Christine Bashing– A Favorite Establishment Sport
Jun 19th, 2010 by David Anderson
She is no threat according to the establishment, yet she is the focal point of their attention.
The latest dust up is a minor financial disclosure report. Delaware Tomorrow, a fine Republican leaning blog, blasted Ms. O’Donnell as not believing the rules apply to her. The real fact emerged that she had followed the rules and applied for an exemption whose approval happen to be announced the day after the post. Her lawyer had an heart attack and the campaign applied for an extension.
Instead of accepting the facts, they spun a conspiracy. It is a cover up.
The reporting requirements have not changed. 30 days have passed, May 15th has come, and gone. And yet… Christine O’Donnell has STILL not filed the required Personal Financial Disclosure Report. Nor has she, at any point, requested a waiver or an extension of the reporting requirement. Update: The Secretary of the Senate says an extension request was granted today, apparently at about 12:30 or so. In previous telephone calls to the Secretary of the Senate, including earlier today, that office had informed me that no requests for an extension had been received. It is unclear when this specific request was submitted, however, such requests are typically granted quickly, and as a matter of course.
Many have questioned what Ms. O’Donnell does for a living. Where, they wonder, does our “Swallow of Capistrano” go, and what does she do, when she is not running for the U.S. Senate? Her defenders claim that she has her own successful consulting business. Yet the few campaign finance reports she has bothered to file show her paying for what many perceive to be ordinary living expenses. Obviously, complying with the requirement to file the Personal Financial Disclosure Reports might have helped clear up some of these questions and allayed concerns about her campaign.
In other words, the facts can’t get in the way of my good friend’s conspiracy theory. Christine, after-all is the enemy of “true Republicans” like Mr. Mike Castle, therefore she has to be a slimy schemer. There is no reason to oppose such a wonderful independent mind like the Congressman so she can’t have honorable disagreements. Therefore she must be exposed. Any little anomaly must be seen in the light of her evil conspiracy against common sense and our hero. Even when the reason for the extention was clearly non controversial, this response was this. Mike Stafford is judge, juror, and and prosecutor because he knows more than the people who are actually in charge.
This year, she failed to file by 5/15. The rules say any candidate who is more than 30 days late and does not have an extension has to pay a $200 fine when they file. She got an extension approved through July early this afternoon, however, the 30-day period ran earlier in the week. I’m not sure how rigorous they are in enforcing the time requirement (my guess is, not very), however, depending on when the request for an extension was submitted, it seems to me that she should be fined again if her campaign submitted the request for an extension after the 30 day period post-May 15th ran. We’ll see.
Why does he insist on a near meaningless fine regardless of the facts? It is because the people have no idea this is a minor issue. They want a line of attack which avoids issues. When you talk issues, Mr. Castle is in trouble with primary voters. When you talk personality, Mr. Castle can win because the O’Donnell campaign has neglected to introduce Christine the person to us. Issues must be avoided at all costs in the view of the establishment.
In my view, issues are what matter. Americans are hurting. The economy is stagnant. We are at war on two fronts. The culture is under seige. The titanic struggle between the control economy and the individual controlled market place is on. There is no room for accomodation, only victory or defeat. We will either remain the America of our heritage or become Europeanized. We will either return to the vision of Washington, Dickenson, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, and Rush or we shall adopt the vision of the Fabian Society, Chavez, Mitterand, and the global left. We need champions of the American way not people who will compromise it at retail speed instead of the current wholesale speed and consider that progress.
There is a reason the Castle crowd will talk about anything but the fundamental challenges facing America. He has had 18 years to propose solutions. He has had 18 years of power. His solution has been to work against conservative attempts to roll back government intrusion. He has been on the front row of the battle and offered nothing. For his troubles, he wants a promotion.
Unfortunately, running a campaign saying its my turn won’t win hearts and minds so the answer is to demonize the interloper. Since you can’t beat up on the girl in our culture, the campaign has to use indirect means to raise doubts and leave the campaign to smile and shake hands. It appears Delaware Tomorrow has become one of those agents.
I am not part of the O’Donnell campaign though I am a supporter. I give space to both parties. Anytime Mr. Castle wants to publish something, we allow it. We even seek out his releases. Ms. O’Donnell has regular access with material multiple times a week. The give and take between our own contributors on this race is strong and dynamic. We are serving a rare role in the blog world, the role of the market place of ideas. Delaware Tomorrow is serving an important role as well. It is the role of advocacy for the established regime. Fair enough, it is a legitimate role, but nothing unique. When you read the attacks on the conservative insurgents, take that into account. Ms. O’Donnell and Mr. Urquhart couldn’t get a front page post if they paid for it, but at least they or their supporters have uncensored rights of commenting.
What strikes me as interesting with this latest post is that even an attorney having an heart attack is not enough to merit a cease fire on a line of attack. It appears the establishment has gone from disdain to hatred of Ms. O’Donnell. She must be more significant than they lead us to believe. If she really didn’t have a bus full of supporters, no one would care.
