I can't say I'm a big O'donnell fan, but I'm happy to see that "vote em all out!" is under way.
Maybe it was all the false advertising that did Castle in? "true fiscal conservative?". Yeah, right. Pull my other leg.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
6 comments:
I'm curious if you read the Gormogons take on O'Donnell, and what you think:
http://www.gormogons.com/2010/09/beating-bushes-for-candidates.html
I have no love for Castle. I've actually talked to him about how gun control doesn't work and had him politely to shove off. I can't say I'll really miss him.
But O'Donnell is completely unqualified. She doesn't seem to know how to balance her own checkbook, so how is she going to fix the federal finances?
No.1, a liberal RINO is not better than a liberal democrat. One, they hurt us when we go to the polls and the other side can say "look, they're progressive, why isn't the rest of their party!"
No.2 Castle was a sure vote against us at every key opportunity, let the democrat (if he wins) shoulder that vote, and then run against the record.
No.3 By some small stroke of miracle, perhaps O'Donnell does win. Sure, she has some baggage, so does every other damned politician. I could care less if she just got her degree or she was fired from a job, whether she was a lesbian, did hookers and crack, as long as she admitted to it when confronted about it. That would make her of a higher caliber that most politicians like Castle that run to the right, lying their ass off, only to turn around and besmirch us in the country class every damned issue because he's taking care of his buddies and getting campaign contributions.
Yep, I'll take the win, even if it means a sure loss here in two months.
She doesn't seem to know how to balance her own checkbook, so how is she going to fix the federal finances?
Considering the idiots we have running the Feds finances into the ground right now, do you really think she can make things worse?
Was she a great choice? No, but she's still a better choice than Castle.
I was happy to read a boots-on-the-ground post on this national story.
As I said about Scott Brown: No he may not be the most conservative person on earth, but he's better than Martha Coakley and Teddy Kennedy, so that's a step in the right direction. Also as a Republican in Massachusetts he's going to have to work his ass off to get re-elected.
This is true for new faces EVERYWHERE, and it is NOT a bad thing. Hell I wouldn't even get too broken up if Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe got picked off by some moonbat "Progressive" in Maine (we have some nuts up there!) if only because a new face is harder to re-elect than the same one that's been sitting there since I was in Middle School.
Ted Kennedy got re-elected again-and-again not because of his issues, but because of his family name, and because everybody knew him as the Senator from Massachusetts. That's why he died in office despite living a life that would have otherwise left him homeless on the streets of Boston if his name had been "Edward Moore"
Weer'd Beard is absolutely correct. Name recognition for incumbents is a huge reason they get reelected. Further, when you break up the machine, it's just that much easier to control them (OUR reps).
I've got expanded commentary and in depth insight over on my blog, so Mike, thanks in advance for the self-plug.
http://wherespatton.blogspot.com/2010/09/conservatisim-vs-nutty-vs-leftists.html
Post a Comment