Pepper Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 See the porch for my not so pithy remarks on echo chambers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_Simmons Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 TRR wasn't nearly as bad as other sites. I really didn't even notice it until last night. (Of course, I had been gone for 3 weeks due to having to have surgery again.) However, on other sites, it was atrocious. As bad as stuff as would be on DU. As I said, there is a difference in disagreeing with which candidate was the best choice, or various ideological points, but people actively trying to harm the candidate (to nothing but the advantage of the Democrats) is something anyone who claims to be a conservative should never do. 100% in agreement. I had missed most of this stuff too due to not really visiting TRR for a few weeks, then checked in last night and wound up pulling out the (verbal) long knives at the first person I saw who exhibited this behavior. That person's condescension towards a candidate of his own party was particularly galling. Memo to some out there: This is not about everyone thinking the same way, it is about behaving decently and not stabbing one of your own allies in the back during the heat of battle. You may not think a candidate is the best candidate, but that candidate was chosen in a primary, and if your faction did not do as good a job in getting out the vote as the faction whose candidate won, it is your DUTY to line up behind them. You don't need to jump up and down, but you at least ought to have the good sense to shut up til the election is over. Poking fun at a nominee's intelligence openly as someone was doing here last night is something to be expected of the ENEMY (there - I said it - the socialists are THE ENEMY), but not of someone within the party, or presumably, the conservative movement. There are lots of civil ways of communicating your disagreement without stooping to the kind of rhetoric that has become expected of the leftists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_Simmons Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 There are also two things about this race that I didn't like. The infusion of out of state money generated by Palin and the Express was beyond obscene. I know people don't like out of state interference in a race they consider local. All the extra money should be distributed among the unemployed in the state. Also, O'Donnell was whining once again about lack of support from the GOP. I hate whining!!!! All this showed was that she didn't know how to run a race and that deep down she didn't think Palin and the Express were powerful enough to guarantee a victory. Palin should give her a job with the Express since she is now unemployed and doesn't have campaign funds pouring in from across the nation to live on. O'Donnell got the support she needed and wanted from the Tea Party - I don't know what else she could have wanted. She got money from all over the country (she even had more money than Coons), she got the most media attention than Coons. Instead of taking advantage of the media she did the Palin thing - she slammed the media and said they were picking on her and then folded her arms and stamped her feet and said "I'm not talking to the media from now on". Acting like a 4 year old is not the way to win a race. She needed to be her own person and instead she became a Palin clone. No one wants to elect a Palin. Especially in the North East. She did not even get all the Republican vote in her state which surprised me. But live and learn. I wish her well. Well Said and always on target. Yes she was a damaged candidate from the git go due to her inexperience and verbal blunders (many of which surfaced courtesy of her adventures on liberal talk shows in the 1990s). However I believe that the attacks that greeted her from other Republicans sealed her defeat and eliminated whatever chance she might have had if the party had closed ranks behind her. It was gonna be uphill no matter what; having the likes of Rove pull the rug out from under her the day after the primary (all the while protesting that the character assassination was just "analysis") was disingenuous, vindictive and MORALLY WRONG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErnstBlofeld Posted November 4, 2010 Author Share Posted November 4, 2010 There are also two things about this race that I didn't like. The infusion of out of state money generated by Palin and the Express was beyond obscene. I know people don't like out of state interference in a race they consider local. All the extra money should be distributed among the unemployed in the state. Also, O'Donnell was whining once again about lack of support from the GOP. I hate whining!!!! All this showed was that she didn't know how to run a race and that deep down she didn't think Palin and the Express were powerful enough to guarantee a victory. Palin should give her a job with the Express since she is now unemployed and doesn't have campaign funds pouring in from across the nation to live on. O'Donnell got the support she needed and wanted from the Tea Party - I don't know what else she could have wanted. She got money from all over the country (she even had more money than Coons), she got the most media attention than Coons. Instead of taking advantage of the media she did the Palin thing - she slammed the media and said they were picking on her and then folded her arms and stamped her feet and said "I'm not talking to the media from now on". Acting like a 4 year old is not the way to win a race. She needed to be her own person and instead she became a Palin clone. No one wants to elect a Palin. Especially in the North East. She did not even get all the Republican vote in her state which surprised me. But live and learn. I wish her well. Just to put some context to her performance, in Tuesday night's general election, she received fewer votes (123,025) than the defeated Republican in the State Treasurer's race, Colin Bonini (146,991), and fewer votes than the defeated Democrat in the Auditor of Accounts' race, Richard Korn (147,504). That's not good, its an embarassment. She blew 5 million dollars and the state treasurer nominee(who lost) beat her.What in the hell did she do with 5 million dollars people donated to her?She she didn't help her cause by not denouncing some salacious allegations about calling Republican Mike Castle a homosexual and not apologizing.He is married to Jane DiSabatino.They got married on May 23, 1992 and they have no children. Somehow that fact was missing. As far as I am concerned the gloves were off. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0910/ODonnell_backer_makes_sex_charge_in_Delaware_race.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righteousmomma Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 This thread seems to have run its course and gone full circle. NOW is the time to express personal opinions of dismay, frustration yada yada. A closed forum (like the Porch) is the place to express discontent and questions before the election. NOT before the election on a public forum where anyone trolling for ammunition comes and that is all most of us were trying to say. She was the voter's elected choice. We should support our side during election cycles and sometimes like momma used to say "If you can't say something good then keep quiet." As for what happened to money etc etc I have not a clue but I am sure if anything illegal happened to it we will hear about it. O'Donnell is bound by the same finance rules as everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest areafiftyone Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 TRR wasn't nearly as bad as other sites. I really didn't even notice it until last night. (Of course, I had been gone for 3 weeks due to having to have surgery again.) However, on other sites, it was atrocious. As bad as stuff as would be on DU. As