The smear campaign by Stafford is running at full speed. That must mean that Delaware Tomorrow knows that Christine is gaining momentum. I truly wish the two would just debate so the PEOPLE could decide. Incumbent politicians are in trouble on both sides. I also can’t believe some of the language that comes from some of those people. I mean, if you disagree with someone’s point of view on there you get called a dumbass. The Delaware GOP is out of touch with it’s members. I’m sure Castle is a good guy, but why won’t he debate her. Instead he has the people on DT cursing people who don’t agree with their views. Another thing that is often said on DT is that Castle can beat Coons and Christine can’t. Oh yeah, and can someone show me proof that Christine can’t win. Here’s where one of the Castle blothiaters calls me a dumbass.
Bashing Christine and Glen may be new sport of the GOP establishment, but it isn’t necessarily unique to them. Bashing is an election tradition and it is faithfully observed by almost every campaign. This is unfortunate, especially in the case of incumbents. No matter who the candidate is they are running for a position where they will take up the charge to serve the person they are running against. If they are an incumbent than they are already under that obligation, yet they spend a large part of the campaign trying to destroy (or letting their campaign do it) a person that they hope will be their constituent come January.
“Oh yeah, and can someone show me proof that Christine can’t win.”
She’s run three times and failed to win any election, while Coons has run and won multiple times. She has raised less money than your average state House candidate, and will not have the resources to compete. She has trouble paying her bills. She got trounced at the convention, and is trailing significantly in the polls.
Show me some proof that she CAN win.
@Timothy — Castle and Rollins get bashed here more than twice as much as Christine and Urqhart get bashed anywhere else combined.
If she wins, we know she can. If she loses we know that she can’t (at least given this set of perimeters). I do not know the answer. No one does. We should vote as a currency of our convictions and let the rest take care of itself.
Her attorney had a heart attack? Was that before or after the dog ate her homework?
Sorry, but issued based disagreements are hardly bashing. Why don’t we just cancel elections and let the ruling class establish a dictatorship if we can’t engage on issues? Every single post has been based upon the public record. You know stuff like issues, votes, and donor records. It has not been based upon personal attacks. I don’t even agree with every single post, but I will defend the fact that everyone of them has come from a reasoned look at the public record. I will also note that some have been rebutted. Do you see that on Delaware Liberal, Delaware Watch, Delaware Republican, Delaware Grapevine, or even Delaware Tomorrow? I am just reminding you that it is rare to find a place that seeks out diversity of opinion the way we do.
#6 just illustrates my point. It has turned into blind hatred of Christine by the establishment. Logic no longer applies.
That is just means the rest of us need no longer to take them seriously when a man’s plight becomes political fodder.
This blog has a far more balanced treatment of the candidates than some that I have read. Not every single article, but the blog as a whole ends up being rather well balanced.
“@Timothy — Castle and Rollins get bashed here more than twice as much as Christine and Urqhart get bashed anywhere else combined.”
Anontoo, that statement isn’t even close to accurate and I think you know it.
People are so focused on Christine O’Donnell’s financing, personal finances, living arrangements, debt services, garden keeping, opossum breeding and personal disclosures that no one has paid much attention to the most important two things of all.
First, she has run a one hundred percent negative campaign against a long standing, relatively popular office holder.
Second, she has not staked out and defended a single piece of signature legislation she would sponsor or campaign on. Absolutely nothing.
On occassion, she’s evoked certain conservative principles she’d stand behind and as a House back bencher, that might be good enough. So I would likely not issue such a challenge to Glen Urquhart or Michelle Rollins. But in the Senate, there are no back benchers. One senator can bring the whole place to a dead stop. Much more is expected of such candidates. Much more.
So I have written Christine O’Donnell an open challenge posted on my own site (click on name above). Will she list for us her “Contract With Delaware?” Five items of legislation she will sponsor and campaign for. Will she write the ideas out and go fight for them during the last one hundred days of this campaign?
I have no desire to bash Christine O”Donnell. And I care little for Ginger Gibson’s rants. There can be a very bright future for her in our party. But not if she stays on this course. So I have written this challenge, published it and e-mailed it to her campaign. It is a challenge to raise the level of discourse. Christine has spent the last year showing us how good a pundit she is. It’s now time for Christine to show us she can be a senator. There’s a big difference.
One note about the poll cited above by Anontoo. Not only do her favorables lag significantly behind the others, but that poll is from February. The News Journal expose was not published until March. So as bad as those numbers are, they cannot be nearly as good today.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DelawarePolitics.net, delawareBNN. delawareBNN said: DelawarePolitics.net: Christine Bashing– A Favorite Establishment Sport: Number of comments: 10She is no threat ac… http://bit.ly/bUYHcO [...]
David
Thanks for running this piece and stating the facts. Stafford didn’t want the truth to get in the way of a good lie.
As I’ve stated before, Christine on her worst day and with her baggage in a much better candidate than Mike Castle on his best day.
Mike has just been in Washington too long and has picked up Washington’s bad habits. He no longer represents his constituency in Delaware or America’s best interests.
I say, he should retire and accept his gold watch as an elder statesman and go surf fishing or whatever interests him
IT IS TIME FOR NEW BLOOD. I believe that Christine will be a great senator if elected and the polls are starting to swing her way.
If O’Donnell can motivate a 70%+ turnout in Kent and Sussex, she’ll win. It is really that simple. Turnout.
Rick
She gained almost 50% of the delegate vote in Sussex at the convention and did really well in Kent also.
It was a direct shot across Castle’s bow and he knows it.
Castle will do anything to marginalize her campaign and this will get dirty.
