Odonnell beats Castle in Delaware

[gonzomax]

OK. What does it mean? She is a tea bagger and outside the mainstream ,way outside.she was not backed by the party because they figured Castle could win the senate. It is highly unlikely ,according to Repubs, that she can win.

[gonzomax]

Odonnell is a bit extreme. She says masturbation is wrong. She claims porno is equivalent to cheating on your spouse. Her finances are questionable at best.

[gonzomax]

She is in a sense not a Republican. She won over a party candidate. I read that she is not getting financial aid from the Republican party in the coming election. In a way she ran against the Republican party. The party is not in control of these people . It is interesting . The Republican party was playing with fire when they helped out the Tea baggers. Now they have to pay.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

She is in a sense not a Republican.

To the contrary, Odonnell's the new true Scotsman of the Grand Old Party. Her tea party faction will begin sweeping away the old 'culture of corruption' GOP leadership after November.
I'll not be too surprised if they try to make masturbation a criminal matter within the next decade.

[Squink]

The GOP power structure finally recognizes their enemy:

Party fractures on full display, Republican aides told Fox News Tuesday that O'Donnell would not be getting national fundraising support. State party leaders had warned that O'Donnell cannot compete against Democrat Chris Coons and vigorously backed Castle, a nine-term congressman and former governor.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...come-delaware/

[Beware of Doug]

Just saw the clip of her on the Rachel show. She's a frigid sin-obsessed little god-botherer. She probably shows up at confession and the priest tells her to go get laid already.

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by Squink

The GOP power structure finally recognizes their enemy:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...come-delaware/

I really doubt they'll simply sacrifice the seat. I expect like many of their other candidates they'll start polishing and give her talking points to stick on.

The sad thing is it could work. Democrats are failing to motivate their base and come election time plenty of people will just be checking the R box not truly understanding what they'll get. The Democrats will lose if they do not fund negative ads. The Republicans need only throw some money her way to get her name out there.

[Shot Clock]

Disregarding the assumption that she is crazy, it is going to be interesting how the GOP will govern with the Tea Party folks having a significant caucus in both the House and Senate. Assuming that the Republicans do gain control of the House (a safe bet at this juncture), the real test for them will be the development of their first budget. It will be interesting to see who emerges as the leader of the House Tea Party Caucus. It sure as hell won't be Boehner, who is a golf course, Chamber of Commerce-type Republican if ever there was one. He's like Gerald Ford under the influence of a Sith Lord. Michelle Bachmann has her fan base, but she couldn't manage a meat market, much less control a caucus. Newt Gingrich kept the 1994 House Republican Freshmen under some semblance of control (at least until they ate him). Tom DeLay kept the Republicans unified during his reign as Majority Leader, but he, like Boehner, was no principled idealist-- he'd peddle his ass to anybody if the price was right. I don't see a natural leader for the Tea Partiers in the House.

I would expect that O'Donnell, if elected to the Senate along with Sharon Angle, etc., would follow the leadership of Jim DeMint at least for the time being. There may have a hard time influencing policy in the Senate, since they won't feel bound by that body's traditions and (limited) sense of decorum.

So there will be a leadership vacuum for the true Tea Party types that get elected. They aren't beholden to the "establishment", so who will be calling their tune? Their local constituents? The blogosphere? Dick Armey? Rush Limbaugh? The Koch Brothers? Satan? Such is the nature of a leaderless movement, part of the appeal of which is fact that there are no leaders. Stay tuned!

[gonzomax]

This is about Repubs against Repubs. They thought they had found a group of people they could successfully use to get power. But now they are facing a group that may not play nice with them. The Repubs have been historically a controlled party that can whip pols into line. They can make them filibuster to fight the Dems over and over. But now they have a new problem in their future. I would not be shocked if they did not financially back their new pals. I bet the Repubs are embroiled in conferences all night trying to come to grips with this turn of events.

[Sam Stone]

It's not 'Repubs against Repubs'. It's conservatives and Libertarians no longer willing to get into bed with any Republican simply for the sake of winning.

Don't forget - the Republicans are almost as unpopular as the Democrats. The Tea Party is the great mass of people to the right of center in America, who are sick of politics as usual. It used to be that these people were reliable Republican votes - even for Republicans who behaved like big-government corporate stooges. They're finding out now that all the electorate cares about is their policies. They're in no mood to elect a Republican like Castle or Cristie in Florida just because they are Republicans. If they are establishment types with mixed voting records, they're not getting the Tea Party's support.

