CNN: Chris Coons “can barely contain his disdain for his opponent”

posted at 10:11 pm on October 13, 2010 by Allahpundit

Just a single line in a post from Gloria Borger, but it echoes the assessment of pretty much everyone I follow on Twitter. The Daily Caller agrees:

The debate was contentious and free-wheeling, but O’Donnell failed to land many punches, much less a knock out, and was put on her heels several times when asked about her views on evolution and her past financial problems…

Coons declined to attack her on her financial past, calling it a “distraction.” But that prompted one of the more awkward lines of the night. O’Donnell referred to the multiple skits on “Saturday Night Live” in which she has been mocked for her comment that she “dabbled in witchcraft,” among other things.

“You’re just jealous that you weren’t on Saturday Night Live,” O’Donnell said to Coons.

Coons said he was “dying” to find out who would play him. But for much of the debate his scorn for O’Donnell was barely disguised, and he risked appearing overly negative toward his opponent.

Geraghty says that Coons was “terrible” and repeats another claim I heard a lot tonight, that the moderators — especially the local Delaware reporter — were deep, deep, deep in the tank for the Democrat. (“This was supposed to be a debate, not a show trial.”) As noted earlier, Coons currently leads her by a wide margin on the question of which candidate better understands “the needs and problems of people like you,” so maybe his aggressive jackassery this evening will cut into that. The only clear error she made that I saw righties on Twitter grumbling about was her failure to name a Supreme Court case she disagreed with (no Kelo?), which the Times is naturally framing as her “Palin moment.” It probably won’t matter given that she was otherwise smooth throughout and that economic issues dominate this year to the exclusion of almost all others, but it surely didn’t help. Exit question: Will she pick up a few points from tonight’s performance?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8

sharrukin on October 14, 2010 at 3:17 PM

I agree with you. I tend to not like structured term limit proposals. Never know when we’ll get a real gem of a leader.

But I think the culture of how we cultivate politicians is due for a major overhaul. Money is an issue, of course, but we’re seeing that unconnected types can do pretty well at that. I mean, these candidates whom everyone loves to loathe are raising some serious dough.

So that’s not as huge of an issue now. What seems to be a big issue right now is a huge sense of entitlement that the establishment candidates have. I mean, seriously, it’s embarassing to me, not to see an O’Donnell type. What’s embarassing is watching once staid candidates like Lisa M. and Crist completely have public melt-downs over losing a dang race.

That is so incredibly immature, unbelievable. Or Rove over Castle’s loss. He really called out his own sense of perspective and judgment in my opinion. I think she handled his nonsense far better than he handled her winning.

So who is truly the ones who need to be explaining themselves here, anyway?

AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 3:24 PM

VekTor on October 14, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Context. Go back and read a few posts in which that subject came up. So I took a short cut with my posting style. Live with it.

Webler on October 14, 2010 at 2:43 PM

It’s not my fault that what you write fails to cohere with what you mean. I understand the context quite well, as I’ve read every word of the thread. For a refreshing change of pace from what I’ve been reading of your writing, I actually understand it.

You made a ridiculous, nonsensical contention that you weren’t going to “allow” people to tell you to STFU. You might as well say that you’re not going to just let the sun rise in the east.

There’s nothing you can do about it.

If there’s anyone that needs to learn to “live with it”, it is you.

VekTor on October 14, 2010 at 3:24 PM

alwaysfiredup on October 14, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Yes, I see a pattern also. That certain posters can carry on with off topic comments and then fall back on the ‘it is off topic’ defense when they get cornered by their own undoing.

That is something we agree on.

Webler on October 14, 2010 at 3:25 PM

It’s playing the sympathy card calling O’Donnell’s memory blank a Sarah Palin moment. O’Donnell was really unprepared given that it already happened to Palin, establishing a memory already for recall.

O’Donnell’s persnickety manners aren’t going to win friends or influence people in Congress. Rather, O’Donnell will start feuds over trifles. She’s still whining that her state or the national Republicans haven’t paved her way to take the lead in polls. Because the RNC has NOT established the official party platform for all party candidates to swear to uphold, that’s really HER job to prove that she’s better than the Democrat is for America in this job, to provide her own arguments, her own agenda, her own perceptions. Her unbecoming tantrums better evaporate sooner than later.

maverick muse on October 14, 2010 at 3:26 PM

You are turning out to be someone who has a reading comprehension.

Webler on October 14, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Truer words have never been written. We have a winner, folks!

VekTor on October 14, 2010 at 3:26 PM

See, my point was made again by kingsjester on October 14, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Webler on October 14, 2010 at 12:11 PM

People, you are wasting your time on this one. He/she/it is going in circles.

silvernana on October 14, 2010 at 12:19 PM

As far as the last word – what is the big deal about that? After-all, I’m only responding to posters asking me a question. Although they seem to be going in a circles once again – so unless they can come up with something original and on topic it might be time to move to another thread.

Webler on October 14, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Tee hee! Repeating my charges against him/her/it!

silvernana on October 14, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Miss_Anthrope on October 14, 2010 at 3:13 PM

She doesn’t have any experience on her resume that’s even modestly impressive.

Like I said early, Fiorina or McMahon wouldn’t hire this twit to be their admin assistant, especially if they caught wind of her history of filing frivolous lawsuits.

Stop pretending she’s a good candidate. She isn’t. Nominating her has damaged the brand with people who actually care whether we have serious people in Congress.

She’s better than Coons but so what? Democrats always suck. Republicans need to be far better to win.

If O’Donnell is the standard for Tea Party candidates the movement is doomed to failure. She’s a joke.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 3:34 PM

I think it is long past for you to grow up and just accept that not everyone is going to “love” O’Donnell like you. It really is that simple.

Webler on October 14, 2010 at 3:00 PM

I don’t recall anyone, anywhere in this thread or any other that I’ve read on this site, asking you to love O’Donnell.

What I and others have been asking, though, is for the detractors to realize they don’t have a time machine, and that they can’t change the fact that (for this cycle), O’Donnell is the duly elected candidate for the Republicans…

Which makes the only remaining choice between now and November 2nd to be whether you would prefer for O’Donnell to win the seat, or for Coons to win the seat. You don’t get another option this cycle.

The time to offer recriminations and work to improve the candidate discovery process going forward is starting on November 3rd, 2010.

Until then, failing to keep your criticisms to yourself, no matter how legitimate they are, is a defacto action in favor of Coons winning.

If your preference is to have Coons be the Senator who is elected in DE this year, then say so. Otherwise, please stop making matters worse.

Really, that’s all most people here are asking… that you keep your powder dry until November 3rd. Then we can have a reasonable discussion about how to improve things without all of the friendly fire weakening our efforts for this election cycle.

The short-form version of that: STFU.

VekTor on October 14, 2010 at 3:34 PM

I’ve already answered it. Just because you are too lazy to go back and read all the post related to the topic and have only cherry picked that ones that you think make your case, has not fooled anyone.

If you followed along with the topic it was an attack on Hot Air posters who disagreed with the O’Donnell groupies. The were calling for a purge of those posters from “their” movement. Not from Hot Air.

You just got caught cherry picking, but I beginning to see that is the norm with a handful of posters around here.

So, I’m still waiting.

Webler on October 14, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Um, no, I quoted you directly. First you tried to stall, and now your whiny ‘cherry pick’ defense is pathetic. You still have yet to answer the question. You fail.

fossten on October 14, 2010 at 3:35 PM

I’m calling names? Who died and made you a moderator of this forum?

kingsjester on October 14, 2010 at 3:14 PM

See, kingsjester, you keep complaining about me and I answer your posts.

Let me let you in on a little secret. You don’t have to be a moderator of the forum to point out some of the name calling.

I know I’m partaking in this little game of yours, but I must say that it is getting a little silly of you to keep complaining about me and then attacking me.

Since you are childlike, then let me be take the higher road by granting you the last word – because I know that you are just dying to talk to me even if it is nonsensical mutterings of a O’Donnell groupie.

Ciao

Webler on October 14, 2010 at 3:35 PM

I agree with you. I tend to not like structured term limit proposals. Never know when we’ll get a real gem of a leader.

Not a big fan of them myself because they deny people the choice they might want. The problem is how to short circuit the incumbent culture. As they used to say, there is more turnover in the politburu than in congress.

That is so incredibly immature, unbelievable. Or Rove over Castle’s loss. He really called out his own sense of perspective and judgment in my opinion. I think she handled his nonsense far better than he handled her winning.

