Barney Frank as a 41 year old little girl .... eeeewwwww!!!!
Posted on 12/03/2010 1:11:03 PM PST by jaguar21
Delaware Republican Christine O’Donnell criticized the national GOP for not spending money on her campaign, but the long-shot Senate nominee was sitting on a mountain of cash.
O’Donnell reported having $924,800 in the bank after the election was over, according to her post-general election campaign fundraising report, filed Thursday.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/45933.html#ixzz175HeoFyS
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Barney Frank as a 41 year old little girl .... eeeewwwww!!!!
"Go Mitt. Go Mitt. Go Mitt.
We attack ….for you. For you!!!!!!"
"Rove has made no secret of his support for Romney as McCain's VP. "
Disagree. It wasn’t Rove that did her in. She ran an amateur hour campaign and, by all indications, either isn’t that bright or doesn’t spend a lot of time following current events. Either way, that’s not a recipe for success.
Beyond these problems—which are by themselves will tip the scales in most contested federal election—she didn’t appear to have her financial house in order personally, she seemed to be a bit immature and, apparently, at least dated a person who was a witch. Or warlock. Whatever.
She was a disaster. It showed.
He was at the top of my list, although much older than 41 he still wears his prom dress often.
Now you begin to understand why very few ordinary but good folks dare to step foot into the political arena. They are thoughtlessly torn apart for even trying by selfish and destructive people like you.
There was nothing wrong with Christine O'Donnell that indicated she wouldn't be an excellent Senator. Only some sort of misplaced and destructive perfectionism on your part continues to prompt you to trash her and trash her and trash her to no constructive purpose whatsoever.
I've followed your posts for quite some time and have engaged you at least once. Have you ever posted something positive that is helpful to the conservative movement? If so I've missed it. What perverted joy do you get out of trashing Christine O'Donnell now that the election is long over anyway?
In addition to everything you've stated (correctly), can anyone point to a single personal accomplishment that would qualify her for US Senate? Anything?
And yet, because she "said the right" things, people thought she was grand.
I'm glad Castle was upended, I just wish it would have been by someone who wasn't as unqualified as O'Donnell clearly was.
The people who fell head over heals over this unelectable woman cost us any shot at a Senate seat. Congratulations to them for that and for throwing gobs of money at a woman who had no shot. You could have given her a billion and she’d have still lost.
***************************************************
You can thank Karl Rove for that one.
TV?
Was Rove the one that F'd up the debates? Was he the one that "dabbled" in witchcraft? Did he owe the IRS a bunch of money for unpaid taxes?
This was Rove's fault? Really?
Probably had something to do with her looks, too.
I hope you're wrong, but I'm afraid you're not.
I hear that all the time form O'Donnell fans. Seriously, do you think the majority of Delawareans who voted for Coons were influenced by a 10 minute interview on Hannity - which they would never watch anyway?
Liberal minds shut down as soon as they hear, "Hey, did you hear what Rove..."
What else can anyone do but that? Seriously? Can no ordinary person ever become a Senator in your eyes? Does not the fact that she did in fact beat Castle in the primary mean nothing to you regarding how she is regarded by the electorate?
The reason I ask is that the conservative movement needs LOTS of new, untried people to step up and run for office. That's the only way we can regain power locally, statewide and nationally. Those people are lurking here. But they read the kind of posts you make about ordinary people like Christine O'Donnell and they want nothing to do with having themselves and their reputations BUTCHERED mercilessly and needlessly by negative types like those on this thread.
Thousands and thousands of people read these threads and all that happens is that conservatives who try but don't quite make it are trashed on a personal level. This trashing does NOT help the conservative movement. You are personally responsible for part of this.
What do you have to say?
You mean, of course, aside from her lack of professional record, a surplus of unfortunate items on her personal record, tentative and nervous public persona, and an inability to convincingly articulate a position on issues.
Aside from that, though....
Have you ever posted something positive that is helpful to the conservative movement? If so I've missed it. What perverted joy do you get out of trashing Christine O'Donnell now that the election is long over anyway?
What you folks need right now is a good dose of truth. My goal is to provoke a few folks into thinking and talking about what is true, and what is real -- whether it's about Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, or somebody else. Because it's not happening now, and that's bad news.
To begin with, let's clarify something.
What you call the "conservative movement" is really a populist movement that has an emotional attachment to various conservative ideals, but that evidently does not have a solid intellectual understanding of them. Indeed, given its conscious dismissal of "elites" and "intellectuals," this populist movement seems actually opposed to creating (or re-creating) an intellectual basis for conservatism.
