackwards to my way of thinking!
Guess that's about what you would expect from someone who just accepted the job because nobody else really wanted it (he admitted to that), even though it paid pretty well and had lots of perks with no real oversight or demands on you...
p.s. Now his minions are having to rely on parliamentary quorum calls at Sussex County party meeting when the overwhelming majority of those present wanted to censure him.
Changes ARE coming! You Betcha!!!
55
posted on
11/28/2010 6:42:13 PM PST
by
DelaWhere
(Better to be prepared one year early than one day late!)
To: MadeMan
The choice was clear: run a RINO and win, run a conservative and lose.
This is false, "MadeMan"
In 2006, the party insiders chose Jan Ting, a moderate as their US Senate nominee. Jan Ting lost 29% to 70% to the thoroughly boring Tom Carper.
The fact is, run a RINO and lose. If you run a RINO, you've got NO volunteers, no team, no one who actually cares about the RINO winning. A candidate who does not inspire anyone to volunteer or get involved has *NO* chance of winning an election.
Mike Castle would have lost the election -- bad. Mike Castle got by because no one challenged him, and because there was an uneasy alliance and agreement with the Democrats. The GOP tacitly agreed that the GOP would not seriously challenge Biden and the Dems would not seriously challenge Castle. It was a deal. Mike Castle was not a strong candidate.
56
posted on
11/29/2010 5:53:29 AM PST
by
Moseley
(http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
To: CharlesWayneCT
Your argument is faulty. The NRC rule prohibits the NRC from backing a candidate in a primary. The Delaware rule saying it follows the national rule does NOT mean that the delaware committee cant back a candidate in the primary that would require the RNC rules to state that STATE committees cant back candidates.
The Delaware Bylaws "import" the National Rules. The Bylaws require the Delaware Bylaws *BOTH* to be (a) in COMPLIANCE with and (b) CONSISTENT WITH the National Rules.
(a) In compliance with would only require the Delaware Bylaws to be applied narrowly in strict compliance with what is actually required directly by the National Rules.
(b) CONSISTENT WITH the National Rules would require MORE BROADLY that the Delaware Bylaws be applied so as to PARALLEL the National Rules, and to MATCH them in substance.
Also, note that nothing in the Delaware Bylaws authorizes the Delaware party to spend any money or inkind efforts or other activity in support of a candidate in a primary. It only prohibits a non-endorsed candidate from accessing Party resources during the primary. It does not authorize the Party to actually campaign for one candidate against another.
Combined with the requirement that the Delaware Bylaws be interpreted CONSISTENT WITH the National Rules, the Delaware GOP is prohibited from actively campaigning against one primary candidate over another primary candidate.
Remember that Christine O'Donnell was the Party's 2008 official nominee for US Senate. If there were ever a case when such a rule applies it would be when one of the primary candidates was previously endorsed and nominated by the Party.
57
posted on
11/29/2010 6:04:30 AM PST
by
Moseley
(http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
To: deport
I dont think CODs almost 51,000 vote loss can be attritubed to anything more than the voters of DE chose not to vote for her in sufficient numbers for her to win in 10 just like they didnt vote in sufficient numbers for her in 08 and 06.
Your argument is circular and baseless. First, ALL the Republican candidates statewide lost in the 2010 election, not just Christine O'Donnell. Second, the question is WHY did the voters vote for the Democrats. You state the end result as if it were an argument or an explanation. Third, Christine O'Donnell was not officially on the ballot in 2006 for US Senate in the general election. She sought the nomination, but moderate Jan Ting was hand-picked by the Party.
The Party's hand-picked moderate Jan Ting lost 29% to 70% in 2006.
When the Party insiders are actively spreading falsehoods about a candidate and create a national media firestorm, the question is WHY did the election turn out as it did? When you have the party insiders savagely attacking on eof the nominees, this attracts media attention like flies to manure. The media loves stories about Republicans attacking Republicans. The Party insiders spread falsehoods for years.
58
posted on
11/29/2010 6:09:37 AM PST
by
Moseley
(http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
To: meyer
I bet if the digging goes a little deeper, Roves fingerprints are on this. No wonder he was so angry after Christine ODonnell won the primary. He bet against her (and the people) and lost.
Christine O'Donnell has said publicly -- just after the primary win and long before the election results -- that Karl Rove (directly or through his people) and the NRSC were talking all year to all the tea party groups and other groups to urge them to get behind Mike Castle.
59
posted on
11/29/2010 6:12:42 AM PST
by
Moseley
(http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
To: eclecticEel
Eureka! An obscure intra-party bylaw that no ones ever heard of screwed the whole election!
No, as you are quite obviously aware, it was the actions of the Party insiders in violation of the rule that ruined the election. It was "our way or the highway." They did not want a conservative to win the election.
It was the actions of Party insiders that caused the trouble. And the impropriety of their actions is underscored by the rule they violated.
60
posted on
11/29/2010 6:15:26 AM PST
by
Moseley
(http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson