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?
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: « Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next »
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 11:50 AM
You’re being nailed for being derisive and condecending and then you are complaining that we noticed it. You’re entitled to your opinion. However,just because you said it doesn’t make it the unwavering standard. Castle was not elected by the voters of Delaware as their Republican candidate. That’s the reality of the situation.
kingsjester on October 14, 2010 at 11:59 AM
Thank you so much.
Cindy Munford on October 14, 2010 at 12:00 PM
Not everyone is eager to accept the DeMint strategy of permanent minority status.
All that ensures is Democrats maintain control, and continue pushing their agenda down our throats un-impeded.
Vyce on October 14, 2010 at 12:02 PM
This is my last post on this because I’m not going to get into a pi$$ing contest with you.
First of all, I didn’t suggest you were trying to make the rules. I said “fortunately, you do not make the rules”. Two different things entirely.
Secondly, maybe I missed it, but I don’t remember reading that any commenter on here wants people purged from commenting because they disagree with them. Just haven’t seen that, so if you could refer me to some, I will rest my case. In any case, there is a way to say who they are without calling them “thugs”. It does seem that you are arguing just for argument’s sake at this point, since you have had your a$$ kicked by several on here. At some point, don’t you think it is time to move on as it just gets tiring?
silvernana on October 14, 2010 at 12:02 PM
You’re OK with more Obamacrats in Congress?
Good Lt on October 14, 2010 at 12:02 PM
Thanks for the inside scoop!
Gang-of-One on October 14, 2010 at 12:02 PM
Absolutely correct. It is time to stop treating these elections as life time positions. I am looking at you Sen. Murkowski. I’d like to scale back on their retirement benefits also.
Cindy Munford on October 14, 2010 at 12:03 PM
Your welcome..:)
Dire Straits on October 14, 2010 at 12:06 PM
The part you are missing is the part that was in the post that I was answering. Another poster claimed that I could not handle a difference of opinion.
That is not what I’m talking about. Since I have been posting in this thread I think it has been brought up about 7-8 times that I can’t handle a difference of opinion and I keep explaining that, that is not what I’m talking about.
If people would understand then I would not need to keep repeating it. Although that is standard in a forum because most, if not all, posters aren’t going to go back and read the previous exchanges — especially when there isn’t a hyperlink back to the posts.
So, that is the part I keep pointing out.
As I pointed out earlier, I mainly post on blogs that I can argue with Obamabots and Islam apologists. So this difference-of-opinion argument is lame since the exchanges in other forums get pretty heated.
And if I stay in this thread for a little while longer then another poster is going to log on and make the same claim. That is the way it works.
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 12:09 PM
No but I can’t do anything about Maine, I don’t live there. Seriously though, things are what they are.
Cindy Munford on October 14, 2010 at 12:10 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
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
I, me, mine, I’m, whine, moan, woe is me, etc.
kingsjester on October 14, 2010 at 12:14 PM
The argument that this is the “fault” of teapartiers for voting for O’Donnell, and that’s why she’s going to fail because she’s so awful would work except for some glaring and obvious points:
1. She had to waste valuable time after winning with the savage attacks from her own GOP party. There is simply no way to deny that. Had Rove said something mildly critical? Then, you might be able to mount that argument. However, he did not. He went in for the kill.
2. She obviously isn’t awful on policy issues, demonstrated in the debate. And she’s clearly not a doormat, since she handled the moderator questions well. She refused to allow them to get her off message, so her ability to hold her ground is now settled.
3. She pulled in more voters than anyone expected in the primary, clearly showing that she has the ability to get backers. The GOP turnout was twice what was expected. That’s no small feat.
Mostly, Rove’s rant completely disputes the idea that this is a collosal fail for the DE GOP conservatives. He didn’t just insert a skeptical comment. The man bashed her continuously for nearly a week. And that made him now a part of the fall-out.
Game, set, match. He wins.
I personally think it’s a foolhardy win on the part of the establishment. If they honestly think that people are going to go for another round of what we saw from the GOP before? Think twice.
