Posted on 08/09/2011 9:36:51 PM PDT by This Just In
Clemenza is about as much a limited government Conservative as Obama is Catholic. Honestly.... Coons? Well, if you’re a true Conservative, the choice would be a no-brainer. Or one would think.
Perhaps Clemenza is a Windsock Conservative.
So happy to hear that. She IS one of us! Go Christine.
I agree... She ran a terrible campaign, let herself get sucked into every sideline discussion that detracted from any semblance of a message, and never put forth a consistent message to start with.
But she looks good, and throws red meat to the Right, so I guess she’s gonna have some level of support around here...
IBTZ?
By God she took out Castle...and for that alone millions of us were grateful.
She also smoked out Rove for the entire conservative community to see what he really was. Over-rated and vindictive.
God speed COD!
That’s the best post I’ve read in awhile.
“Vichy Republicans will clenching their soft and slender fists as well. Lotta beads of sweat gathering under some toupees out there”
That’s damn funny and damn true.
I can’t wait for Fishtalk to wake up and weigh in.
??? Huh?
She ran a terrible campaign, never stayed on message, and was all over the place. You don’t get trounced by 17 points UNLESS you run a lousy campaign.
Sometimes it’s OK to admit errors, you know...
>>> I wonder how much better Christine might have done had Castle and his people not tried to undermine her.
Zip. She lost on her own. I’ve never seen a campaign so totally disconnected from reality.
1) She wasn’t an unknown quantity. She had run statewide before, and lost then too. The general public knew who she was already and just weren’t impressed.
2) The voters in that state don’t take their cues from Karl Rove. It’s a liberal area, and Rove is the “enemy” to such. If anything Rove’s (accurate) skepticism would have endeared her to them just out of spite. That is, if she brought anything to the table the voters bought in to.
“Sometimes it’s OK to admit errors, you know...”
OK, I admit you’re in error.
Huh. So in your mind, a well-run campaign is:
1. One that gets spanked by 17 points
2. That the FEC found broke campaign finance laws
3. Raised $4 million and still lost big-time
4. Raised twice the amount of money as her opponent and lost big-time
5. Ends the race with over $1 million unspent (25% of funds raised)
6. Spends an inordinate amount of time defending 25+ year old stories
Wow, you have an interesting take on what’s a good campaign! She biffed it big-time. It should have been her’s to take, and she wasn’t even close.
Why do you think she lost so badly even though having twice the funds of her opponent? Why do you think she chose to not spend 1 out of 4 dollars donated to her campaign? Why did she end up fumbling simple questions about irrelevant crap that happened decades ago?
The simplest explanation: she just ran a poor campaign.
“Huh. So in your mind, a well-run campaign is:”
What are ya, David Copperfield? You’re pullin’ ‘em out of nowhere.
How about a little game of hide-and-go-seek. You go and seek all those comments which I apparently posted concerning her campaign.
You said I was in error - and didn’t explain why. I stated she ran a terrible campaign, and here are some reasons why I believe it.
So what’s your reason why she got trounced by 17 points?
never stopped supporting her. she is a patriot. to rare and valuable to let the rino collective take away. she is still my tea party secrtariat. always running from behind. ready to kick past the rinos if given a chance.
List the qualifications one must possess to be an elected representative. Then explain how Castle met these and the “broad” didn’t.
“You said I was in error - and didn’t explain why. I stated she ran a terrible campaign, and here are some reasons why I believe it.”
Gotta love that backstroke. Couldn’t find anything, huh.
Actually, you said:
“Huh. So in your mind, a well-run campaign is:”
Not only are you trying (and poorly, I might add) to pull a Copperfield, but you’re apparently a mind reader (and poorly, I might add) as well.
My posts had absolutely nothing to do with O’Donnell’s “well-run campaign”, as you discovered when you tried to seek my invisible comments.
Here are the facts: Judging by your posts, you believe she ran a poor campaign and you probably don’t care for her. I admire O’Donnell, and had hoped she would defeat Coons.
and another thing. i worked the phones for weeks in that campaign. when i talked to her supporters, they knew exactly what was going on with castle and his attacks on her. they all said so.
the people, republicans, who opposed her were biggoted and vicious. they spouted the establisment/rove/castle talking points word for word back to me on the phone. they called her an “idiot or stupid” on the phone. they wanted to get their digs in so bad they didn’t pull the usual and just hang up the phone. that’s how much damage the repubicans had done.
the people here saying that she ran a poor campaign couldn’t be more wrong. she ran a great campaign given the challenges thrown up by her own state party. and the fact that she was running in one of the bluest of the blue.
God’s speed christine. we’ll always have your back.
IMHO, Christine O’Donnell is not a good candidate for public office. She’s gotten much attention in life from her beauty and I think it has taught her the wrong lessons. I don’t buy in to her profession of faith and moral high ground because she has spent more than a decade selling it on MTV and anything Bill Mahar happens to be hosting this week. Her “fame” prior to her efforts for public office has been posing as a boogeyman for the left’s talking points. I have a hard time supporting someone who makes a living that way.
That said, she was the candidate conservatives needed in Delaware in 2010 precisely because she didn’t know any better. She took on the Delaware GOP establishment, which had been satisfied with going along to get along, and she defeated it. She also didn’t know to listen to all those people who told her she was punching above her weight class in the general election. She gave the election her all and was smacked down by both the GOP machine as well as her opponent. Were she afforded a supportive Republican party in the general election, it would have been a much closer result. I’m certain that other men and women around the nation who had not ever thought about running for public office have watched and learned from both Christine O’Donnell and her campaign. I’m also certain that well entrenched GOP party machines are a little less entrenched each day because of efforts by dreamers like Christine.
What are ya, David Copperfield? You’re pullin’ ‘em out of nowhere.
How about a little game of hide-and-go-seek. You go and seek all those comments which I apparently posted saying I probably don’t care for her.
Take your own medicine much?
I’m of the opinion that the naysayers didn’t support O’Donnell from the get-go. They probably dislike her as much as those “charming” callers. So their claims of “poor campaigning” are about as penetrating as a Special Report with Joy Behar.
There were a number of factors which contributed to O’Donnell’s defeat. To reduce it to “poor campaigning” is either dishonest, or simplistic, or both.
I wish Christine O’Donnell all the best.
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.