Remember, Castle is the favored golden boy of the GOP and they’ve issued orders to every Republican District Chairman or Republican Club that they are not to allow a non-party endorsed candidate to speak or place literature or campaign in any way at any Republican function.
CHRISTINE WILL WIN ANYWAY.
CHRISTINE WILL WIN ANYWAY.
Whew, now I can relax!
It’s kind of disappointing that our choice is between a less than conservative Castle, and a flake nutter like O’Donnell.
“Remember, Castle is the favored golden boy of the GOP and they’ve issued orders to every Republican District Chairman or Republican Club that they are not to allow a non-party endorsed candidate to speak or place literature or campaign in any way at any Republican function.”
That’s been GOP policy since my daddy’s daddy’s daddy was a toddler. The GOP has set up no special rules for Christine.
In fact, I’ll let you in on a little secret. The GOP is thrilled about Christine. In an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment year, if it wasn’t Christine, it would’ve been someone in the Clatworthy-Phillips vein who could actually challenge Castle and even maybe win. Christine guarantees a positive outcome for Castle.
Rick
You get an A+ for sarcasm. Good luck in life, your sarcasm should serve you well.
anontoot
I don’t believe you have any idea what the GOP is thrilled about
You’d be surprised what I know.
This site runs Castle smear pieces and Castle conspiracy theories every other day, and you all have the nerve to point out what Delaware Tomorrow is putting out there about O’Donnell?
Heck, I’ve even pointed out blatant LIES about Castle in articles this site posts and the author won’t even correct them.
POT/KETTLE
David, you’re a good guy, but it’s a way too late and way too hypocritical for Delaware Politics, which has deteriorated into nothing more than a Castle smear site, to point out any other sites anti candidate posts.
“#6 just illustrates my point. It has turned into blind hatred of Christine by the establishment. Logic no longer applies.
That is just means the rest of us need no longer to take them seriously when a man’s plight becomes political fodder.”
So when did Anon A become a member of the “ESTABLISHMENT”????
” Her lawyer had an heart attack and the campaign applied for an extension.”
Lawyer? In just about any campaign or party organization, the filing of any financial data is the responsibility of the campaign treasurer, not the attorney. Where was THAT person?
quiet alice,
I am not going to lie, this site often gives Rep. Castle a hard time. Some of the posts and comments about him are even brutal. However, you are going overboard now.
“Nothing more than a Castle smear site”?
I hope you can calm down, take a step back, and look at the rest of what is going on this blog. We have a lot more than just articles about candidates here. Further, David doesn’t make the claim that this site doesn’t have any unfavorable articles or comments about Rep. Castle. His point is that we also post his press releases, and we do have some articles that are positive about him that provide some balance. Also while we don’t cover every single Christine O’Donnell, or Glen Urquhart “scandal” we have hit on several of them and we don’t all take their side every time. I know I don’t. We also have a number of posts about candidates such as Rose Izzo, Kevin Wade, Scott Spencer, Brent Wangan, and others, not to mention some of the state office candidates.
Tim, just an FYI, the only reason the Urquhart scandal was on this site was because of my relentless emails to David pointing out the hypocrisy of not covering it.
So you need to step back, and take a realistic look at what this site has become.
“” Her lawyer had an heart attack and the campaign applied for an extension.”
Lawyer? In just about any campaign or party organization, the filing of any financial data is the responsibility of the campaign treasurer, not the attorney. Where was THAT person?”
Good questions Mike.
I am curious about the timing of this. Christine’s Personal financial disclosure was due on May 15th. Did the attorney in question have a heart attack around this time. In that case I believe she was entitled to an extension provided it was filed within a week of the unfortunate heart attack. (Anyone can file for an extension.) However if the heart attack occurred in the last week after Christine had already been delinquent in filing the report, I am not sure how this absolves Christine of the requrement to file by May 15th. Are we now assuming that Christine gets an automatic 30 day late mulligan because she has proven in the past that she can’t get her act together?
The explanations from the O’Donnell camp are always vague and designed to place blame on those wanting simple answers to simple questions. So I will ask the simple question, who is the attorney and when did he have the heart attack. I know some will attack me for a simple attempt to get information. So far Openness and transparency have not been Christine’s hallmarks yet her defenders attack anyone asking for clarifications and details.
It was granted with no fan fare. In the real world there is no controversy. Mike makes a good point. I tend to agree that she has not made a sufficient positive case. In November, before she was running, she seemed to have fine ideas. Now she seems to have been reduced to RINO patrol.
Tennesee Walker said, “I am curious about the timing of this.”
With Christine, the devil is always in the details.
“It was granted with no fan fare. In the real world there is no controversy”
So if the FEC can get this information why can’t we? Or is the voting public in Delaware supposed to just shut up and take whatever drivel of information Christine deems is what we are entitled to? I have a simple question. When did this attorney have a heart attack??
Why is the O’Donnell Campaign so secretive??? The Soviet Politboro was more forthcoming then Christine has been.
Quiet Alice, please take a deep breath. Just because you have fired off multiple emails and posted multiple comments on the blog before David posts something does not mean he is ignoring you or the situation. Nor does it mean he is required to do anything at all. David can speak for himself, but I know he has a lot more going on than just this blog.
By the way, it can actually work in your favor when a story doesn’t get posted on every blog at the same time. It gives it a longer life. Anyways thanks for sharing the hate on Father’s Day.