So who is truly the ones who need to be explaining themselves here, anyway?

AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Very good point. Until they do something like what Crist did, far too few are willing to hold them accountable. Murky sill has her position in the GOP.

sharrukin on October 14, 2010 at 3:35 PM

I’m calling names? Who died and made you a moderator of this forum?

kingsjester on October 14, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Because we all know KJ is the mod king…..sic em KJ/sarc

Bradky on October 14, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Her unbecoming tantrums better evaporate sooner than later.

maverick muse on October 14, 2010 at 3:26 PM

What are you talking about?

The only tantrum here is yours.

Got a link to one of these tantrums?

sharrukin on October 14, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Gosh, Trolls hate me. I must be doing something right. LOL.

kingsjester on October 14, 2010 at 3:38 PM

For a refreshing change of pace from what I’ve been reading of your writing, I actually understand it.

VekTor on October 14, 2010 at 3:24 PM

That’s very kind of you. And very honest for you to admit that you understood what I was saying but just decided to cause a little trouble.

I guess it is in the spirit of things. You are forgiven. Have a good one.

Webler on October 14, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Stop pretending she’s a good candidate. She isn’t. Nominating her has damaged the brand with people who actually care whether we have serious people in Congress.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Well, no time-quakes have manifested yet from you using a time machine to go back and change the candidate discovery and vetting process well before the election, so I’m going to assume that you don’t have one (or are just blowing smoke about really not wanting this situation to be what it is.)

So are you deliberately trying to help Coons, or do you simply not care that your behavior is having that marginal effect?

VekTor on October 14, 2010 at 3:41 PM

silvernana on October 14, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Feel free to do what you do best. Even if what you do best is ad hominems.

Hasta la vista, you silver haired nana.

Webler on October 14, 2010 at 3:45 PM

For a refreshing change of pace from what I’ve been reading of your writing, I actually understand it.

VekTor on October 14, 2010 at 3:24 PM

That’s very kind of you. And very honest for you to admit that you understood what I was saying but just decided to cause a little trouble.

I guess it is in the spirit of things. You are forgiven. Have a good one.

Webler on October 14, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Dishonestly eliding the context immediately before that statement, which makes the meaning of the pronoun “it” in my sentence clear, does not serve to change my meaning to one you would have preferred.

It does, however, serve to show everyone else what sort of person you are.

VekTor on October 14, 2010 at 3:47 PM

VekTor on October 14, 2010 at 3:41 PM

She’s down by 20 points with three weeks left!

I have almost as much chance of getting elected to the Senate in Delaware as she does at this point.

What I’m hoping is that the GOP sees this, gets off its ass and starts recruiting good candidates to run in the 2012 primaries.

If there’s a RINO in the district, get a hard core conservative with some sort of experience, who isn’t a flake, who can be taken seriously.

O’Donnell needs to be a 2X4 upside the head of the GOP establishment so in that sense, maybe she will ultimately be a plus. But that’s the best I can say about her.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 3:47 PM

VekTor on October 14, 2010 at 3:34 PM

I’m on my way out the door so I’m saying goodbye to everyone. I’ve already said it to you, but since you keyboarded a rather long a dry post to me, I thought I could at least acknowledge your ramblings. Which I do.

Btw, the love for O’Donnell is spread out over almost every thread that has been about the Delaware elections. You stepped into the game but you are at the wrong park. Tsk .. tsk.

Adios

Webler on October 14, 2010 at 3:51 PM

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 3:47 PM

“The Republican Party on the state level, or on the national level, neither have come in to help me close the gap in the polls. And my opponent, there’s so much to attack him on, yet the NRSC refuses to play, and that, that baffles me. Because he’s a – he’s a sitting duck”

People who facilitate such lack of support toward Crazy Christine better hope she doesn’t end up being a talking head on any non-Fox broadcasting entity. These “betters” had a chance to bring a 41-year old telegenic female in the tent, where she can urinate outside of it. Now, they are about to get this same telegenic female lobbing bombs inside the tent from her outside position.

BradSchwartze on October 14, 2010 at 3:52 PM

She’s better than Coons but so what? Democrats always suck. Republicans need to be far better to win.

