Replies

You are correct in your analysis. COD is not going away anytime soon and her fans within the movement will rally behind her making it a litmus test of sorts, as if it is only possible to support fiscal conservatism by supporting this women, and rabidly attack anyone who disagrees.

I think what happened needs to be viewed in the context of the current political landscape. Right now the formula is a new face (or at least new to the movement) challenges a democrat and an establishment GOP person.

Then:
(1)They get alot of hype online and via the usual sources (Rush, FOX, etc.)
(2)They come out with some hard hitting messages about Obama/Pelosi/Reid and the debt and healthcare and such.
(3)Then they are attacked somehow by the media usually on personal matters (Palin’s baby for example) but sometimes gaffes (Angle’s hispanic/asian comment).
(4)Then the conservative base rallies around them and carries them to victory to the horror of Democrats.

So in COD case people, largely from out of state who did not know her, were introduced and simply thought to apply the formula. They saw a pretty lady talking bad about the state of washington so they thought this was the next Palin/Bachmann. No one bothered to check into her background as a professional political campaigner, the lawsuits, living off campaign money, the poor financial situation, odd personal history. They didn’t think they needed to as COD was saying all the pick up lines to get the Tea Party to fall in love. When CODs gaffes came out (ignorance about the constitution and supreme court, weird personal statements) people just chalked it up to step 3 and assumed that step 4 would follow as this was supposed to be a tidal wave election.

When this failed to happen many in the movement who have internalized COD as being one of us want to defend her and will attack anyone for perceived betrayal. Look at this thread for instance. Lots of comments about “COD has conservative principles damnit! Don’t you like conservatives?” with no proof at all for any of that. Palin was mayor then governor in Alaska. She can point to things she has done when asked to prove she is a conservative. Scott Brown could point to things and say he is a conservative (which for someone in Massachusetts he is). Angle could point to things and say she is a conservative. COD? Not really. Sure she is a social conservative but I don’t really see signs for abortion and abstinence only education at the rallies. Everyone is focused on fiscal issues right now and COD’s fiscal reputation is troubling.

The problem we have now is that people have dug in and assume like with Palin that skeptics will come around and her reputation will somehow soar. The difference is Palin is a very smart politician and COD is a walking gaffe machine. The movement has already damaged itself by jumping in to bed with her without really thinking it through.

We should make it very clear that COD is not an accurate representation of our movement which is a perception that Democrats will attempt to solidify amognst moderates (aka the people you can’t win the white house without). The good news is that this should be easy to accomplish as more and more people look into her history without an impending election. Instead of COD vesus Democrat with the “us vs them”/”vote the bastards out” thought process people can look at it with a “what does she bring to the table for us” mentality. Then they will find they do not like what they see and don’t want to have this bizzare* woman as a face of the movement at all.

* = my sincerest apologies to anyone on this site who is unmarried 41 year old women, who don’t believe in masturbation, lives off campaign money and used to have picnics with witches on satanic altars.

Even if everything you say is true, it is still beside the point because of this one truth: You can ONLY vote for the actual humans who are in the race at the time.

Christine was a better choice than the RINO Castle because if Castle had won both the primary and the election he would have voted with the Dems on important legislation. So it is good that Christine had the chance to run against the dem.

If people like you and Rove and other RINO elites hadn’t run down Christine - who was on our side and was the only non-Marxist ACTUALLY IN THE RACE - and hadn’t stayed home or influenced otherwise wobbly voters to vote against her she had a good chance of winning. But the sum total of her own weaknesses (everybody has some, even the marxist, even Castle) plus the clear treachery from her own party starting on the day of her primary win doomed her.

And there is no good reason whatsoever for having trashed Christine and turned voters against her. That is treason to the party, no matter what you think of her. You can hold your nose and vote for her in exactly the same we we would have held our nose and voted Castle had he won.

There were only 2 humans in the race. You, Rove, RINOs trashed the only on on our side which resulted in alienating undecided voters and even moderate Republican voters.

The result was GIVING THE SEAT TO A MARXIST. And you are still dumping on Christine.

Maybe you ought to give it a rest and consider just exactly what it is you’ve really done.

It’s odd to see posters on a site who trumpet their freedom to speak, their unwillingness to be silenced, and their embracing of conservative values sending certain things to me off this thread, but I’ve given up on discussing this person—I’ve said more than enough, anyway.

I decided to no longer comment on this issue, and I won’t. I’ll just comment on your post.

I’ve been coming here ten years, and yours is one of the most thoughtful, clear-minded, accurate, well-written posts I’ve ever read on this site.

I hope you send it to a conservative magazine and get it published, because you said all that should be said. Those who are truly conservative should read it, and read it again, and THINK, not feel, about all it says and implies. Because if we focus only on how we feel about candidates, and ignore how those candidates and are party are used by the media to portray us as loons to those voters we need to attract—not by being “RINOs” or changing our ideas, but by attracting new believers to OUR ideas—we are doomed to electoral meaninglessness.

Or, to rephrase all I’ve written till now:

WOW.

Great post.

To Christine: kwitcherbitchin’ and stop blaming Karl Rove. Man up, you immature little twit!

Here’s a poem to help you, Christine:

‘If’

by Rudyard Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master,
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And - which is more - you’ll be a Man, my son!

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)