Tim, that video will have a longer life than Methuselah. You can’t just spew that separation of church and state is a “Nazi” idea and think it will ever go away.
John Carney, the unions and the Delaware Democrats will have a field day with it in a general.
Hiding it now will only make Republicans feel embarrassed that they voted for him in the primary.
David, you have some rather blatant errors in your piece. Before detailing them though, I must note that you don’t address her failure to file a disclosure in 2009. She clearly met the definition of a candidate and raised the requisite amount of money, and yet she filed nothing during 2009. Granted standing alone, it’s not an earth shattering/campaign-ending error (like telling people to call others “Nazi’s” based on an erronous conception of the history of the seperation of church and state), however, given this particular campaign’s problems with filings and the issues raised by Ginger in the News Journal article, I think it is a legitimate question to ask.
But I digress… your post ignores several salient facts- first, multiple phone calls were made to the Secretary of the Senate’s office over a period of several days to confirm that she had not submitted a diclosure, that no extension had been approved, and that no extension had been requested. As of 15 minutes before I posted the blog, and for well over and hour and a half afterwards, the answer to those questions was “no.” About 2 hours (or so) after the blog went up, the Secretary of the Senate approved a request for an extension submitted by the O’Donnell campaign. I do not know when the written request was submitted. After learning this, I amended the blog to reflect this fact. That’s not “a conspiracy theory,” Mr. Anderson, it is a factually accurate description of what transpired.
Your post implies that the request for an extension was submitted some time ago, prior to the expiration of the 30 day post-May 15th grace period and/or the posting of the blog. If this is so, please be so kind as to provide the date it was submitted along with a copy of the letter sent to the Secretary of the Senate (assuming you can obtain one).
“Tim, that video will have a longer life than Methuselah”
I have discussed this with those who were there. I believe that Urquhart was attempting to make the point that Liberals have been using the separation of Church and State argument to exclude any religious reference from the public discourse. I think this is a legitimate point. It was also a point to which both Kevin Wade and Michelle Rollins agreed in subsequent comments.
However Politically, I have to agree with Alice on this. The video is out there with Urquhart’s image and voice. The statement is damning and will be played ad nauseum should Urquhart be the Republican nominee. How many 30 second spots will this fill for the Carney Campaign who has a 7 figure budget???
To call this a rookie mistake ignores the fact that both Kevin Wade and Michelle Rollins (Both rookies) made no such mistake.
Urquhart has made much of his Washington connections in the Reagan Adminsitration and his insider Washington savvy.
If Urquhart is “ready to hit the the ground running” (his term )due to his Reagan connection and knowledge of insider Washington politics why does he resort to the excuse that he is a rookie???
I don’t disagree, but it is not an issue most people vote on. Carney will make a major miscalculation if he focuses his campaign on that and not the economy and national security.
Sorry David, When is the O’Donnell campaign going to adhere to the principles of accontaiblity and accessiblity. So far this campaign had been nothing but smear attacks on Castle and NO TRANSPARENCY on the part of Christine. Let’s have some transparency. Who is Christine’s lawyer and when did he have his heart attack??? Why is Christine so secretive??? You never answer this question. Give us an answer.
One cannot even get a clear and concise resume of this person who wants to be U.S. Senator from Delaware. Please David can you not use your influence and get a clear and concise resume from O’Donnell that shows NO GAPS in time so regular Delawareans can judge her fitness for office. This is something real candidates do as a matter of course.
DA, your complaint is silly. The fact that C O filed for and recieved and extension the day after Stafford posted his story does not make the story false. It is also not a conpsiracy theory to point out the lax enforcement of campaign finance rules.
There is a bizzare undercurrent in Christine’s ardent followers, where any story or news that does not praise Christine is asailed as a harsh attack orchestrated by the “Establishment” .
Mike, thanks for the reply. I happen to have a copy of the extention from the O’Donnel campaign. I have not been released to post it, but I can make statements from it. The fact is the extention was granted before your post. Is that your fault? No, I have been there. I have gotten bad information before from official sources. She not only had the application in but the extention had been approved when they were telling you otherwise. My point was the vitriol after the extention was granted.
As for 2009, she was not a candidate then. In general, I have been a little hard on Christine for her paperwork. Remember my post on running up on a curb? She needed a trip to the proverbial woodshed because her lackadaisical attitude was hurting the movement. I said that she needed professionals to handle it because you can not be a serious candidate and treasurer at the statewide level or for that matter handle the legal paperwork. She took my advise on this issue so we’re good (as they say in Harrington/Milford area). I am certainly not going to leave her undefended for doing the right thing because of an unfortunate circumstance.
David. You have a document with an SEC seal on it certifying that the request was recieved and granted prior to the date in question?
It seems to me the question at hand is whether or not Ms. O’Donnell was gulity of a moral lapse serious enough to disqualify her from candidacy; or, rather, that a mistake happened due to human error or act of God (the heart attack).
If the former, then the Delaware GOP should be looking elsewhere; if the latter, then it can be overlooked.
However, if the latter type of error was or has become characteristic of Ms. O’Donnell’s way of doing things, then matters become more worrisome, as an accumulation of such errors might be revelatory of character.