Why in the world would you set the GOP up to that standard?

I personally like candidates with business backgrounds, up to a point. If they only ran businesses but really didn’t have to do much or show leadership, then that experience doesn’t mean much. Loads of people have titles. A few actually are inventive, leaders, or have a terrific grasp of how to implement programs. So titles on a resume is a fairly surefire method of being duped.

I also like candidates who have been successful in working within state and local governments. It’s not hard to find out, really, who was considered a good egg and sincere about working for people. Obama’s resume had the title, but he also had a reputation of not doing diddly. Again, titles don’t mean squat.

The worst aspect of O’Donnell’s background, to me, was that she attempted campaigns that were ambitious but failed to get the financial backing she needed. But those are the mistakes of someone unconnected, too. You learn, or maybe you don’t. But I can see that she has gotten the financial backing and the support for this attempt.

So I’m still unclear as to what would be “good enough” for you. I hear that even about Joe Miller, who has an excellent resume. You sure this isn’t really about ideology after all?

You simply don’t like their ideas?

AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 3:52 PM

BradSchwartze on October 14, 2010 at 3:52 PM

I agree. And she didn’t have to lie, either. That is what they are doing.

AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 3:54 PM

If that is the case then why do you spend so much time posting about me or to me.

Shouldn’t you try to stay on topic and ignore me?

What is the matter with some of you? Are you so used to having people melt under your constant name calling? C’mon, grow up – this forum will be that much better for it.
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Webler, it’s easy to see who the lost causes are. They don’t really care about you or your opinions, and they aren’t going to start doing so by reasoning with them. So, why take them so seriously? It will only lead to frustration if you do that.

They are not worth the time, believe me! Most of my family is the same way. For example, I went to family counseling some years back with my parents. I had asked them to go because we had terrible communication problems, and I wanted to resolve that. After a few sessions, they quit going because they were starting to have to face why I was so unhappy with them. Of course, they blamed me for why they quit, saying that they stopped going because I didn’t want to go anymore! I was like, WTF?! I pointed out that I still wanted to go, but they never heard me; they couldn’t.

Change can’t start until such people admit that the problem mainly lies with them, and you should know that that isn’t going to happen.

Bizarro No. 1 on October 14, 2010 at 3:55 PM

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1010/From_Palin_to_ODonnell.html?showall
Shes’ NOT ALONE!
Funny thing happened on the way to “the Witch burning”,

three libtards and a quite a few Elitist Rinos lit themselves on fire!

I’m sure we can count on Tokyo Rove and SourKraut to come along and put some salve on it!

dhunter on October 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM

fossten on October 14, 2010 at 3:35 PM

No matter how many times you fail is really up to you.

I’m still waiting, and it looks like you are not going to produce any such thing.

Nice try, but don’t let it get you down. I really do hope you are a lot more civil in our next conversation. And I would really appreciate it if you could make an effort to stay on topic next time.

Hasta pronto!

Webler on October 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM

AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 3:52 PM

I’ve seen more impressive resumes from admin assistants.

She’s not remotely Senate material and it’s immaterial what she says when she has done nothing to back it up.

Democrats have resumes like this (e.g. CBC) and it’s one thing I loathe about the Democrat Party.

I’m not going to give a “Republican” a free pass on this.

Turn the tables and Rush and Levin would be pummeling a Democrat with a resume like this, they did it to Obama and they were right.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Power corrupts and that is one reason I would think a limit of 10-12 years in Washington might not be that bad of an idea. Some of the new blood may be idiots, but then most of the old blood are proven idiots, so we aren’t losing much in that trade.

sharrukin on October 14, 2010 at 3:17 PM

Power does not corrupt; perceived immunity corrupts.
We need a law enforcement agency that’s sole authority is investigating, and prosecuting members of Congress, and their staffs.

Slowburn on October 14, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Power does not corrupt; perceived immunity corrupts.
We need a law enforcement agency that’s sole authority is investigating, and prosecuting members of Congress, and their staffs.

Slowburn on October 14, 2010 at 4:03 PM

The problem would be who guards the guardians?

The selective prosecution, or just protracted investigation of certain candidates would be a powerful tool in anyones hands. Vote the way we want and the investigation can be cleared up right away.

sharrukin on October 14, 2010 at 4:06 PM

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM

That’s OK. Lots of people find populism distasteful for that reason. I personally like it.

