The Blame Game

I really wanted to avoid this.  On Tuesday night at the Hilton in New Castle there was considerable Christine trashing for the loss of the Treasurer’s Office and the loss of Delaware House of Representative seats.  (Yes we will pay and pay for the latter.)  I thought the critique was premature and unfair.  We need to know more.  We actually have to examine the numbers in detail to be able to objectively assess this election.  The numbers are there but  it will take time to see how the statewide candidates impacted local races.  Yes, I know there is a ton of anecdotal evidence.  I have heard from Northern Kent and certain New Castle poll greeters how they were told that certain voters only came out to vote against Christine O’Donnell.  One can balance that against folks in the south who claim that certain voters came out only to vote for Christine.  My take was that most voters came out to vote against Obama.  This was certainly the nationwide trend.  The fact is that  at the top of the ticket this did not produce positive results in Delaware.   It takes time to analyze data and to talk to folks up and down this great State.  In my view gathering this information is for the purpose of getting it right the next time and not to save any one person’s reputation.  With that being said the national folks have already started their spin machine on what happenned in Delaware.  I guess they want protect the reputation of the Tea Party folks who were essential in getting Christine O’Donnell through the Primary.  From where I stand the Tea Party folks don’t need any help.  They did a great job, they are still meeting and I don’t see them going away.  That being said, the blame game has already started publicly.  Over the last 2 days, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin have stated that Mike Castle would have lost on Tuesday.  (I listen to Rush regularly and I am a fan of Sarah.) Really, 2 individuals who have never set foot in Delaware know that Mike Castle would have lost just as badly as Christine O’Donnell??   Mike Castle has not lost a General Election in Delaware in  over 40 years. He led in every poll that was taken and he ran Baby Boy Beau out of this race out of fear.  I don’t buy Rush’s or Sarah’s assessment.  I actually live in Delaware. Christine’s vote totals were the worst of all 4 statewide candidates.  Publicly the O’donnell crew went on the Blame Game offensive. As early as Wednesday morning, Christine O’Donnell blamed Republicans for her loss on Fox News. Christine blamed Republican leadership for her loss Tuesday  on Fox News Wednesday morning.  This is an insult to Hans Riegle in Kent County and Ron Sams in Sussex County who immediately after the primary endorsed Christine and changed their signs and websites within a day. Christine’s comments appear almost Protackian.  Personally, I think the Tea Party movement was great for the Republican Party and Delaware.  It brought new blood into the party and got people focused on the essentials.  They don’t need to be defended.  They made a choice in candidates.  The results in that race were not positive but I think in the end the alliances will help the Conservative Cause.    Christine O’Donnell was the Republican nominee and I supported her in the General Election.  I said on this blog that I would do so and I did.  That being said an honest assessment of how she impacted the vote in New Castle County needs to be done.  We lost winnable House races in New Castle.  Christine won this year in Kent and Sussex and then lost badly in New Castle.    Any honest assessment  should not be done to knock Christine.  I believe that Christine would be an awesome candidate in Southern Delaware.  (Christine I will give you a list of places to move to in Kent or Sussex) This assessment should be done by Delawareans and not individuals who have never set foot in this state.

133 thoughts on “The Blame Game”

  1. ALPHA:

    Your point is what?

    Christine was 100% correct on the US Constitution.

    Chris Coons revealed himself as an ignoramus.

    Coons could not identify what was in the First Amendment.

    Coons thought the words “separation of church and state” are in the US Constitution.

    Coons then proceeded to offer yet another mangled version of the First Amendment, to which Christine said “THAT is in the First AMendment?” Of course what Coons said is NOT in the First Amendment — even the last of several mangled versions Coons offered.

    Christine instantly recognized the 17th Amendment by only its number, and discussed it in detail.

    LET’s CHECK: Do you remember what the 17th AMendment is without looking it up?

    After 1-word reminders of the topic of the numbers of two other Amendments, Christine then launched into a detailed discussion of those other amendments — from memory — without further prompting.

    COONS NEVER ANSWERED IN DETAIL ABOUT ANY OF THIS.