In general, I find the tendency of both parties is to attack any questionable detail in order to sabotage the character of a candidate. Any mistake or error, no matter how repented of; no matter how explained (example: the Nazi comment) becomes an inerradicable mark of Cain, forever emblazoned on the candidate’s forhead to consign him/her to the tenth circle of the political world.
Of course, that is why some really good potential candidates won’t run: they won’t subject themselves to such unforgiving scrutiny.
Forgotten in all this finger pointing, blame shifting and attack dog tactics is the fact that each one of us is in some way guilty of breaking the law–even if we’re just sitting on our couches–and would provide an excellent target for the persecutorily minded if chosen for attack.
David the deadline was May 15th. Why are you not sharing the details???? You mention your prior post on Christine. She needs to come clean on everything. So far Christine has not answered the basic questions on anything. This only brings up more questions that she has refused to answer.
To begin: Who is Christine’s attorney?
When did he have a Heart Attack?
Where was he treated?
Considering Christine’s history of obfuscation she needs to start answering real questions to get anyone to believe her.
I would say this is not an error. The rules are not a straight jacket. If I file a tax extention, am I somehow doing something sinister because someone else filed in Feb. ? The rules take into account that life is not static. She is following the rules that is the point I will keep driving home.
“I have been a little hard on Christine for her paperwork. ”
DA, are you admitting to being an agent of the Establishment ?!?
Staffords established beyond any doubt that ODonnell met the requirements of a candidate in 2009. So she’s nit following the rules.
Tenn, all meaningless questions, the attorney’s health status is a private matter of a person not a public figure.
This form is not a real issue. It is just another piece of bureaucratic crap. Not filing it is not a criminal offense. The only thing you need to know will be known in the middle of July or August if another extension is needed to have this taken to another attorney. I can’t see them wanting to drag this out until the next report is due. Either way, you will get the report before the primary. Everyone in the establishment wants to see her financial disclosure, the law will make that happen before the primary. That is it. No other explanation is needed.
Though I have little interest in “Christine Bashing,” as I’ve made clear, when one files a tax extension, you still have to file it before the deadline. Not after someone else catches you. Someone should have been responsible for getting something filed in a timely manner.
I don’t see it as anything evil or criminal. But is does further illustrate that she may not be ready for this level of service.
No doubt in your mind. Christine had plenty of doubt. She had no campaign organization, no website, no declarations, and no money. The money raised was for the debt of the old campaign so she could keep her options open. She wanted to run, but she had not committed to it.
I know because I was in conversation with her at various points. The prospect of the Castle entry almost made her reconsider. I personally wish it had, but that was not my call. If she wins this, she will make all of us rethink what we know. The funny thing is that I can really see a path to victory for her. I believe that the Castle camp can as well. They are the favorites, but they are not taking this race for granted.
It seems for David that the filing an extension 29 days after the deadline for the report is following the rules. Would David give such a break to a Democrat???? I hope not!!!!
This is hilarious!!! David, when can we get the name of the attorney for Christine who had a heart attack? I am more than willing to send him or her a card. Also please let us know when this heart attack occurred.
” Carney will make a major miscalculation if he focuses his campaign on that and not the economy and national security.”
A political candidate can only talk about four things.
First is himself. That’s the last thing John Carney wants to talk about, after having spent eight years on Ruth Ann Minner’s leash.
Secondly are the issues. Democrats have caused more than three million jobs to be lost with their stimulus. They refuse to secure our borders for political reasons. They are soft on terrorists. So Carney does not dare talk about issues.
Third, ideas. Since no Democrat has had a viable new idea in more than forty years, they can’t begin to discuss ideas. Such a debate would only expose their own intellectual bankruptcy….
Fourth, your opponent. In either Glen Unquhart or Michelle Rollins, John Carney has an opponent he can talk about incessantly. And that to him, is manna from heaven.
“The funny thing is that I can really see a path to victory for her. I believe that the Castle camp can as well.”
Believe it or not, I can see it too. I’ve all but drawn the map for her on these pages and my own. But will she take it? Or stay her present course?
The rules require that an extention be filed within 30 days of the filing deadline passing. 29 days would be within the rules would it not? Just to be interesting, the extension was approved on June 16 not applied for then. That would mean the government is lightening fast giving instant approval. Even if it were, Section 101 gives you a thirty day grace period. As you noted that date is 29 days out.
BTW Michael, I didn’t even know that you had a blog before yesterday. I linked to it on our blog roll. I would have done it sooner if I had known. I apologize. It was not an intentional slight. If any of our other commenters have blogs and wish to exchange links, shoot an email to depolitics@gmail.com.
“Any mistake or error, no matter how repented of; no matter how explained (example: the Nazi comment) becomes an inerradicable mark of Cain…”
The “Nazi” statement should be “an inerradicable mark of Cain.”
It’s shows an ignorance of American history, the spirit of US Constitution, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Hitler, and who the Nazis really were. It’s a slap in the face to WWII vets, Jews, Israel and everyone in this great country who believes that church and state should be separate.
And FYI, believing in a separation of church and state does not make you a liberal or a Nazi, despite what Glen Urquhart says.
Ronald Reagan spoke about the separation of church and state, I’d hardly call Reagan a Nazi. You’d think Urquhart, who’s campaign rhetoric consists of a NOUN, A VERB and RONALD REAGAN, would have known that.
And before some of you start hysterically howling about how “separation of church and state isn’t in the Constitution” remember, neither is the word “GOD” and the founders WANTED IT THAT WAY.