I suspect a lot of you on the left would do the same to the Democrats if you could manage to organize a progressive movement as large as the Tea Party's. You'd probably rather vote for an 'unelectable' but principled progressive than hold your nose and vote for some blue-dog Democrat.

[Leaper]

"Right of center"? Does that mean that you think Tea Partiers are less conservative than mainstream Republicans? Or am I reading too much into that?

[Jophiel]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

You'd probably rather vote for an 'unelectable' but principled progressive than hold your nose and vote for some blue-dog Democrat.

Maybe I'm not progressive enough but no. I'd rather vote for someone who actually has a chance of winning. The overall balance of power in Congress is more meaningful than any particular seat and if voting for some chucklehead I only agree with 55% of the time means that some other guy I agree with 20% of the time will lose and my party will be closer to being the majority... well, that's a no brainer to me.

[flickster]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

It's not 'Repubs against Repubs'. It's conservatives and Libertarians no longer willing to get into bed with any Republican simply for the sake of winning.

Don't forget - the Republicans are almost as unpopular as the Democrats. The Tea Party is the great mass of people to the right of center in America, who are sick of politics as usual. It used to be that these people were reliable Republican votes - even for Republicans who behaved like big-government corporate stooges. They're finding out now that all the electorate cares about is their policies. They're in no mood to elect a Republican like Castle or Cristie in Florida just because they are Republicans. If they are establishment types with mixed voting records, they're not getting the Tea Party's support.

I suspect a lot of you on the left would do the same to the Democrats if you could manage to organize a progressive movement as large as the Tea Party's. You'd probably rather vote for an 'unelectable' but principled progressive than hold your nose and vote for some blue-dog Democrat.

Bingo - we have a winner

The GOP party of old is seeing the beginning of what is going to be a significant housecleaning. The conservatives are a huge voting bloc that's pissed off and motivated. Goodbye RINOs

[gonzomax]

The question is how big are they? The tea baggers have been loyal Repubs for a long time. It appears they may not go along now. John Boner can say what he wants to whip them into voting shape, but i don't think it will work.Some will owe the party nothing.
What is the tea bagger position on the expiration of the Bush tax cuts? Will they back letting it die, or take the tax benefit out for the rich?

[Leaper]

I'm not sure whether I want to look myself, but I'm wondering what the prominent conservative-type blogs think about all this - both the victory and the Fox News report.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

What is the tea bagger position on the expiration of the Bush tax cuts? Will they back letting it die, or take the tax benefit out for the rich?

They obviously support extending them.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

I suspect a lot of you on the left would do the same to the Democrats if you could manage to organize a progressive movement as large as the Tea Party's. You'd probably rather vote for an 'unelectable' but principled progressive than hold your nose and vote for some blue-dog Democrat.

Wow...where to start? (And not that I wholly disagree but that it is a complex assessment.)

Is O'Donnell principled? I guess that depends on how you define "principled". Certainly she seems to have the courage of her convictions so she is "principled" in the sense that she adheres to her ideals. On the flip side though is her ideals are hardly defensible and not ones I would call principled.

As a progressive liberal (myself) I was energized by Obama. I now feel wholly ripped off by Obama. His rhetoric is great but the guy who claimed to be willing to fight the good fight has done anything but. He had a majority in Congress and a mandate and he let Republicans run roughshod over him over and over again with nary a peep. While I am sure you (Sam) are happy he didn't get his way I'm not and that is not what I voted him in for.

So then, you might say, don't vote for him again and there is the rub for progressives (liberals). Those claiming to be liberal/progressive only need to be just better enough than the opposition to get my vote. Knowing back then (when I voted for Obama) what I know now would I change my vote? Hell no...McCain and someone else maybe (maybe) I could have voted for with hindsight but McCain/Palin? Not in a million years. I'd pen in Mickey Mouse before I cast a vote for that ticket.

Now I think Republicans are in the same boat. In the past they have been able to be monolithic. That monolith is cracking. How it will sort itself out I have no idea but I think there are a lot of people who cannot vote for O'Donnell. A primary is one thing, a general election is another and that monolithic republican vote will see some move away and make it not so monolithic.

How this will all play out in the end I have no idea. Maybe it is time to reform our voting system so third parties have a chance.

If you see O'Donnell as Libertarian and a person you would like to see win then that is scary. Not even sure how a person who tells you that you shouldn't masturbate can even be considered Libertarian in the first place. She is...I don't know what she is except a nutjob.

