Nov 06 2010
Christine O’Donnell Continues To Demonstrate What Not To Do In Politics
It seems there are a lot of people in denial about what happened on Tuesday. Our young, inexperienced President is still denying the fact his liberal, big government policies were the target of the voter’s wrath.
The story of last week’s midterm battle is clear: It was an election about President Barack Obama, and the American people voted against him. According to the exit polls, voters nationwide disapproved of the president’s performance by a 9-point margin, 45-54 percent, and while their impressions of the Republican party were generally negative, they nevertheless gave the GOP what should turn out to be at least a 7-point margin of victory in the popular vote for the House.
The exit polls indicate that voters were dissatisfied with the way Washington has done business since Barack Obama became president. Dissatisfaction was not limited to the sluggish pace of economic recovery. Voters also disapproved of the health care bill, the stimulus package, and the level of deficit spending; they expressed a sense that government has become too big and too intrusive.
We The People held our noses and gave the GOP a chance to do what they say – for once. I don’t think the GOP could screw up, unless they miss the libertarian thrust rushing through the electorate and get distracted as Obama did. And let’s be clear here – a libertarian conservative is not the same as a fiscal conservative. A fiscal conservative would try and balance Obamacare’s books. A libertarian is for rolling back most of Obamacare, tossing it back to the private sector while keeping the few aspects everyone agrees would make health care compassionate again.
The minimal government goal is the complete opposite of the liberal big government world view. That is why the only ‘compromise’ that will be acceptable is making sure the pace at which we dismantle government is carefully gauged to not impact anyone being supported or employed by those elements that need to go away. There is no middle ground between minimal government and big government.
But denial is not a monopoly of the left. Christine O”Donnell continues to deny that she was rejected Tuesday individually, while Tea Party Candidates in ME, NC, PA, FL, WI and KY all won handily for the cause. She seems to think her conservative stance was attacked by conservatives, who wanted instead to elect a socialist???
O’Donnell explained how GOP insiders maneuvered to undermine he campaign from day one. According to O’Donnell, the beltway political class joined forces with the Delaware GOP to silence the voice of the people. In O’Donnell’s view, it was not her insistence on principle which caused her loss, but the refusal of the political ruling class to fully support her, who could not forgive O’Donnell for soundly defeating their hand-picked, establishment candidate – Mike Castle – in the primary, O’Donnell continued.
Oh pullease. It is this exact same illogical and paranoid clap trap that got her in trouble from day one. As Ace notes, there are minimal standards required to gain one of the top jobs in the country. Standards that go beyond the ability to regurgitate conservative platitudes and fog a mirror:
I think it had more to do with the fact that 1, she wasn’t bright (at all), 2, she had no accomplishments whatsoever (and yes, people do want to know someone’s actually done something to earn the right to be one of 100 in the Senate), 3, she had a series of bizarre statements from her past (“mice with fully functioning human brains”), and 4, she couldn’t articulate a conservative message in a way that sounded appealing or intelligent.
For all of us who were not enamored with her and had higher standards for conservative representatives I want to thank Christine for continuing to be the perfect example of what the movement cannot afford as its image. She proves our wisdom each and every time. She is not a total lost cause mind you. Her campaign also produced one of the most powerful ‘ads’ out there, explaining why it is time for the libertarian correction on our out of control government. But that was her campaign, not just Christine.
To this day, the woman is still tainting and overshadowing those who won and are now the new leaders. Were is Ayotte, Haley, Kirk and Johnson? I now Rubio and Rand will get their air time. But why is O’Donnell still outshining probably 100 better representatives of the cause who won or nearly won?
This is the lesson all sides need to learn regarding inexperienced and self absorbed candidates. They tend to really stain everyone near them, instead of bringing any benefit to the cause. Obama and O’Donnell, too sides of the same coin.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Free To Prosper, AJ Strata. AJ Strata said: new: Christine O'Donnell Continues To Demonstrate What Not To Do In Politics http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/15286 […]
O’Donnell was not so much a product of the Tea Party, as she was a political opportunist who took advantage of their appeal. She was losing elections in DE long before anyone heard of the Tea Party and the people there were just not going to vote for her for Senate. It has nothing to do with her beating the hand picked guy.
In fact, there were people in DE who lost down ticket of her who blame her for their loss. Republicans were actually supposed to pick up some seats there but once O’Donnell entered the race, Democrats came out to vote and that hurt other people too.
That is the problem with a blue state where conservatives are such a minority. If they don’t pick someone that indys can live with, they will lose. I understand that they want to be pure and all that..but look at who ended up winning. How does Coons advance the cause of conservatism?