The statement makes Urquhart unelectable in a general election in Delaware. He can “repent” and “explain” all day long and the bottom line is that no one with a pulse and half a brain cell is going to want to put that guy in the US Congress.
If this video hit before the Convention, Urquhart would have come in behind Rose Izzo.
Wrong, he spoke it before delegates and other activists and won big time. The majority applauded him. All of them were alive and had at least some brain function.
Separation of Church and state has been perverted. It was NEVER a constitutional doctrine. That was just one man’s way of explaining the establishment and free exercise clauses. A man who had nothing to do with the drafting of language and was not even in the country at the time. The actual language was crafted by Congressman Fisher Anes in the Conference committee. The original language was crafted by Madison, a Jefferson ally so I am not discounting that the man understood the intent. I actually have no bone to pick with Jefferson. Read the entire letter. He makes sense. We do not want government mandating participation in religion nor having a state church. We also do not want government banning religious participation or trampling on those rights of conscience. We want people to have free exercise of religion. That is why we wall government out of running it. We do not wall religious influence from government. The Lemon Test and Engle v. Vitale were abominations to the constitutional order. They fit more in with the Soviet Constitution Article 71, the church shall be seperate from the state and the state from the church and the school from the church, than the American tradition. The establishment clause did not apply to the states so the New York law mandating the day started with Bible reading or a nondenominational prayer could not have been unconstitutional.
The O’Donnell campaign has some legs because the voters are so mad this year but in the end she has nothing to say of substance. The looks are not there anymore and neither is the brain.
Sad but true there are and were GOP candidates who could have knocked off Castle but the hacks who run the GOP have made the reality that if you win against Castle you will get no support in the fall. Suicide mission.
Clowns like Tom Ross who has failed at every political level, Rakestraw who has been at the helm while the GOP has gone to hell, Little Dick Forsten who is the GOP lawyer who is a complete weenie, Michael Fleming the NCC GOP head and the state GOP ED whose name escapes me are first class morons.
Two guys, Copeland and Protack could have taken on Castle but both know the best thing to do is let Castle win and wait for him to serve out foot in the mouth Biden’s term and then move up if they want to. By then Copeland will be a distant memory to voters and Protack will likely be sorry he got elected to County Council. Other hopefuls will be reapportioned out of office by the Democrats, guys like Kovach, Lavelle, Ramone, Miro, Hudson and Manolakos are going to find those safe GOP seats combined in to two GOP seats. There is hardly a bench now and in 2012 there will be none.
What I am saying is O’Donnell has nothing to lose as the GOP in Delaware is dying and nearly dead. Why not try to speed up the death watch?
All I can say, Quiet Alice, is that you perfectly illustrate the rigid unforgiveness typical of those who adhere legalistically to political purity tests.
A rant worthy of Elmer Gantry.
Briefly, the founders of the constitution wrote against against the establishment of a state church (such as the Church of England), knowing the persecutory behavior of those European countries who had state churches. They were familiar with Locke’s writings on tolerance and did not want to repeat the mistakes of the past, most notably the religious wars which afflicted Europe for centuries.
So they prohibited the establishment of a state church–something Hitler, by the way, did not imitate, as he established a Nazified church.
David simple question, What was the date of Christine’s Attorney’s heart attack. No need to give his/her name. Just give us the date. Or is this too much transparency for the O’Donnell Campaign. Are you a card carrying member of the O’Donnell canpaign or will you be an honest perveyor of facts. I really want to know.
What kind of human being would ask to know when someone had a heart attack to make a political point? I’ve read alot of posts on here but this is clearly crossing the lines of decency. Is it that important to you Mr. Walker? If so, you need to seriously reevaluate yourself.
Whatever happened to civility? To respectfully disagreeing without restoring to personal attacks and hachet jobs?
And, you wonder why the voters are thoroughly fed up and disgusted?
I have consistently said that personal health issues are personal. We have a limited right to know basics of public officials. I would not ask and have no interest to asking any details. I think disclosing he had an heart attack is generous. It is more than I would be inclined to disclose. I believe in personal privacy. I have defended that for years and will not toss it overboard because my side may have some political benefit by being able to shut down critics cold.
Delaware Patriot, please promise me that you won’t try to take leadership of the party at any level. You are as inspiring as an heart attack.
The fact is the party has some very real challenges. Our glory days have passed. The fact is also true that the party is very much viable. It is not where it is in NJ or somewhere like RI and HI all of which managed to elect Republican governors. The party needs vision, strategy, and leadership to meet the challenge ahead. It doesn’t need defeatism, despair, and doom.
Your assessment is not even realistic.
If you think Christine O’Donnell needs a lawyer to fill this out, I have some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you.
“Wrong, he spoke it before delegates and other activists and won big time. The majority applauded him. All of them were alive and had at least some brain function.”
He spoke about it in Greenwood, and according to Kevin Wade, only half of the people there applauded. Do we have to debate Wade’s honesty?
And he may have won “big time” in Greenwood at their straw poll, but we know that Urquhart packs the audience with his supporters to skew the outcome. He lost Sussex County “big time” at the Convention. That was the straw poll that counted.
All I can say, Quiet Alice, is that you perfectly illustrate the rigid unforgiveness typical of those who adhere legalistically to political purity tests. – FVoshell
Pat and all:
FWIW, just to be clear: I will not support any candidate who is pro-abortion.