[BobLibDem]

Ah, great. We're trying to beat a Boehner and now we find out it's sinful. Seriously, if O'Donnell wins, we might as well have a military coup. I'd write her off, but in a small state all it takes is a frenzied minority to push someone through. One can only hope the grownups show up in November.

[jonesj2205]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Not even sure how a person who tells you that you shouldn't masturbate can even be considered Libertarian in the first place.

Suppose this is an aside, but the two aren't mutually exclusive IF the position is masturbation is wrong, but none of the government's business.

I have no idea if that's O'Donnell's position.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by jonesj2205

Suppose this is an aside, but the two aren't mutually exclusive IF the position is masturbation is wrong, but none of the government's business.

I have no idea if that's O'Donnell's position.

They'll have to pry it out of my cold, dead fingers!

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by jonesj2205

Suppose this is an aside, but the two aren't mutually exclusive IF the position is masturbation is wrong, but none of the government's business.

I have no idea if that's O'Donnell's position.

Here ya go:

O'Donnell has said, for example, that masturbation is wrong, and that looking at pornography is equivalent to cheating on your spouse. She outlined her views in a November 1998 article titled "The Case for Chastity" for Cultural Dissident.

Source: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...atest-hits.php

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

They obviously support extending them.

So the Tea Party favors increasing the deficit?

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

So the Tea Party favors increasing the deficit?

Of course not! They just favor tax cuts because they fix everything. EVERYTHING. Cutting taxes will reduce the deficit.

Speeding ticket? A tax could would have meant less money for police and so you probably wouldn't have gotten pulled over.

Child killed by a speeder blowing through a school crossing? A tax cut would have caused the roads to decay so far that speeding through that intersection would have been impossible.

See? Tax cuts fix everything.

-Joe

[newcomer]

Not to appear as someone who actually knows what the wining candidate is all about but, having finances in shambles all over the country, deficits through the roof, high unemployment and still possibility of the “double-dip” economic crisis, culture in Washington still the same as it was two years ago with lobbyists and BS left an right, the most important thing right now is if the candidate would let you masturbate without feeling guilty.

That’s some high grade value system you got going.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by newcomer

Not to appear as someone who actually knows what the wining candidate is all about but, having finances in shambles all over the country, deficits through the roof, high unemployment and still possibility of the “double-dip” economic crisis, culture in Washington still the same as it was two years ago with lobbyists and BS left an right, the most important thing right now is if the candidate would let you masturbate without feeling guilty.

That’s some high grade value system you got going.

If it helps, I would also not likely vote for someone who insists that anyone wearing green was an evil leprechaun who should be shunned. It's not because I'm Irish, and it's not because I'm a fan of tiny gingers.

There's two reasons. One is that it raises some frightening questions about their mental state, and two because whether or not someone wears green is not their business and they god damn sure shouldn't be pushing their anti-faerie stance on the rest of us.

-Joe, couldn't be more German if his name was Klaus von Wolfgang

[Chronos]

If you see O'Donnell as Libertarian and a person you would like to see win then that is scary. Not even sure how a person who tells you that you shouldn't masturbate can even be considered Libertarian in the first place. She is...I don't know what she is except a nutjob.

Amen to that. I think this should definitively lay to rest the notion that the Tea Party is a basically libertarian movement. Some of them undoubtedly are, but if that were a significant part of the movement, they'd never back someone like this. Really all they are is the extreme wing of the Republican party, and they're extreme in all sorts of different directions.

[Chefguy]

It's interesting that many see the Tea Party as some noble effort, when it seems to be attracting candidates who are bonifide loonies. These are the best they can field? Support from Beck, Bachman and other crazies equals "progressive"?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

So the Tea Party favors increasing the deficit?

I remember when Ross Perot was touting serious, consistent, fiscal conservatism to cut the deficit: Raise taxes and cut spending at the same time. Nobody seems to be saying that any more . . .

[gonzomax]

Odonnell may be the "none of the above" candidate. She is a tea bagger, but not supported by the Repub party. She is on TV asking for party money this morning.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

It's interesting that many see the Tea Party as some noble effort, when it seems to be attracting candidates who are bonifide loonies. These are the best they can field? Support from Beck, Bachman and other crazies equals "progressive"?

I don't think they like that word very much.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

It's interesting that many see the Tea Party as some noble effort, when it seems to be attracting candidates who are bonifide loonies. These are the best they can field? Support from Beck, Bachman and other crazies equals "progressive"?