That will never fly. The fact is that it’s the teaparty basic messages that are resonating with people. It’s certainly not the messages from the connected GOP elites.
AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 12:14 PM
I’m not OK with it, I think it was breathtakingly stupid.
Boxy_Brown on October 14, 2010 at 12:15 PM
I’ve gotten into discussions where posters pile on, but I hope that 90% of the time, anyway, it’s over issues, not over me.
You’re making this all about you. Having the last word really isn’t all that great as it’s cracked up to be.
AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 12:18 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
I see what you guys mean now. This glitch with being unable to refresh is annoying as heck!
AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 12:20 PM
He didn’t ask you to stop commenting.
Cindy Munford on October 14, 2010 at 12:25 PM
When the current leadership had power, did they reduce the size of government?
True_King on October 14, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Bingo. The ONLY way to win will be to ensure that the establishment group is not back cozy. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 12:35 PM
Greene only has 11% support in the latest Rasmussen poll. Jim DeMint probably doesn’t feel the need to attack him either. Greene will crash and burn on his own, and DeMint will cruise to re-election.
As for Delaware, people can lament the fact that Castle lost the primary, and he would have been a better Senator than Coons, but the primary is over and the choice is now between O’Donnell and Coons. She may have an uphill battle, but let’s get behind O’Donnell now, as O’Donnell herself would probably get behind Castle if he had won the primary.
Steve Z on October 14, 2010 at 12:38 PM
That’s an understatement. :)
I wouldn’t suggest that she quit, but she’s bound to be experiencing some ground problems with these poll numbers and bad press.
Nevertheless, it was a good debate/discussion for voters nationally. They both outlined their policy platforms. It was easy to see the differences, and that is the point of any debate.
The races are all tightening now, with a few exceptions where voters have clearly made their minds up. And it’s getting to that stage where the ads will make people crazy, but a lot of people will in fact, decide in the next couple of weeks.
AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 12:43 PM
I can tell by your rebuttal that you did indeed realize that you made my point.
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 12:55 PM
lovingmyUSA on October 14, 2010 at 10:45 AM
O’Donnell wouldn’t make the cut as Carly Fiorina’s or Linda McMahon’s admin assistant, with her resume.
She would get rolled in Washington, she could be another Schwarzenegger, wooed by the press and ending up switching sides.
NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 12:57 PM
can tell by your rebuttal that you did indeed realize that you made my point.
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 12:55 PM
Then you suffer from a lack of comprehensive reading skills, not to mention a self over-estimation of intelligence.
kingsjester on October 14, 2010 at 12:58 PM
I agree with most of your post, but disagree with your observation that I’m making it about myself.
And even agree with your comment on the last word.
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 12:59 PM
From Geraghty:
Ok, so why exactly should she represent Delaware then?
Last I checked, folks were in agreement that a conservative state should be represented by a conservative candidate. So why is it acceptable that a liberal state should be represented by a conservative candidate?
Coons suits DE just fine.
Niko on October 14, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Quite frankly, having read your posts for some time, I’m a little surprised that you don’t seem to be understanding my posts and are making comments to me about something I never suggested.
The point about reading your posts for some time was because I thought you had pretty sound judgment.
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 1:05 PM
Fair enough. I should have said that when I do engage, I come away feeling that somehow, the discussion has become all about me rather than the topic.
But I blog also on liberal sites, so I’m very used to ignoring personal attack stuff. Even though I rarely respond, I sometimes actually have to just leave a thread because they have gotten themselves so worked up that it’s become about me, even without my engaging! LOL*
AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 1:06 PM
Be careful, you will get accused of snark. Not to mention getting called out by other posters for a few insults in one post.
Oh the irony.
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 1:10 PM
Well, like I said above, not being very familiar with your comments I am willing to believe that I am misunderstanding you but I think it is safe to say that I am not alone. Always remember me that when you read my comments, they are totally devoid of anger. This stuff is interesting and I am truly interested but I don’t get emotional about it. I take the current circumstances and go from there.