Fay
You can save it FVoshell, you vote based on one issue there’s nothing more “rigid” than that, sister.
And one more time, the Founders debated putting “GOD” in the Constitution, they rejected the idea, the US Constitution is the embodiment of a “separation of church and state.”
Urquhart is now unelectable. That’s not the fault of “moderates” or “liberals” or “the party elites” or the “establishment” he did it all by himself.
Dumb girl there is a world of difference between someone having a heart attack on May 15th and June 15th. Since the O’Donnell campaign is using this heart attack as an excuse for not filing a legally required document I would like to know the details for my purposes. I simply have asked for the date. I don’t need to know the name of the person just the date of the incident.
As for David quit your cover up. I asked a simple question. You have dodged it. Did the Heart attack occur in May or June??? It looks like to me David is participating in the typical O’Donnell cover up. If you have the facts why are you so opposed to transparency and accountability? Is it because it will make Christine look bad?
No matter when it happened. The report was not legally required before June 17. The law says the report or an extension has to be within 30 days of the yearly report date– that happened. The authorities granted it. That is why I see no public policy requirement to invade a man’s privacy. We don’t need amatuer sloothes trying to tell the Federal officials how to do their job when they already have the facts. Think what you like, this is too obvious. For all I care she could have had a bad hair day causing her not be able to concentrate and filed and granted an extension. It is following the rules as written not according to Castle’s political machine’s desires. The allegation is that she didn’t follow the rules. I showed that she did. It should be case closed. The fact that it is not shows a desperation because the economic issue plays the other way in 2010 when a person loses their home every 90 seconds.
The fact that there was such an extraordinary and personal health event of a key person takes this to a level where any objective person can understand with very short order. You don’t need 20 questions to figure it out. The attorney helping to prepare and consult on this issue was unable to continue because of an heart attack. If you ever dealt with a legal matter, you know that starting over again with a new attorney is not easy. You either wait until your person or a member of their firm is available or you typically get an extension and start over. If you had a person pro-bono, finding a new one is even more difficult.
As to the anon’s point why do you need an attorney, why do people get hire someone to fill out their taxes. This 33 page form with references to all sorts of titles that you have to read in order to fill it out. Her entire career could be impacted by this form due to the WNJ story. I can’t imagine why she would want to get it right instead of winging it after an 18 hour day campaigning across the state. Most people would call it being responsible.
I have an attorney review things down to my cell phone contracts. I have prepaid legal services so I can have an attorney review all of the contracts that I need reviewed for around $20 a month. It is amazing how much is not apparent until you get in that habit. Now I can spot problems as well as anyone after 10 years of legal review. When I look at that form the yes, no questions are so qualified with legal references that you are required to review before answering, it screams legal review and maybe accountant.
BTW to the one person who mentioned that Mr. Castle gets bashed here by some writers, he is a public figure subject to review and we do not censor our contributors. I would point out that He gets anything he wants published and we even seek out his opinion because he is our setting Republican Congressman. Do you remember this guest post? http://www.delawarepolitics.net/acquisitions-act-would-help-reduce-federal-spending-guest-opinion-by-congressman-castle/ republished from the State News? If he put out more, more would be published. I am not worried about it. He has millions to get his message out. He doesn’t need us.
Ladies and Gentlemen, in the end the Financial Disclosure Form and all the rest are really just tempests in a proverbial tea pot.
What is at issue to me is that Christine O’Donnell expects to be considered a serious candidate for United States Senate without having put forth one single plausible legislative idea on the table. Not one.
Whether you love or loathe Mike Castle (and their seems to be little here in the way of middle ground), you must admit he’s a legislative machine. If you want to find out what Castle will fight for, go to THOMAS and search under his name. You’ll be reading for a while. Twenty bills or amendments this Congress alone.
O’Donnell? Nothing. Before any debate should take place, she should pick something she will write legislation on, let us read it and then go and fight for it. No more slogans, no cliches, no Castle bashing. Just Christine and her ideas to make her state and country a better place. That’s what I want to hear.
I’ve noticed as well there’s been some Glen Urquhart discourse here as well. Having been very close to this campaign until the Wade withdrawal, I would say just one thing to those who are writing Urquhart off, even though you do so with very good reason.
Do not underestimate this man or those who work for him. Or how far they will go to win this race. They do not care if they leave Rollins’ political ship a burned out hulk for Carney to finish off, with nary a mast to hang a sail on. That’s a better outcome for them looking to 2010 than Rollins as an incumbent.
I believe a big part of the reason we in the Wade campaign are watching from the sidelines now is that we underestimated how far Urquhart and Phillips would go to win.
No one else should repeat that mistake.
Michael P. Borgia, I totally see the merit of your comment #64. Candidates for either house need to promote their case based on their ability to legislate and compete in the arena of ideas. The big question is do they have the right legislative agenda. If they don’t have a viable legislative platform, I don’t even need to see any scandals, to realize that they haven’t earned my vote.