Where did you get the idea that the teabaggers are "progressive" in any way, shape, or form?

They're about as regressive as you can get.

-Joe

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

It's interesting that many see the Tea Party as some noble effort, when it seems to be attracting candidates who are bonifide loonies. These are the best they can field? Support from Beck, Bachman and other crazies equals "progressive"?

It's just a reforging of the Reagan Alliance, with its ingredients adjusted for the new Millenium. St. Heinlein predicted this, don't cha know?

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Leaper

"Right of center"? Does that mean that you think Tea Partiers are less conservative than mainstream Republicans? Or am I reading too much into that?

Depends on which issues you're talking about. Fiscally, the Tea Party is in line with the GOP's rhetoric, which is to say well to the right of the GOP's actual policy in office. On "social issues", they're a mixed bag, but in practice most of them fall into one of the following categories: 1)small-government libertarians who actively oppose politicized social conservatism, 2)social conservatives who put those issues on the back burner because they see the fiscal mess as the immediate priority, or 3)don't give a damn.

I see the sharpening of hostility to politicized social conservatism in Group 1, and the awakening of such hostility in Group 3, as awareness spreads that the GOP has been using social-conservative talking points the way a magician uses a scantily clad assistant (i.e. as a distraction while they perform a trick).

[newcomer]

Originally Posted by Merijeek

There's two reasons. One is that it raises some frightening questions about their mental state, and two because whether or not someone wears green is not their business and they god damn sure shouldn't be pushing their anti-faerie stance on the rest of us.

So, you're more worried about possibility of "screw-up by association" (even though that association is only in your head; i.e. “Oh, if she thinks masturbation is wrong then she will…. she will… cut my taxe… penis!!!”) than actual direct screw up done already by someone whose mental state passed all the irrelevant questions?

Again, for me, it's a strange reasoning.

And, by the way, I read the posted link on what she said and, first of all based on what she wrote, she does not sound as a mental case (as I’m sure many people accepted “suggestion” without taking time to review it for themselves) but rather someone with conservative views on sexuality. So, what?

All I’m saying is that everyone, it seems, is making their presumptuous conclusions about this candidate based on media frenzy full of headlines and suggestions and implications on things not just secondary but totally irrelevant.

[gonzomax]

I think this race defies easy analysis. Odonnell has her loonie side. I don't even know how conservative she is because she was not taken seriously enough to be thoroughly analyzed. The Repub party today restated they will not financially back her, according to Fox. But this is actually splintering the Republican party.
She appeared a few times on Bill Maher's . He looks for conservative women to appear on his show. She is cute and will talk and talk. i am sure he will put her on soon. Her goofiness wont be a secret for long.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by newcomer

All I’m saying is that everyone, it seems, is making their presumptuous conclusions about this candidate based on media frenzy full of headlines and suggestions and implications on things not just secondary but totally irrelevant.

Because it's the same kind of stupid that leads her to say that there's more "evidence" for creationism than evolution?

She exhibits extremely flawed thinking. If she wants to use that thinking to run her own life, that's between her and her psychiatrist. Once she wants to use it to influence the lives of more than 300 million people it's an issue of importance.

-Joe

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by newcomer

So, you're more worried about possibility of "screw-up by association" (even though that association is only in your head; i.e. “Oh, if she thinks masturbation is wrong then she will…. she will… cut my taxe… penis!!!”) than actual direct screw up done already by someone whose mental state passed all the irrelevant questions?

Again, for me, it's a strange reasoning.

Keep reading. How much do you need?

She founded and was the president of the Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth (SALT) in 1996, which lobbied the U.S. Congress on moral issues[5] and which focused on advocating chastity and other Christian values in the college-age generation.[7] O'Donnell also served as a spokesperson for Concerned Women for America, a Conservative Christian political action group which seeks to apply biblical principles to issues of public policy.[8]

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_O%27Donnell

Looks to me like someone who actively worked to push her moral agenda.

YMMV

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by Merijeek

Where did you get the idea that the teabaggers are "progressive" in any way, shape, or form?

They're about as regressive as you can get.

-Joe

If I had actually said that, then you would have a valid point. The Tea Party believes that they are enlightened and represent the progressive arm of the right. Your delusion may vary.