Cindy Munford on October 14, 2010 at 1:11 PM
I’m a bit of a contrarian, I know, but I think the true problem in DE wasn’t framed properly. The truth is that the establishment who backed Castle is not in touch with the base there, and is a bit more like the Dems in that regard.
And I also think that the establishment candidates for the GOP has a lot to do with tightening races right now. The head of the GOP in NV backs Reid. Lisa M. can’t step down. Crist wants the Dem to step aside, which is truly hilarious. Castle couldn’t even congratulate O’Donnell, nevermind endorse her. Rove is guilty of downright slander, frankly, against O’Donnell.
It’s depressing the base. They are now wary of the party entirely. My guess is that the polls are showing a fall-out from all this and voters aren’t as enthused.
If it’s going to be that candidates don’t really get the backing, why bother to reelect the GOP?
Same ole, same ole….just a different label on the party.
AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 1:11 PM
You nailed it!
The next two years could help the GOP a lot if they stand by their principles, or at least borrow a few from someone else. If not, the next two years could see Obama re-elected.
sharrukin on October 14, 2010 at 1:17 PM
We’re trying to make changes. We don’t want to go back to the old GOP. The old GOP is, naturally, making this difficult. And some who don’t want the old GOP still can’t see that in order to make that change, we need a different kind of politician, a kind one that doesn’t look or sound like the others. Some call them “crazy” and “unqualified”. I call them the new GOP.
alwaysfiredup on October 14, 2010 at 1:19 PM
Heh.
Links?
Emperor Norton on October 14, 2010 at 1:21 PM
I think, again…..bit of a contrarian here….that the grassroots teaparties may just veer off the path again and focus on state races and building a network there.
Then, the establishment will have to go to them for the support.
Let the big boys duke it out nationally. None of them are much different from the others, frankly. You could plug in a Dem or a GOP establishment guy, and come within 20% of the exact same policy decisions.
LOL*
Told you…I’m a contrarian.
AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 1:22 PM
Hate to break it to you, but this year a lot of people see things in exactly the same way. The GOP/Democrats are interchangeable in far too many cases.
I am a little worried that they may decide they have more in common with each other than the unwashed masses of the Tea Party/PUMA sentiment. Some of that is already going on with the sore loser episodes we have seen.
sharrukin on October 14, 2010 at 1:27 PM
Pick any of the top lefty sites and I’ve posted on the ones that permit a difference of opinion.
Pick any blogs/forums on Islam and I’ve probably have posted in them at one time or another this past decade.
Now, why don’t you tell me about your credentials?
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 1:31 PM
I pick JihadWatch.
Link?
sharrukin on October 14, 2010 at 1:32 PM
For or against?
Emperor Norton on October 14, 2010 at 1:38 PM
In the legislature the most important thing is your POV.
TheBigOldDog on October 14, 2010 at 10:48 AM
Utter nonsense, you have absolutely no idea how Washington works.
I lived it for a decade and that’s 10 years longer than Rush or Beck have.
You go up there with O’Donnell’s resume and you get rolled like a drunk on Bourbon Street.
Doesn’t matter what your heart says if your mind can’t get anything out of committee.
You want chimp lever pullers, then see what happens. They’ll get nothing done, they’ll be out on their ass once their term expires and we’ll be looking at a Democrat wave in two years.
NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 1:39 PM
Why do we care what Webler’s “credentials” are? Why do posters have to provide credentials at all? There are no qualifications to leave a comment on a board. Webbie, quit hijacking, it’s tiresome.
alwaysfiredup on October 14, 2010 at 1:39 PM
Ah, a Washington insider. That explains a lot. :)
alwaysfiredup on October 14, 2010 at 1:40 PM
MY candidate? I thought she was the REPUBLICAN candidate.
Are you not a Republican? Ah, that makes so much more sense now.
fossten on October 14, 2010 at 1:40 PM
Rush is talking on the COD debate..Pounding Wolf Blitzer..:)
Dire Straits on October 14, 2010 at 1:40 PM
That was my answer. Pick any of of them and I have probably posted on them.
Yeah, very familiar with Spencer’s site. Just google Jihad Watch and you should find it.