  2. distortion central says in post #87″Moseley even O’Donnell distanced herself from you. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!”

    What another delightful example of how fact-free and content-free liberals are (even when they call themselves Republicans). A fact in the hands of a liberal is like a dump truck being driven by a 3-year-old.

    Do facts matter to you at all? Do you simply blurp out whatever stupid thought runs through your brain?

    Where is the source of your statements? Do you even care whether the thigns you say are true or false?

    Since I am not stupid, I don’t feel the need to be baited into discussing my personal relationships with other people.

    It is enough to laugh at you for making statements without any basis in fact.

    You might be accustomed to junior high school level discussions, but I don’t have to jump at your taunts to point out that you make statemetns without any facts behind them.

  3. PERRY MASON humilates himself in #77 once again.

    Perry, you really should not talk about things you do not understand.

    First, moron, Princeton *CONFIRMS* that Christine O’Donnell was indeed enrolled in courses at Princeton.

    Got that?

    Christine was taking courses at Princeton, as Princeton confirms.

    Christine did in fact have to withdraw from that program.

    However, the lawsuit is unmistakably clear that Christine planend to enter the master’s program LATER THAT FALL.

    I know you are a liberal.

    But the Fall comes AFTER March.

    Got it? First comes March. Then THE FALL comes many months later.

    Seocnd, there were TWO versions of the lawsuit. One that I wrote. A second written by a prominent Delaware attorney. You are mixing up the paragraph numbers from two different versions

    Third, Christine said “O’Donnell told the Associated Press recently that * IF * the lawsuit called it a master’s program, “Well, then my attorney got that wrong.””

    But the lawsuit does *NOT* call it a master’s program. The lawsuit is 100% explicit that Christine was NOT enrolled in a master’s program but was hoping to enter one IN THE FALL, and that these plans were INTERRUPTED by the broken promises of her employer.

    Christine and I agree 100% (which is where she got the point):. I wrote:
    “If I did a bad job of writing Christine O’Donnell’s lawsuit — on a point that was simply not important at the time — that is my doing, not Christine’s.”
    http://www.redstate.com/jonmoseley/2010/10/04/i-wrote-christine-odonnells-2005-lawsuit-liberals-are-lying-smearing-by-claiming-christine-odonnell-lied/

    However, it was the SECOND version of the lawsuit — drafted by a local Delaware attorney — which is the least clear on this point.

    The attorney Christine was referring to was the Delaware attorney — not me.

  4. PERRY MASON asks:
    Again, Mr. Moseley, how do you “withdraw” from a Master’s Program that you are never admitted into? How do you sue for lost future wages because you did not get a Master’s Degree from a Program you were never admitted to? ”

    Because there were 2 different programs, you moron.

    Princeton CONFIRMS that Christine O’Donnell was enrolled in undergraduate courses at Princeton, which she withdrew from.

    Wow, you are dumb.

  5. First, there’s this: However, the unpaid bill caused the school to CANCEL the credits for the affected semester. So even after she paid, they still would not release teh diploma.

    Followed by this: The lawsuit is 100% explicit that Christine was NOT enrolled in a master’s program but was hoping to enter one IN THE FALL, and that these plans were INTERRUPTED by the broken promises of her employer.

    How does one enter a master’s program without an undergrad degree?

  6. These are some rules for the Continuing Education program at Princeton:

    Courses taken through the program do not count toward a degree at Princeton University. The program does not admit students currently enrolled in, temporarily withdrawn from or on leave from any college or university program.
    There is a two course limit per semester for students enrolled in the Program in Continuing Education.

    I assume that this is the program Christine O’Donnell was enrolled in. Mr. Moseley may be able clarify my assumption .

  7. Mosely has a narrow point. It makes perfect sense that Christine would be enrolled at Princeton to complete her undergrad requirements (not Continuing Ed) in the hopes of entering a Masters program (these were most likely the requirements she ended up completing last summer at FDU).