Now let's talk about reality.
One of the most important things I've learned in my career is that the best way to get out of trouble, is to avoid getting into trouble in the first place. In politics, that means not nominating sure losers -- especially if they're losers who reflect poorly on the rest of the party. Christine O'Donnell was both, and her race was a great object lesson for what happens when a party nominates a poor candidate. Mike Coons could have been beaten by the right candidate.
The lesson there is pretty straightforward: if the Tea Party wants to be an effective political force, then it needs to organize itself, and actively recruit and vet good candidates. There are actually a few Tea Party folks who seem to have learned that lesson; there are others, though, who still insist that the Tea Party should not organize itself -- and those are the folks who will push losers like O'Donnell, Dan Maes, Ken Buck, Sharron Angle, Carl Paladino, into a losing general election race.
Here's another look at reality.
Two of the most serious political mistakes are 1) to rely on hope and emotions, rather than reality, and 2) to attack those who speak to the reality rather than the hopes. These two mistakes combine to create an echo chamber in which a campaign hears only what it wants to hear, and it generally leads to electoral disaster.
O'Donnell's supporters made both mistakes in spades, especially when the subject dwelt on her record and her electability in the general election.
You can learn lessons from Christine O'Donnell's loss or not. It appears you're leaning toward "not."
Karl Rove has a large organization and is very influential in RINO circles. In no way does anybody think that that 10 minute interview turned the tables against Christine.
What that interview did was tip off how Rove was advising his people to act and campaign. We knew then that he turned his political weight against her. The RNC turned against her too, you noticed, and that wasn't a coincidence. Rove is still against her and everyone like her.
It seems silly to have to say this, but a closed party primary is not the same as the general election. Do you still not understand the difference, even after the pounding O'Donnell got on Nov 2?
I disagree COMPLETELY. First, you describe it as "trashing", I'll describe it as an after-action examination. It would be painfully stupid to not evaluate reasons why O'Donnell lost. In fact, it's the only prudent thing to do.
"Can no ordinary person ever become a Senator in your eyes? "
I certainly hope not. I don't want "ordinary" people debating, crafting and enacting legislation that will directly impact me and my family. I want extraordinary people doing those things. I want people who over the course of their life have accomplished great things - maybe in the private sector, or in a military career, or in charitable endeavors or other areas of political or governmental responsibility.
O'Donnell had NONE of these qualifications. She had an unremarkable academic experience, an unremarkable professional work experience, and no other government/military or private achievement to point to.
You shouldn't be asking me why I'm "trashing" her. You should be asking yourself why you'd want to follow her (ahem) leadership.
I come from California where I watched your approach to "conservatism" end up with the marxist hellhole it is now.
Your reality is alive and dying on the left coast.
There is a difference between an "emotional populist" movement, something that shallow arguments are made of, and principled Constitutional movements. You don't seem to comprehend the difference, therefore you don't seem to understand why a principled loss in Christine's case is superior in the LONG RUN (hint, it sets up a much easier distinction in the next race and the RINO progressive is gone) than winning with the "right" COMPROMISE candidate that simply furthers the progressive movements (hint: that's what happened in California.)
You need to learn from the conservative movements mistakes or you will continue to contribute to the further loss of our Constitutional Republic.
Please also read my post about getting new candidates and the constant trashing of candidates like Christine on Free Republic. I think this trashing is very destructive towards that point.
Untried people generally do not belong in a US Senate or House campaigns, any more than they belong in a race for the governor or president. Those are quite simply not entry-level jobs.
New, untried people need to learn the political ropes at a more humble level first, and demonstrate by a record of actual accomplishment that they're worthy of a higher position.
Either that, or they should be so obviously successful and able in real life, that their qualifications for high political office are obvious to all.
Christine O'Donnell had neither of those going for her.
The state and national party organizations have earned a large measure of blame for the serious lack of good candidates. Here in Colorado, for example, the GOP is doing an abysmal job of finding and supporting good candidates.
The Rinos who attacked her with their “progressive” friends across the aisle lost the Senate majority. Rinos don’t care if they are in the majority or minority. Democrats are closer to their politics than are Republicans. The only political side Rinos attack like mad dogs are conservatives.
Finally, who cares if Rinos are the majority? That is like wishing Democrats were the majority.
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.