Now, why don’t you tell me about your credentials?
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 1:42 PM
Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:
Source A says that p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.
fossten on October 14, 2010 at 1:43 PM
Still waiting for you to post examples of ‘wanted to purge’ posts from HA commenters.
fossten on October 14, 2010 at 1:44 PM
Interesting how some people are suggesting that it is all about me and two posters almost back to back want to make this about me.
Have they no shame. Plus they seem to really want to hijack this thread.
I’ll repeat what was stated to me. Stay on topic or get the h*ll out of the thread.
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 1:44 PM
Thank Heavens for Rush Limbaugh. He’s doing the job gutless wonder Mike Castle won’t do….helping Christine O’Donnell.
olesparkie on October 14, 2010 at 1:45 PM
BLOWBACK: When Elite Arrogance Meets Civic Response.
Mutnodjmet on October 14, 2010 at 1:45 PM
On what planets are making blog comments considered “credentials?”
You are a funny, funny guy.
Emperor Norton on October 14, 2010 at 1:45 PM
Seriously, stfu.
alwaysfiredup on October 14, 2010 at 1:45 PM
Did you ask that already?
And can you point out where I said that?
I’ll be waiting.
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 1:46 PM
Then why would you ask?
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 1:47 PM
If we can just get the GOP back in the stable (SurveyUSA had 20% of conservatives and Republicans voting for Coons..wth??), and make some inroads with women, she’s got a shot. If Coons goes all Martha Coakley I-don’t-have-to-stand-in-the-cold-to-meet-voters, even better.
alwaysfiredup on October 14, 2010 at 1:49 PM
olesparkie on October 14, 2010 at 1:45 PM
Why would you want a “RINO gutless wonder’s” endorsement?
“Hi, Mike Castle, gutless RINO here. I’d like to endorse this flaky, deadbeat, lawsuit filing witch here for the Senate.”
If only. She’d be ahead by 10 points by now!
NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 1:49 PM
Grow up. I have a bunch of Hot Air yahoo’s trying their best to silence me. Oh right, it is not about me.
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 1:50 PM
I love it when he calls Obama “the least experienced person in the room”. It’s funny because it’s true.
But now if he doesn’t want to be, he can just invite Chrissy to drop by.
NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 1:52 PM
You are making it all about you. I and others are trying to talk about the race and you’re all about “credentials” for posting comments on the internet. STFU unless you have something relevant to say.
alwaysfiredup on October 14, 2010 at 1:53 PM
Obama is the president. CO’D wants to be a senator. Really not the same thing.
alwaysfiredup on October 14, 2010 at 1:54 PM
The base of Delaware is not in touch with the OVERALL electorate of Delaware.
The base wanted a hardline, ideological conservative (or someone who at least talks like they are).
That’s not even remotely what the OVERALL electorate of DE wants. Which is why she’s always been running behind by large margins.
Which is the most frustrating thing about O’Donnell supporters. At what point will they acknowledge that maybe Delaware judge wants a liberal or a “RINO” representing them. I’m not sure I’ll see such an admission, because it goes against this Jim DeMint myth that Americans really do want a majority of ideologically conservative politicians representing them in Congress.
Vyce on October 14, 2010 at 1:57 PM
Go back and read the last 4 pages of posts. I see you aren’t saying anything to the posters that are going off topic to question me on anything but the topic.
It is because I stated my opinion on O’Donnell that other posters don’t agree with. And that is a sore point with them.
Stop the hypocrisy and stay on topic.
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Yes it is about you. No one here is trying to silence you … how would that be possible?
darwin on October 14, 2010 at 1:58 PM
I take exception to that. I first replied to you when you stated how people were attacking anyone who didn’t like O’Donnell. Apparently the sore point is with you not being able to handle comments disagreeing with your perception.
darwin on October 14, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Off topic again by you.
You are right though — I not going to let a bunch of yahoo’s tell me to STFU.