    The first draft of the lawsuit was deliberately ambiguous on this point to create the impression she was enrolled in a Masters program. The second draft dropped the Masters insinuations almost entirely, probably after being slapped by the judge for rampant BS.

  8. Well, we can all sleep soundly now- instead of an ‘unqualified’ O’Donnell we have a man who rejects American exceptionalism. He fits right in with Obama’s world-view; that America is a racist, sexist, imperialist nation that consumes too much, pollutes too much and contributes too little.

    Another ‘highly educated,’ highly propagandized hate-America leftist goes to the US Senate. Delaware can be proud.

  9. Jonathan Moseley, You make assertions with zero documentation or facts.

    Fact: Christine O’Donnell never received a Bachelor’s Degree until this September. This was admitted by Matt Moran her real Campaign manager.

    Fact: Christine took courses at FDU this summer. This was admitted by Matt Moran her real Campaign manager.

    Fact: Christine in her 2008 campaigne claimed she had graduated from FDU. She made her claims despite the fact that she did not have a diploma.

    Fact: There is no documentation that she was ever admitted to any Princeton Graduate Program. She did take what looks like a Continuing Ed. Course. High School kids can take Continuing Ed. Courses at Delaware Colleges and Universities.

    Fact: On the day that Christine was supposed to produce documentation for her Princeton Grad program in her lawsuit against ISI, she dropped the lawsuit.

    So since Christine chose not to produce the documentation required in the ISI lawsuit, maybe you will be willing to provide us with actual documents that proves your case. So far all you have done is blather on with smears and innuendos. You have zero creidbility and so far everyone here has kicked your butt and you are too clueless to be aware of it.

  10. pandora ASKS in #105: “How does one enter a master’s program without an undergrad degree?”

    First, NOTICE how different it is when someone actually ASKS a question… instead of jumping off a cliff makign charges without knowing what they are talking about. If someone actually ASKS — as in seeking information — it is a totally different story.

    If someone wants to ASK 1000 questions about Christine (that is sincerely wanting to know the answer to the question), this is entirely appropriate — just as it would be of Obama.

    If someone wants to leap dishonestly to ill-informed conclusions in advance of even bothering to look at the facts, this is both wrong and also maddening. Forgive me for not suffering fools gladly. People who are not remotely honest in their “questions” or arguments are infuriating. However, a sincere question, even 1000 of them, can be given respect and deserve an answer.

    SO, pandora ASKS in #105: “How does one enter a master’s program without an undergrad degree?”

    Well, quite obviously, one who has already completed 100% of their graduation requirements in 1993, and has the college transcript to prove it, submits all of this information to the admissions committee at Princeton, tells them the whole story, and asks them to recognize that Christine has in fact completed her bachelor’s degree.

    As I understand it, Princeton CONFIRMS that Christine actually applied for the master’s program.

    I do know that Princeton CONFIRMS that Christine was actually enrolled in non-degree courses at Princeton.

    There was no reason for us to discuss any of this when I wrote her 2005 lawsuit, because it was a very, very MINOR, tangential issue.

    What is infurating about the dishonest hacks is that they intentionally ignore the CORE substance of Christine’s 2005 lawsuit.

    Christine was 100% right. Her employer was caught red-handed. We had the documents to prove it.

    In my opinion, people should have gone to jail for what they did to Christine. You cannot retaliate against people for talking to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    However, demonstrating supreme dishonesty, we are talking about an extremely tiny, minor, side issue — almost a throw -away line, while ignoring what the lawsuit was actually about.

    A sure sign that the hacks are dishonest liars not interested in the truth.

  11. CONTINUING, pandora ASKS in #105: “How does one enter a master’s program without an undergrad degree?”

    So, although we had no reason to discuss such a minor, tangential, unimportant question in detail when I wrote her 2005 lawsuit, Christine has publicly stated that she was fighting with Fairleigh Dickinson University to get them to recognize her existing coursework and graduation in 1993, but FDU claims to have “cancelled” some of the courses she actually completed because of the financial dispute.