BTW, Barbara Boxer is a dumb as a box of rocks, which her peers will even tell you. LOL*

I think the GOP has more than a few that make me laugh, too. It might be scarier if some of them did read bills. They might not just do what they are told, then.

In any case, I have a basic disagreement. I like the idea that anyone is free to toss their hat in, and voters determine qualification by voting for or against them.

AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 4:07 PM

We need a law enforcement agency that’s sole authority is investigating, and prosecuting members of Congress, and their staffs.

Slowburn on October 14, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Who will investigate them? The answer is not more oversight or more investigations, then answer is to put honorable people in office.

darwin on October 14, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Slowburn on October 14, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Overseen by whom?

The problem is that the American people nominate and elect jackasses.

Term limits and another layer of law enforcement will solve nothing when the American people insist on putting worthless jackasses into elective office.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 4:08 PM

If that is the case then why do you spend so much time posting about me or to me.

Shouldn’t you try to stay on topic and ignore me?

What is the matter with some of you? Are you so used to having people melt under your constant name calling? C’mon, grow up – this forum will be that much better for it.
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Webler, it’s easy to see who the lost causes are. They don’t really care about you or your opinions, and they aren’t going to start doing so by reasoning with them. So, why take them so seriously? It will only lead to frustration if you do that.

They are not worth the time, believe me! Most of my family is the same way. For example, I went to family counseling some years back with my parents. I had asked them to go because we had terrible communication problems, and I wanted to resolve that. After a few sessions, they quit going because they were starting to have to face why I was so unhappy with them. Of course, they blamed me for why they quit, saying that they stopped going because I didn’t want to go anymore! I was like, WTF?! I pointed out that I still wanted to go, but they never heard me; they couldn’t.

Change can’t start until such people admit that the problem mainly lies with them, and you should know that that isn’t going to happen.

Bizarro No. 1 on October 14, 2010 at 3:55 PM

You make some excellent points Bizarro No. 1. I realize that there is no hope for those O’Donnell groupies who want to purge the party of conservatives who do not march lock-step with twisted purity tests.

This is not to be confused with those who only support O’Donnell and are normal. Those ones I’m talking about are just like the Obamabot’s but on the other side of the divide. That is how strange this forum has gotten in the last three weeks.

Although I would like to point out one thing. Their silly nonsense with their purity tests, and my Dad can beat up you Dad mantra is more comical than any real threat to the Republic. So, their little rantings don’t bother me. I just like to poke them in the eye with my truth stick. Watch them become unhinged.

As I said in an earlier post – water off a duck’s back.

Anyhow, thanx for the suggestions Bizarro No 1. I’ll take my leave now as I leaving too much of their blood around the forum.

Have a good day.

Webler on October 14, 2010 at 4:13 PM

Btw, the love for O’Donnell is spread out over almost every thread that has been about the Delaware elections. You stepped into the game but you are at the wrong park. Tsk .. tsk.

Webler on October 14, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Yes, there are people who like O’Donnell. You might even fairly characterize some of them as “loving” her.

But that is a universe away from the implication that they have asked you to love her.

Most are simply asking that folks like you who don’t like her, to at least stop making matters worse. It’s a pity that you apparently cannot recognize that distinction. You’re hardly alone in that respect.

I haven’t seen people yet on these threads who are asking those who don’t like O’Donnell to love her. I’ve seen a lot of folks asking people to either rally behind the duly elected candidate as a general rule, or sit quietly on the sidelines until the election is over if you don’t like the candidate. That’s a reasonable request. It’s simply asking those dissatisfied with the results of that primary to avoid making the decidedly uphill battle to get her elected harder for those who would prefer to not see Coons elected.

VekTor on October 14, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Webler on October 14, 2010 at 4:13 PM

Marvin K. Mooney, Will You Please Go Now?

You’ve promised this was your “last word” about 10 times. Please god let it be true!

alwaysfiredup on October 14, 2010 at 4:21 PM

If you don’t lavish attention on the Trolls they will;
1.) Vanish ie. STFU or
2.) Converse amongst themselves which is fairly entertaining at times or
3.) In their quest for attention get progressively more aggressive until they get themselves banned!