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 2:02 PM
How about after the election once we determine what the electorate of DE does and doesn’t want?
alwaysfiredup on October 14, 2010 at 2:05 PM
I’m disappointed in the lack of opposition research on the Coons family business which COD briefly mentioned last night.
The family business is W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. They make Gore-Tex fiber and many other products. Let’s see how ‘diverse’ their workforce is, whether they have shipped any jobs overseas, whether there are any cases the EEOC has taken up against them, if any harrassment cases against them have been brought, what the CEO’s salary and bonuses are, how many people they have laid off lately, what government ‘stimulus’ they have received, what their federal and state government lobbying setup looks like and what they have spent money on, what marginal tax avoidance measures they have taken, their record on hazardous waste and pollution, etc.
You know if it was a company owned by a Republican family, that half of al New York Times would be camped outside the company HQ.
slickwillie2001 on October 14, 2010 at 2:06 PM
How can I be the cause of being off topic when I’m replying to something you said?
Look buddy, we’re on the same side here. If you want the last word go right ahead, I won’t respond. Make it good so you won’t feel like to have to add anything later.
darwin on October 14, 2010 at 2:07 PM
Again off topic by you.
Take all the exceptions you want, but like the some of the other posters you have a short memory.
Difference of opinion I relish. Not what is now being called the “thug purity” nonsense by certain posters who can’t stand that others have a different opinion of O’Donnell.
If you want to keep beating this to death, by all means, keep going. I don’t see how much more clearer I can be. I would have thought by my 2-3 post in this thread it would have been pretty clear.
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 2:10 PM
And the time to have that conversation is not before November 3rd, 2010. In the meantime, your continued trashing of sub-optimal candidates who actually won the primary casts you in the role of “useful idiot” to the benefit of those you ostensibly oppose.
You are engaging in friendly fire in a combat zone. That you might have legitimate disagreements about the deployment strategy doesn’t forgive your current actions.
Stop making things worse, for Pete’s sake!
There will be time for the airing of grievances at Festivus. In the meantime, soldier on, soldier.
VekTor on October 14, 2010 at 2:18 PM
So, we’ve seen Senator Al Franken regularly getting “rolled like a drunk on Bourbon Street”? Oh wait, he has a radically stronger resume that O’Donnell, right? Could you point out what exactly made him “qualified” to be a Senator?
Has he led 1,000 or more subordinates?
VekTor on October 14, 2010 at 2:22 PM
When I brought that up about 3 pages ago I was told that it didn’t cut it. So, actually we are on that same page with that.
Now, you say we are on the same side. Good, I will take your word for it, since that has been what I have been stating in so many of the O’Donnell threads. However, for some posters that doesn’t seem to wash with them. So if you say we are on the same side then I will accept your word for it and disregard your past comments.
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
Fascinating. What is it that leads you to believe that this behavior is something you have the power to “let” happen, or in this case, not let happen?
How, exactly, do you plan on not letting them tell you that?
VekTor on October 14, 2010 at 2:25 PM
VekTor on October 14, 2010 at 2:25 PM
By hijacking the thread, as he’s done since this morning.
kingsjester on October 14, 2010 at 2:28 PM
Stunning. You read my post, which quoted you saying it, and then you referred to my post which quoted you saying it, and in the same post you demanded to know where you said it.
Can you stop the nonsense, little boy, and just answer the question now, please?
fossten on October 14, 2010 at 2:30 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
What have you done in this thread. It is amazing how much overtime posting I have driven the O’Donnell groupies by disagreeing with them.
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 2:46 PM
As I thought – you have no evidence to back up your ‘victim’ claims. Buh-bye, troll.
fossten on October 14, 2010 at 2:47 PM
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 2:46 PM
You are an insufferable popinjay.
kingsjester on October 14, 2010 at 2:48 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
Arlen Specter was ‘qualified,’ wasn’t he? See what good being ‘qualified’ gets ya? He switched parties, too.
Wait, I think I know what you mean – Specter was able to vote in such a way that one org assessed him as ‘pro-life’ as another determined he was ‘pro-choice’…is that what you mean by qualified?
I call them normal people, something of which we need more in DC.