    Therefore she had two options: (1) convince them to reinstate the courses she already completed — Christine has publicly stated that she was engaged in trying to persuade them to recognize the coursework already completed in the 1990’s — and/or (2) give in and take another course or two, and compromise with them.

    In her 2005 lawsuit, — as Princeton CONFIRMS to be TRUE — Christine states that she was already taking courses at Princeton in March of 2003, in anticipation of entering a master’s program in THE FALL of 2003.

    Again: THE FALL comes AFTER March.

    Christine also explains that she took a $60,000 cut in salary in order to negotiate time off – starting in MARCH of 2003 — to pursue a master’s program starting later that FALL. Very roughly speaking (not precisely) she was paid a 4 day a week salary to work 4 days a week (on average), to have time to spend on pursuing a master’s program.

    Quite obviously, Christine was BOTH fighting with the bureaucracy to recognize her existing coursewook from 1993 AND ALSO taking additional courses at Princeton to satisfy the bureaucracy with some additional credits, too.

    She obviously intended to have both money and time at ISI under the terms of her employment negotiated and worked out.

    She was obviously taking undergraduate courses at Princeton in order to satisfy the FDU bureaucrats.

    So she expected to get her 1993 graduation recognized one way or the other by Fall of 2003 — or at the worst have to fall back to the Fall 2004 program.

  12. TENESSEE WALKER, you are a liar:

    1) Christine never claimed that she graduated from FDU. She said she majored in communications at FDU, which is true.

    MY RESUME SAYS THAT I STUDIED PHYSICS AT U.MASS / AMHERST (by arrangement through Hampshire College).

    I did not get a degree in Physics.

    It is 100% true that I studied physics at U.Mass / Amherst.

    I do not claim to hold a degree.

    Lots of people attend college without completing a degree.

    2) Christine never claimed to have been admitted to a Princeton Master’s program.

    The lawsuit says that when hired on March 12, 2003, Christine had applied with the home of entering IN THE FALL of 2003.

    THE FALL of 2003 comes AFTER March 12, 2003, Einstein.

    The lawsuit is explict that she HAD NOT been accepted to the master’s program. The lawsuit is explicit that she had APPLIED — but had to abandon her plans “shortly after being hired” on March 12, 2003

    3) There was never a time when Christine was supposed to produce documentation about being enrolled in a Princeton master’s program.

    Although I am limited in what I can say due to attorney-client privilege — which has NOTHING to do with whether something is positive or not — I DID JUST GO BACK RIGHT NOW AND READ THROUGH THE DOCUMENT REQUESTS TO CHRISTINE FROM THE PLAINTIFF

    There is absolutely no mention of Princeton or her plans about a master’s program in any of the discovery requests.

    The employer Defendant *DID NOT ASK* about that question.

    Your TOTAL LIE that Christine was asked to produce documentation about Princeton has no basis in fact, and if I were licensed in Delaware I woudl be urging Christine to sue you over that lie.

    I just went back and read the discovery requests from the Defendant to Christine. There is *NOTHING* in them about Princeton, any courses or education programs, or any master’s program.

    NOTHING

    You just told yet another total lie.

    How dare you lie while claiming that Christine is lying.

    The truth is — wording this carefully due to privilege — Christine dropped the lawsuit when the need to hire an expensive expert witness and pay for court reporters for depositions became an immediate need to place a lot of money on deposit. (I don’t think I can explain the expert witness. Ask any lawyer who routinely deals with employment disputes for an explanation of the ROUTINE need for such experts in almost ALL employment disputes.)

  13. Also, the attempt to diminish the non-degree courses that Christine was already enrolled in at Princeton is yet another last-ditch despearation tactic to cover up your lies about Christine.

    PRINCETON CONFIRMS: Christine was enrolled in course at Princeton in March 2003.

    PRINCETON CONFIRMS: Christine applied for a master’s program starting in THE FALL of 2003.

    HINT: THE FALL comes AFTER March. At least it did in 2003.

    PRINCETON CONFIRMS: Christine dropped out of the non-degree courses.

    Christine’s employer promised her the tiem to puruse a master’s program within her schedule.