Either way they won’t control the thread with stupid, boring, repetitive arguments!

dhunter on October 14, 2010 at 4:26 PM

VekTor on October 14, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Now we prefer not to see Coons elected?

I thought it didn’t matter?

Because if it did, you would have nominated Castle. Not that I have any great use for him, other than another Senate seat.

O’Donnell never had a chance, unless Coons completely imploded.

Many people wanted to take down a RINO. You did that.

You have a poor candidate in a blue state where it’s hard to elect RINOs, much less candidates who espouse views this candidate does.

Of course she’s going to lose. She never had the slightest chance from the beginning and there’s nothing the Republican establishment or anyone else could have done to help her.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Hasta la vista, you silver haired nana.

Webler on October 14, 2010 at 3:45 PM

The silver does not refer to my hair color. You’re leaving too much blood around the forum? How old are you anyway – 14? You’ve had your ass kicked all over the place on here by many people, and none of your crap even makes sense. I believe you have promised to leave, so why don’t you get on with it.

silvernana on October 14, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Marvin K. Mooney, Will You Please Go Now?

You’ve promised this was your “last word” about 10 times. Please god let it be true!

alwaysfiredup on October 14, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Personally, I hope he keeps coming back – it’s entertaining watching group-think dimwits like you get so irked!!! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on October 14, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Now here is a candidate to get excited about:

http://www.draftchristie2012.com/

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Although I would like to point out one thing. Their silly nonsense with their purity tests, and my Dad can beat up you Dad mantra is more comical than any real threat to the Republic. So, their little rantings don’t bother me. I just like to poke them in the eye with my truth stick. Watch them become unhinged.

Webler on October 14, 2010 at 4:13 PM

I want to make it clear to you, because I didn’t do a very good of it, that I didn’t assume you were taking the blindly intolerant nuts too seriously; I was trying to be helpful, just in case you were!

Bizarro No. 1 on October 14, 2010 at 4:47 PM

I want to make it clear to you, because I didn’t do a very good of it, that I didn’t assume you were taking the blindly intolerant nuts too seriously; I was trying to be helpful, just in case you were!

Bizarro No. 1 on October 14, 2010 at 4:47 PM

Do you have some examples of this “blind intolerance”?

darwin on October 14, 2010 at 5:03 PM

Do you have some examples of this “blind intolerance”?

darwin on October 14, 2010 at 5:03 PM

LOL surely, you can’t be serious.

Bring up Lamont vs. Lieberman and ask, who has the form, manners, and maturity most closely resembling Lamont’s supporters here: Miss O’D’s, or those who have been critical of her? If you answer that in any way that’s dishonest and/or incivil, you’re one of the lost causes I referred to above.

Bizarro No. 1 on October 14, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on October 14, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Way to avoid the question. You said “blind intolerance”. I asked for examples.

darwin on October 14, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Now we prefer not to see Coons elected?

I thought it didn’t matter?

Because if it did, you would have nominated Castle.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Let’s go slow here. Somehow, it still keeps not registering with you.

Time is linear, and unidirectional. What we can do today might not be the same as what we could have done earlier.

That’s not some ideological flaw, that’s reality. Try embracing it. Since you cannot go back in time and make Castle or anyone other than O’Donnell into the Republican candidate for this cycle, you’re looking at a binary choice in Delaware this year.

To within rounding error, we can be certain that either Coons or O’Donnell will be the elected Senator this year. The only remaining decision that any of us can change is which one that will be.

The chance of O’Donnell winning is not high. That doesn’t mean you should be trying to make it lower than it is, unless you want Coons to win.

If you do, I wish you’d finally come right out and actually say it. Because this posturing on your part is more than tiresome. If you want to have a knock-down, drag-out about what a crappy job the vetting committee did this year, and how that REALLY needs to be fixed, I’m all for having that discussion.

After November 2nd. Because having it before then is, at the margins, improving the chances of Coons winning, and that chance is not 100%.

Now that we’re in the situation that we’re in, I want to minimize the chance of his winning. Will you help in that effort, or will you continue to make matters worse?

VekTor on October 14, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Way to avoid the question. You said “blind intolerance”. I asked for examples.

darwin on October 14, 2010 at 5:32 PM

“avoid”? LOL

What part of “you can’t be serious” are you having trouble with?