Heck, I’d probably call some of them family!
Hallelujah! We’ve found the solution to our real problem (gov’t doing too much).
I’m in this camp…if you are too, then vote in your local chimp!
Suweet!
How is Castle a ‘moderate’ to you? Because he’s got an R after his name? Gee, I thought it was someone who’s socially liberal and FISCALLY conservative who qualified as a ‘moderate.’
Castle did vote pro-military and pro-business, but there’s much more to it than that to qualify as a RINO. I mean, a Dem or an Indy to make the grade in your book.
(Lower taxes. Smaller government. Fewer regulations. Lower government spending. All those pesky little details. The REAL ‘purity’ test.)
So, let’s look at Castle’s FISCAL voting record (beyond military & business votes), shall we?
INCREASED GOV’T SPENDING
YES on Stimulus II (09)
YES on GM/Chrysler bailout (09)
YES on Cash/Clunkers (09)
YES on Stimulus I (08)
YES on adding $10B through 2013 for Amtrak (08)
YES on increasing waterway spending from $4B to $23B (07)
YES on increasing annual funding from $214M to $900M for Amtrak (06)
YES on adding $70M to Section 8 housing (06)
INCREASED GOV’T REGULATION/ANTI-INDIVIDUAL
YES on CO2 limits (09)
YES on restricting independent grassroots PACs (06)
NO on prohibiting gun misuse suits vs. mfrs (05)
NO on prohibiting gun misuse suits vs. sellers (03)
YES on McCain-Feingold (02)
YES on Kyoto (00)
NO on strengthening Social Security lockbox (99)
HIGHER TAXES/ANTI-SMALL BUSINESS
YES on extending unemployment benefits (08)
NO on extending middle-income exemptions in AMT (08)
YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25 (07)
NO on eliminating ‘death tax’ (01)
ANTI-ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
YES on extending offshore drilling moratorium (06)
YES on scheduling permits for new refineries (06), but…
NO for authorizing construction of new refineries (05)
NO on drilling in ANWR (01)
So, tell me again how having Coons in office will be WORSE than Castle? Seriously…your assessment of Castle as a ‘moderate’ is a joke. Do your homework before you make a statement of ‘fact’ like this next time.
I think if DE is just thatliberal, then who cares if their Rep has an R or D after their name? The results look to be pretty much the same…wouldn’t you agree?
PS – Did you know Castle voted against the Health Care Bill 11 days after O’Donnell officially entered the race? Apparently, he didn’t think he needed to beef up his ‘Conservative Street Creds’ until he had an opponent (even though COD unofficially announced her candidacy Feb 09).
I guess he didn’t think she’d be taken seriously by even DE voters. Guess he was WRONG on that one.
Miss_Anthrope on October 14, 2010 at 2:59 PM
You are turning out to be someone who has a reading comprehension. VekTor was complaining about how I am going to get someone to stop saying STFU. Which is not what I meant, but he/she was getting cute with my language posting style.
If you want to read the STFU comments they are still there.
You are wrong constantly and yet you call me a troll. 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
That’s actually reassuring that I am not alone in this one. I think they are very, very angry and showing it shamelessly. And for that reason alone, I’d be very much back to thinking carefully before I voted for an establishment candidate.
Whitman doesn’t bother me in CA. She’s moderate, but definitely, she’s not one of the connected crowd. As it is? I question now very, very carefully all remarks Rove makes. I know he flat-out lied about O’Donnell and was actually surprised when I saw the documents on-line that proved she was telling the truth.
As of that day, I decided to take him with a huge grain of salt. He sounded terribly credible and convinced he was right, and he stuck to his version for the entire week.
Something is wrong when the facts don’t back you and, yet, you’re that convincing.
I will vote for out-of-the-box candidates until I am sure that the old political connections are broken. Those people are as much a part of the problems we’re having as the Dems with the same types of political connections.
AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 3:01 PM
Good lord, can you people understand anything?
Is it impossible to find a conservative who has business or military experience? Maybe some experience in elected office?
I guess the only issue you had with Obama’s candidacy was his ideology? Didn’t matter he was completely inexperienced?