    Shortly after she started in March 12, 2003, she realized that this promise would not be kept, and she would not be able to prusue the master’s program.

    As a result of the employer’s broken promise, Christine suffered the loss of that opportunity.

    Now, would you like to tell another lie I can embarrass you over?

    How can people LIE about Christine and then blame her for YOUR lies?

  14. Haven’t you figured out that the facts don’t matter. Christine is a bad girl. The facts don’t matter, the templete does.

    As for the unelectable nonsense, can I say Karen Weldin Stewart. Every criticism “uniter” gave of Christine, I can multiply and add real corruption and fraud. That is a office that actually manages something. I could say Chip Flowers who had numerous accusations of abusing girl friends including sworn statements. I could talk about Tom Gordon, or Paul Clark. Please don’t give me that there is such a high standard in Delaware. Should I add Brad Bennett to the mix? Kent Sheriff Jim Higdon lost big because Republicans couldn’t get excited, but Democrats will rally behind the same problems, but worse.

    She needs to follow the advice in this post and move downstate. She did well in the 32nd district. Move there and take on Bennett. She could build a positive track record in the legislature. She may have a new book out giving her side and be a celebrity.

    The fact that she is trying to go directly to the U. S. Senate doesn’t fly in Delaware. In my lifetime there has never been anyone in Delaware to win without at least holding a county office. You can’t fight the culture of the state.

  15. Christine will not move downstate because that would be icky. Also she will not run for local office because that doesn’t bring in enough money.

  16. Nice try Mosely, Your vile name calling which is a violation of the rules on this website are hereby noted. It is obvious you are incapable of carrying on a civil conversation.

    You have yet to provide any documentation that Christine was accepted to a Master’s program at Princeton.

    alpha and David Anderson pointed out that your assertion that Joe Biden went from private life to U.S Senate is totally wrong.
    J Mosely continually proves that he can’t get facts straight.

    I was one of the delegates in 2008 who got phone calls from Tim Smith asking for support. Not once did he say that Christine was dropping out of the race. I have talked with others who got the same call and they don’t recall that language either.
    You continually say crap that after I investigate it turns out to be not true.
    What Tim Smith did say to me in 2008 was that Christine was not doing what was necessary to win in 2008 and so he was jumping in. This is a far cry from saying that she dropped out.
    You have zero credibility after all of your rants.

  17. Mr Moseley, you keep saying that Christine O’Donnell
    completed 100% of all requirements for graduation in 1993.
    Isn’t that for the the University to decide ?
    Apparently they require payment as part of the requirements as well.
    Scott Giglio, a spokesman for Fairleigh Dickinson said that she “earned” her bachelor’s degree in English literature in September of this year.

  18. FBH Christine’s 2008 campaign literature says she has a BA from FDU in Communications. Yet Mosely can’t produce any documents that say she was ADMIITTED to a Master’s Program at Princeton.

    Mosely continues the strategy of calling people liars when he can’t produce documentation for his misstatements. I am truly pleased he cannot practice law in Delaware as I would have to advise friends to avoid him at all costs.

  19. Tennessee Walker in #120: “FBH Christine’s 2008 campaign literature says she has a BA from FDU in Communications.”

    Since I ran Christine’s 2008 primary, I can assure you you are wrong.

    Christine accurately stated that she MAJORED in Communications at Fairleigh Dickinson University. I have never seen anything authorized by Christine that said she had a BA.

    Of course, she did in fact earn a BA from Fairleigh Dickinson University. They simply held her diploma hostage.

    Once again, your trick is exposed.

    It is YOUR responsibiliity to prove it if you claim someone is lying.

    Yours is an old trick. So don’t flatter yourself that anyone takes you seriously.

    YOU have to prove it if you think someone is lying.

    NO ONE has to prove your accusation false.

    Again, if you think you can go around calling people liars, and demanding that htey prove they are not, I predict there is a lawsuit in your future. Not from me. But I would advise you to park your money off-shore, because you are going to get sued and you are going to lose.