[gonzomax]

This may be a "refudiation" of both parties. Both the Repubs and Dems run strong campaigns making promises they can not keep. Obama's problem is not that he is socialist like the Repubs like to pretend, but that he did not deliver what he promised. The feeling is that in Washington it is still fat cat business as usual.
The health care bill got compromised by the Repubs and insurance companies.It did not get fixed like it should have. It may be a great political achievement, but it was terribly weakened.
We expected him to shut Gitmo. He has not. He was supposed to remove DADT. He did not.
We expected him to torch the bankers who destroyed the economy. He actually put their pissboy , Geithner, in power. Nobody went to jail. They are still looting away.
He was supposed to get out of Iraq. Leaving 50,000 troops is not getting out.
The financial bill will be watered down until it is worthless. They are fighting Warren ,who should run the consumer protection arm. The fear is she would do the job. Can't have that in America.
The disconnect between the people and the politicians is coming in focus. The Boehner type Repubs are blind about that too.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Keep reading. How much do you need?

You didn't ask but here's more anyway:

[O'Donnell] had “a series of financial problems” and may have earned only $5,800 last year; she claimed to be a university graduate, “but it turns out she actually got her degree ... last week

<snip>

Then there’s her weird obsession with shrubs—she has her team “check all the bushes” around her house to make sure she’s not being followed, and she claims her opponents enjoy “hiding in the bushes when I’m at candidate forums.”

Source: http://www.newser.com/story/100321/a...y-strange.html

Still ok with her? If so follow the link, there's more (I just picked some of the juicier bits).

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

You didn't ask but here's more anyway:

Still ok with her? If so follow the link, there's more (I just picked some of the juicier bits).

Thats not a lot for a tea bagger.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

So the Tea Party favors increasing the deficit?

No, but they don't support reducing the deficit by raising taxes. The tea party people want to reduce the size and power of the federal government, because they believe that an expansive, activist federal government is bad policy and even unconstitutional.

So, because of this, they support both keeping the tax cuts and reducing the deficit by large cuts in domestic social welfare spending, because they don't believe the government should get involved in social welfare.

[newcomer]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Still ok with her? If so follow the link, there's more (I just picked some of the juicier bits).

Irrelevant.

For me, the fact that GOP establishment went after her and she still won the day says a lot - takes a grown person to be able to withstand that and you got to respect that no matter what. Do I think she might be a target of GOP's pressure tactics? You bet! But still, irrelevant.

Do you have anything substantial in terms of her ideas on how to run the government or you just think cutting taxes and reducing spending is not your cup of tea (no pun intended)?

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

No, but they don't support reducing the deficit by raising taxes. The tea party people want to reduce the size and power of the federal government, because they believe that an expansive, activist federal government is bad policy and even unconstitutional.

So, because of this, they support both keeping the tax cuts and reducing the deficit by large cuts in domestic social welfare spending, because they don't believe the government should get involved in social welfare.

Raising taxes is the only way the deficit can be handled. There is not enough program cutting and cutbacks to have any impact. The political reality is that most programs will be protected by those administering or receiving them. Eliminating programs like Medicare are unrealistic and a waste of time. It will not happen.

[Skammer]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

they don't believe the government should get involved in social welfare.

Despite the fact that it's right there in the Preamble.

Was this an open primary? Were Democrats and Independents allowed to vote? The Democratic candidate was unopposed, so I wonder if there was some crossing of lines in order to put the more beatable candidate on the ballot. That's something that always gets talked about in my state, which has open primaries.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Raising taxes is the only way the deficit can be handled. There is not enough program cutting and cutbacks to have any impact. The political reality is that most programs will be protected by those administering or receiving them. Eliminating programs like Medicare are unrealistic and a waste of time. It will not happen.

That's something they obviously disagree with you about, for obvious reasons.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Skammer

Despite the fact that it's right there in the Preamble.

No, what's in the Preamble is "General Welfare", not "social welfare". The founding fathers weren't running around proposing federal programs to help the disadvantaged or disenfranchised.

[flickster]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Odonnell may be the "none of the above" candidate. She is a tea bagger, but not supported by the Repub party. She is on TV asking for party money this morning.

The GOP now claims they will provide financial support

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

That's something they obviously disagree with you about, for obvious reasons.

The obvious reasons being ill-nature and stupidity.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

That's something they obviously disagree with you about, for obvious reasons.

Peter Orzag was on Charlie Rose last night explaining it . Cutting spending will not work and can not be done anyway. If we did ,we would fundamentally change the nature of America.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11204 here is the interview explaining why you are dead wrong.