Not the way I remember it. He was pummeled by Rush and Beck for his lack of experience.
All of a sudden, experience means nothing, it’s all ideology.
Completely inconsistent.
NoDonkey on October 14, 2010 at 3:04 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
Here is a video of Rush Limbaugh on Christine O’Donnell’s Sarah Palin Moment
Nearly Nobody on October 14, 2010 at 3:06 PM
stfu. stfu. stfu.
Nope, I can still say it.
alwaysfiredup on October 14, 2010 at 3:06 PM
Huh. Noticed a ‘discrepancy’ in someone’s comments on this thread:
Technically, taking a shortcut and cherry picking are the same…
Miss_Anthrope on October 14, 2010 at 3:08 PM
Why is this type of experience required in your estimate? Military experience is always good, but many conservatives come from all different fields. Ruth McClung running in Arizona is a physicist. Is not that acceptable in your view? How about a cop or fireman? Doctor? Nurse? Mom?
darwin on October 14, 2010 at 3:11 PM
Experience doing what is the question. Being Coons means never having to do much but tap in on family connections and take political spots. That’s not exactly what I call great experience. And based on the facts of his area, he wasn’t very good at it. After listening to him, I can fully understand why that is.
AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 3:13 PM
Actually, I don’t think it is. I hammer Obama because he was running for President without experience, especially executive.
There are plenty of people with NO political experience entering the halls of Congress.
I worked for one. He’s now the head of the RNCC. You saying he shouldn’t have been elected in 1996?
That argument on its own just doesn’t fly. So, what is your real point?
That we all must be stooopid because we disagree on the experience issue, except on Obama?
Puleeze. Get a grip.
Miss_Anthrope on October 14, 2010 at 3:13 PM
Very first comment today, and completely off-topic by you.
Off topic by you.
Off topic by you.
Off topic by you.
I see a pattern.
alwaysfiredup on October 14, 2010 at 3:14 PM
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 3:04 PM
I’m calling names? Who died and made you a moderator of this forum?
kingsjester on October 14, 2010 at 3:14 PM
Compounded by her failure to at least turn the answer into a SCOTUS decision that she agreed with, that would show her awareness of a specific SCOTUS decision, and displaying a positive/optimistic point of view rather than the negativity of the original question.
She is not deft. But she’ll vote against socialism and for the constructionist Constitution. She knows that her only hope is a sudden turn out of previously unengaged voters coming out to debunk the Obama agenda.
maverick muse on October 14, 2010 at 3:14 PM
You know what, Kristi Noem isn’t experienced either…she’s just a farmer.
You know who is? Hank “Guam Tipping Over” Johnson, because he’s a LAWYER!
What we need in Congress is MORE lawyers…
/s
Miss_Anthrope on October 14, 2010 at 3:16 PM
The best lie is the truth. You can tell a partial truth, or slant it so that it reflects badly on the target. Later no one can claim you lied, just that it is ‘your take on the subject’. Never trust DC insiders.!
A lack of trust in the government is how the Republic was set up and for very good reason. Sooner or later a skunk gets elected and the power of government will be in his hands. It has to be able to survive that.
What it can’t survive is an immoral people who don’t care if he is a skunk.
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
I also find comparing senatorial races to the presidency just too off-kilter.
There are more than a few senators who have been professional politicians for the majority of their careers. They are, indeed, career politicians at this point. When they were new, they basically were there because they managed to win an election. Winning makes you qualified. Magic. *haha
AnninCA on October 14, 2010 at 3:17 PM
Miss_Anthrope on October 14, 2010 at 3:08 PM
heh
maverick muse on October 14, 2010 at 3:18 PM
Hardly. My comment – “You are right though — I not going to let a bunch of yahoo’s tell me to STFU.”
Meaning, by me, that they can tell me to STFU, but that is not going to get me to shut up.
Even, alwayfiredup finally got into the game. It took him/her a while to catch on, but they decided to ride someone else’s coattails.
Webler on October 14, 2010 at 3:21 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next »