  20. And isn’t it curious how D E S P E R A T E L Y these people want to L I E about Christine O’Donnell ?

    Could you put the same amount of attention into figuring out how Mike Castle amassed $3.2 million to $3.8 million on a government salary?

  21. fightingbluehen pretended to ask a question in #119: “Mr Moseley, you keep saying that Christine O’Donnell completed 100% of all requirements for graduation in 1993. Isn’t that for the the University to decide ?”

    YES. That is why when FDU announced Christine O’Donnell as a graduate in 1993, she had earned a B.A. from FDU

    CHECK MATE.

    GROW UP

  22. Tennessee Walker repeated the same lie in post #118: “You have yet to provide any documentation that Christine was accepted to a Master’s program at Princeton.”

    Once again, Christine never claimed to have been accepted to a Master’s program at Princeton.

    First, it is not my responsibility to prove your lie wrong. You have to prove your accusation… not the other way around.

    Second, Christine never claimed to have been accepted.

    Notice how D E S P E R A T E L Y these liars try to engage in fake propaganda.

    After the details of the lawsuit have been pointed out making it very clear that Christine said she had APPLIED to the program to start IN THE FALL, when those plans were interrupted IN MARCH and April…

    TW keeps repeating the same lie over and over again.

    Has TW retained any credibility whatsoever?

    Everyone can see that CHristine never claimed to have been accepted to or entered a master’s program that she HOPED to enter MONTHS LATER.

    Yet TW keeps repeating the same lie.

    TW, if you are going to lie, learn to do it more convincingly.

  23. Moseley – quick, I just heard an ambulance siren outside your office. Better go run and get another client. BTW, Ross and Castle aren’t my type. But my bet is that you either are or were schtuping COD.

  24. Mr. Mosely, with all due respect, I think you may need a break from the old law firm. This is a local political blog, and the viability of political candidates is debated on a regular basis. All this talk of lawsuits is not really necessary is it ?
    Take a relaxing holiday. Maybe go up to that fancy New England prep school that you attended. Catch an alumni weekend with a home hockey game or something. I hear the mountains are wonderful this time of year.

  25. fightingbluehen writes in #127: “This is a local political blog, and the viability of political candidates is debated on a regular basis. All this talk of lawsuits is not really necessary is it ?”

    Yes, actually it is, FBH, because repeating complete lies is NEITHER a debate, NOR does it address the viability of candidates.

    You are not debating anything meaningful by repeatedly saying “Prove me wrong when I throw baseless accusations at people.”

    Several here seem to think that it is the candidate’s duty to disprove baseless and unproven accusations. No, it is the other way around. It is YOU who must prove your accusations.

    Can I accuse you of being a Nazi concentration camp commandant in World War II, and then demand that you prove it false? You weren’t born then? EXCUSES! We are tired of all these excuses. I still have not seen any documents proving you were not a Nazi concentration camp commandant.

    Is it your responsibility to prove the accusation false? If you think you can go around making accusations against people, and it is then their obligation to prove them false, YOU HAVE BIGGER PROBLEMS IN YOUR FUTURE than the 2010 election. With that attitude, you are going to run into some serious problems that are worse than who won the 2010 election.

    For TW to simply repeat a thoroughly discredited point — for the purpose of INTENTIONALLY lying — is not a debate about the viability of any candidate. It is an intentional lie. Christine never claimed to be already enrolled in a Princeton master’s program… although Princeton CONFIRMS that she WAS, in fact, enrolled in courses at Princeton. So TW REPEATS an accusation about what Christine never said, knowing it to be false.

    We are still waiting for TW to prove he is not a serial killer. No reason to think that he is. But why shouldn’t he have to prove he isn’t?

  26. Can I suggest that everyone simply ignore Mr. Moseley until he goes away? Simply do not respond to him. That is the only way to have success with a toddler. Thanks.

  27. In my opinion, when your objective is to deceive, omitting pertinent facts is the same as lying.

  28. fightingbluehen in post #132: “In my opinion, when your objective is to deceive, omitting pertinent facts is the same as lying.”

    So then why are you doing it? Why are you lying about Christine?

Comments are closed.