In the 9-12 Delaware Patriots I have had the opportunity to hear each of the candidates speak on multiple occasions. I know that Christine O’Donnell does have a legislative agenda. It probably needs some fine tuning and additional detail, but she has presented several legislative issues that she plans to pursue in the Senate. I am not her spokesperson though, so it is up to her to present them to the public in a satisfactory way. I don’t think it is realistic for a candidate to have bills drafted up prior to entering office. The reality is that any bill proposed prior to entering office would likely undergo many changes before even being introduced on the floor, let alone passed. However, they should have a legislative policy agenda to show the voters and they can get into some of the specifics that they would advocate.
Now to your comment #65. You seem to have very bad personal experiences with Glen Urquhart and/or his campaign. How do you apply comment #64 to them? In comment #65 it seems to me that you are approaching the Urquhart campaign from the angle of scandal/personal character rather than the merits of its legislative policy platform. Perhaps you have addressed the legislative merits of the House Seat candidates in other places, I either haven’t seen it or have forgotten.
“No more slogans, no cliches, no Castle bashing. Just Christine and her ideas to make her state and country a better place. That’s what I want to hear.”
“No more slogans, no cliches, no [Rollins] bashing. Just [Glen] and [his] ideas to make [his] state and country a better place. That’s what I want to hear.”
Is it the same or different? Personaly I favor applying this criteria to all the candidates reguardless of party. Block out all of the side shows for a moment and look at how they will or at least intend to legislate. If the legislative agenda they want to advance is repugnant to me (or perhaps worse, non-existant/obscured) I won’t be stiking around long enough to find out about the scandals or if they are a bully on the campaign trail. They would have lost my vote long before things got that far.
I want to know why a candidate is better than the incumbent. If you want me to ditch years of experience, you need to make two cases. One is why they are no longer the best choice, and two why you are the better choice. In spite of the fact that most voters know Mr. Castle, it is amazing to look at internals in polls and see that they don’t know his record. If PPP is right and 60% of the primary voters will be conservatives, there is a lot of potential movement in the next 3 months.
YOU said;
“CHRISTINE WILL WIN ANYWAY” (caps yours)
Okay, so I said;
“Whew, now I can relax”
So, YOU follow;
Rick
You get an A+ for sarcasm. Good luck in life, your sarcasm should serve you well.…windjammer
First of all, if it’s ‘sarcasm,’ it’s pretty benign.
Secondly, I don’t take your “CHRISTINE WILL WIN ANYWAY” very seriously; are you delusional or just hopelessly naive? Will either serve you well?
“#6 just illustrates my point. It has turned into blind hatred of Christine by the establishment. Logic no longer applies.”
Don’t be silly. I don’t hate her. I’m mocking her. While you take all her excuses as legitimate exoneration, I see it as the typical excuse-making of an immature liar. She is little more than a conservative-slogan-spouting pull-string doll. She has never held a meaningful job, has shown no capacity for deep thinking or leadership and very little for raising money. In short, she has all the traits of a deluded, vanity candidate, someone who runs over and over again for high office without showing the slightest ability of winning (yes, Mr. Protack, I’m looking at you).
Rick said 70% turnout in Kent and Sussex would give her the nomination. That’s probably true, but only because primary turnout in the best years rarely tops 20% statewide.
“That’s probably true, but only because primary turnout in the best years rarely tops 20% statewide.”
That’s total turnout. Republican turnout the past two cycles was 8% and 12% respectively
Timothy…
I don’t remember if I said so in this thread or another, but I have written that I’m less likely to make these demands of Urquhart than I am of O”Donnell. The reason why is that a back bench House member has virtually no power. The leadership or senior committee members do virtually all the heavy legislative lifting. Either Urquhart or Rollins would have to be around for a very long time to reach the ability to impact legislation that Christine O”Donnell or Mike Castle would have on day 1.
Remember in the Senate, a single member can bring the whole place to a stop. Single senators have enormous power to shape and change legislation. House members have next to none, especially freshmen. Mike Castle entered the House at age 53 or so. Both Rollins and Urquhart are ten years older and unlikely to ever amass the seniority needed to be a leader in the party. So for them, my only major concerns is that they will be reliable Republican and organizational votes (advantage Urquhart), repeatably electable (slight advantage Rollins) and will provide solid constituent services (advantage Urquhart, subjective opinion).
I also have had several opportunities to speak with Christine and asked her directly about several legislative issues, but have never gotten anything resembling a cohesive answer. The page on her website where one would think to go to get those answers has finally been filled with something but it is but a comparison of Castle’s votes and her value statements in opposition. There is still no comprehensive legislative agenda that I can go and read.
I do not believe by the way that I implied that I ever had any “very bad personal experiences” with Glen Urquhart. In fact, every personal encounter I’ve ever had with him has been pleasant and professional. He can actually be very likable. So I’m going to try and rephrase that opinion a bit differently. Glen Urquhart and Vance Philips understand something critical that many Delaware Republicans don’t (but that Democrats do). Politics is not a gentlemen’s game. It’s a bloodsport. Urquhart gets that. And that’s how he’s going to campaign against Rollins. And he’s campaigning to win. There is no regard given to the state of Rollins campaign after the primary for the race against Carney because Plan A is “win the primary.” The state of the Rollins campaign in the aftermath therefore is not relevant. There is no Plan B. So if the effect is that Rollins wins, but Urquhart leaves her crippled for the fall, that’s of no concern to them
Republican turnout the past two cycles was 8% and 12% respectively..
If that’s true, I’ll revise my prognostication; if there’s a 50% turnout in the Republican primary in Kent and Sussex, she’ll win.