Based upon how I’ve seen you treat me and others you disagree with about Miss O’D, I won’t take you seriously and I won’t answer what I consider to a laughable question, until you can give me just one good reason why I should care about you enough to engage you on your level. Just one; that’s all I ask. You up to the challenge? Please believe me when I tell you I won’t be waiting to see! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on October 14, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Okay, after reading the thread from when I left I have a new person for my do not respond list.

Cindy Munford on October 14, 2010 at 6:47 PM

Okay, after reading the thread from when I left I have a new person for my do not respond list.

Cindy Munford on October 14, 2010 at 6:47 PM

Let me guess.

silvernana on October 14, 2010 at 7:02 PM

silvernana on October 14, 2010 at 7:02 PM

LOL!!!

Cindy Munford on October 14, 2010 at 7:47 PM

I have almost as much chance of getting elected to the Senate in Delaware as she does at this point.

What I’m hoping is that the GOP sees this, gets off its ass and starts recruiting good candidates to run in the 2012 primaries.

If there’s a RINO in the district, get a hard core conservative with some sort of experience, who isn’t a flake, who can be taken seriously.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 3:47 PM

What makes you think the GOP will suddenly start backing conservative candidates?

When has the GOP ever backed a con over a moderate (non-incumbent) Repub?

spinach.chin on October 14, 2010 at 8:13 PM

I’ve seen more impressive resumes from admin assistants.

She’s not remotely Senate material and it’s immaterial what she says when she has done nothing to back it up.

Your required qualifications for election to the legislative branch is, frankly, absurd.

Now, if you’re talking about EXECUTIVES (i.e. mayors, governors, POTUS), I’m with you – give me someone who has tons of successful business or military service.

However, the job of senators and congressmen/women (unless you’re in a leadership position) basically consists of showing up and casting a vote. Seriously, what do you expect of a freshman senator? I read your “qualifications” for senators, and I guarantee that the number of people who meet those criteria AND would also be willing to leave their extremely successful careers to become media pincushions is positively minuscule.

O’Donnell never had a chance, unless Coons completely imploded.

Of course she’s going to lose. She never had the slightest chance from the beginning and there’s nothing the Republican establishment or anyone else could have done to help her.

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Sure they could have. As I’ve stated previously, O’Donnell was polling better than Coons this past summer (before the primary). The establishment could have supported her from the start and dumped Castle early on. Would that have been enough to put her in the lead? Maybe not, but she would certainly be polling much better now, and she would at least have a fighting chance.

I find it funny that, at the same time you implore the GOP to back “qualified” conservative candidates, you’d apparently rather they back a liberal Republican who (I’m assuming) in your eyes is somehow more qualified because he’s already a politician, than a principled (albeit admittedly lackluster) conservative candidate.

spinach.chin on October 14, 2010 at 8:50 PM

NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM

If we have a dumba$$ in the WH as U.S. President who after pushing $700 billion for “Shovel Ready Jobs” saying he NOW realizes there’s no such thing as publicly funded “Shovel Ready Jobs” then lets not go talking about resumes and what-not when bringing up Sara Palin’s lack or a COD’s lack. Democrats leave a very big gap between what they consider ‘competent” in their candidates and what Republicans consider ‘incompetent” in their candidates. But all in all, Pres. Obama has brought the bar down quite low. I feel that way everytime I see him on TV getting of the helicopter to go to the WH. Realistically, I say to myself, if this guy came be President, seriously, any moron with have the backing can be President. So COD’s sniping about the Senatorial Committee has a lot of merit. But calling her unworthy is a bit of a ruse now, isn’t it? She’s capable enough. If my state’s dumba$$ Senator Boxer can be Senator for as long as she has COD could do FAR BETTER. Have you ever heard a conversation from Boxer? Her handlers do all the work, she’s just a propped up actress who knows how to memorize her lines and talking points. Past that, there’s nothing upstairs.

Again, let’s not talk about resumes. This state isn’t all that big a powerful anyway. (no offense to those from Delaware..)

Sultry Beauty on October 15, 2010 at 4:58 AM

He is a man of faith who at one time preached (and apparently still does), but who believes in the right to kill the unborn in the womb. What kind of faith and/or religion is that? :/

Theophile on October 15, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8