[…] from: The Strata-Sphere » Christine O'Donnell Continues To Demonstrate … Share and […]
[…] blames loss on Obama White House – hotair.com 11/06/2010 Pass the popcorn. more… Christine O’Donnell Continues To Demonstrate What Not To Do In Politics – strata-sphere.com 11/06/2010 It seems there are a lot of people in denial about what […]
I did hope she could pull out a win but she always disturbed me and left me uneasy. She had a lot of negatives and her comments don’t help.
RedTeam told us O’Donnell was a lock to win that race. What happened?
Well, her ideals and philosophy was (a lock). The back room establishment didn’t like for a new guy to upset the apple cart. She got zero support from the Republican party, which I feel that once she won the nomination fairly and squarely, she was entitled to. She lost for exactly the reason she said she lost.
“O’Donnell was not so much a product of the Tea Party, as she was a political opportunist who took advantage of their appeal.”
Are you saying she looks better than her opponent? You think she got nominated for that? That’s a better reason than some I’ve heard.
“As Ace notes, there are minimal standards required to gain one of the top jobs in the country.”
Not true. Once Obama won, that is solid proof that no qualifications whatsoever are required. If he has any, he has never let anyone see them. He has only demonstrated minimal ability to read a teleprompter.
Jinny:”I did hope she could pull out a win but she always disturbed me and left me uneasy. She had a lot of negatives”
more uneasy than her Marxist opponent left you?
more negatives than a Marxist opponent? really……..
Tell us about all his plus’s that made you feel real comfortable..
“a libertarian conservative is not the same as a fiscal conservative. A fiscal conservative would try and balance Obamacare’s books. ”
yep, the libertarian’s got blown out on the pot deal out in Ca.
But I am definitely a social and fiscal conservative and I definitely would not wish for a single part of the Obamacare and would toss it out in it’s entirety. I sure wouldn’t spend a minute on balancing it’s books.
I think the election was about halting the direction Obama and his cohorts were taking us. I don’t think it was a mandate for anything other than NO MORE OBAMA.
Sorry for the multiple comments but I read the post carefully, then re-read it and the other comments and it gave me several thoughts…
Uh, no, Red. O’Donnell didn’t lose because some etheral establishment didn’t back her. The Republicans would have fought to the hilt to get her into the Snate had they perceived her as viable. She lost because she was a lightweight, baggage-riddled disaster of a candidate no one took seriously. She said she would be fiscally responsible in Washington but refused to be fiscally responsible in her own life. That’s a significant crosscurrent of messages. She sued or threatened to sue both a former employer and a radio station. She spent more of her money on personal expense than on her campaign. Sending out her goon squad to try to say Mike Castle was a gay adullterer obliterated any chance of her attracting support in sufficient numbers from Republicans who had supported Castle in the primary. All of her ads but the one painting Coons as a taxraiser were cringeworthy. There simply was nothing good about O’Donnell’s candidacy. The woman was a boondoggle who caused Dems in her state to vaporize Republicans up and down the ballot. She can’t even accept her own shortcomings as a candidate but has to point fingers at everyone but the one she sees in the mirror in that townhouse she duped thousands of people into contributing to paying the rent for. As with everything regarding that solipsistic witch, everything but the fact that she’s an unelectable gadfly was about her. Sadly she’ll run again in two years, and people like Redteam will be duped into paying her rent for her again.
Ohmigod. We have to be honest about Christine O’ConArtist. I say this as someone who wasn’t paying attention to Delaware and sent her $100 within the first 12 hours of her primary win. It took me about 12.5 hours to figure out what a fraud she was and what a spectacular mistake I’d just made.
No two ways about it, the Tea Party dumped more than a few bags of fertilizer on us. Trying to sugar coat it will not do. O’ConArtist is a professional [losing] candidate. I am afraid to research how much $$ she raked in with fellow con artist Russo’s help (and my dumbass impulsive cheerleading).
I donated to her cause as well Sally, even though I had misgivings about her because I thought all in all she would be the best of the three options. (Take this as an answer RedState.)
Looking back, she did not dress as a serious candidate. She projected immaturity. She did not know how to use the ‘she was a witch’ charge to her advantage. She could have used it to her advantage as Rush so aptly put it, make a joke instead of going on the defense. (Think Bewitched.)
She did not answer the question about using campaign funds for her rent at least not that I ever . That too could have been an advantage if she could have explained it better. She didn’t.
I hoped she could pull it out, she couldn’t. She is an example of a candidate that should have been better vetted. I’m not sure any Republican in Delaware could have won, that is something unknowable for now.
Sorry, I should proof read better. (not that I ever read.)