I said, there is a difference in disagreeing with which candidate was the best choice, or various ideological points, but people actively trying to harm the candidate (to nothing but the advantage of the Democrats) is something anyone who claims to be a conservative should never do. Speaking of other sites. I was lurking on FREAK Republic and JR was banning some people who spoke out against Christine O'Donnell on Election night. Of course he called them every name in the book first including his favorite word "A$$Wipe". I really felt bad for one woman who got banned just for saying that O'Donnell was really not qualified. She never got nasty but just simply gave her opinion. He got on the thread and called her a RomneyBot and promptly banished her. I hate to see the purge he is going to do when they start focusing on the 2012 election and anyone who speaks against Palin is banned. For a supposedly Christian site - some people there including the owner have black hearts and really have no right to call themselves a Christian. Sad place - then they wonder why the media calls Tea Partiers racists and lunatics - if you look at that website that is what they really are. It's a shame that they think they represent the Tea Party but there is no controlling that. I'm glad this site is open to dialogue and is accepting of different opinions. It's very important in politics to be open and honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCTexan Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I'm glad this site is open to dialogue and is accepting of different opinions. It's very important in politics to be open and honest. I agree. I'm glad that this site is open to honest discussion and is generally very civil and respectful of other members here. I don't want to engage in a mindless echo chamber either. However, I don't enjoy the repetitive beating of a dead horse... nor the implication that those who said, "The primary is over so let's support the candidate running against the liberal DEM opponent", are mindless cheerleaders of anything TeaParty. (I'm not saying that you did this A51) This site is not FR and it's where I choose to spend my time in political dialog. I never go back to TOS for the very reasons that you mentioned. All that said, I don't know why some want to keep a somewhat maniacal focus on everything negative with the losers that were sponsored by the TeaParty? But that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argyle58 Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I'm glad to see this race done with. I took a position here that looked like I was an O'Donnell supporter. In reality I was simply trying to get folks to look past the press coverage of the candidate. But now that it is all over, I am hoping that the Tea Party Express (not to be confused with the Tea Party Movement) has learned some lessons here. This campaign, as well as those of Sharron Angle and Ken Buck, should serve as learning tools. It is one thing to get relatively unknown candidates past the primaries, but these "anti-establishment" candidates need better support...tactical support, not necessarily more monetary support, in order to run a good campaign. All three were viable candidates, but their inexperience left them vulnerable and they were poorly managed. O'Donnell came off as a puritan who was busy judging people by what they did in their bedrooms, Buck shot himself in the foot with his anti-gay speeches and Angle played the immigration card way too hard. Likewise, I hope that the Republican Party has learned that they have to support the People's choices in these races. The RSCC and the RCCC turned their noses up at these upstarts and refused to give them the coaching and management support that they needed, simply because the electorate had the gaul to go against the establishment candidates. All three of these were winnable races, but the candidates got caught up in the power struggle between the RNC and the Express. They were also victims of their own naivitee and lack of campaign experience. There is little time to correct these fallacies; the 2012 campaign season is right around the corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cudjo Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Argyle58 -- You clearly and concisely said what's been jumbled in my mind. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickydog Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Now that this campaign is over I'm beginning to dread the 2012 campaign. The midterms were child's play compared with what we'll be seeing next. In addition to who will run on the Republican side, the pundits are already speculating on which Democrats might be lining up to run against Obama (well, actually, that might be fun to watch). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollyannaish Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I'm glad to see this race done with. I took a position here that looked like I was an O'Donnell supporter. In reality I was simply trying to get folks to look past the press coverage of the candidate. But now that it is all over, I am hoping that the Tea Party Express (not to be confused with the Tea Party Movement) has learned some lessons here. This campaign, as well as those of Sharron Angle and Ken Buck, should serve as learning tools. It is one thing to get relatively unknown candidates past the primaries, but these "anti-establishment" candidates need better support...tactical support, not necessarily more monetary support, in order to run a good campaign. All three were viable candidates, but their inexperience left them vulnerable and they were poorly managed. O'Donnell came off as a puritan who was busy judging people by what they did in their bedrooms, Buck shot himself in the foot with his anti-gay speeches and Angle played the immigration card way too hard. Likewise, I hope that the Republican Party has learned that they have to support the People's choices in these races. The RSCC and the RCCC turned their noses up at these upstarts and refused to give them the coaching and management support that they needed, simply because the electorate had the gaul to go against the establishment candidates. All three of these were winnable races, but the candidates got caught up in the power struggle between the RNC and the Express. They were also victims of their own naivitee and lack of campaign experience. There is little time to correct these fallacies; the 2012 campaign season is right around the corner. BRAVO! Excellent post and absolutely nailed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickadee Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Argyle58, thanks and ditto to what cudjo and polly said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stella Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I'm glad to see this race done with. I took a position here that looked like I was an O'Donnell supporter. In reality I was simply trying to get folks to look past the press coverage of the candidate. But now that it is all over, I am hoping that the Tea Party Express (not to be confused with the Tea Party Movement) has learned some lessons here. This campaign, as well as those of Sharron Angle and Ken Buck, should serve as learning tools. It is one thing to get relatively unknown candidates past the primaries, but these "anti-establishment" candidates need better support...tactical support, not necessarily more monetary support, in order to run a good campaign. All three were viable candidates, but their inexperience left them vulnerable and they were poorly managed. O'Donnell came off as a puritan who was busy judging people by what they did in their bedrooms, Buck shot himself in the foot with his anti-gay speeches and Angle played the immigration card way too hard. Likewise, I hope that the Republican Party has learned that they have to support the People's choices in these races. The RSCC and the RCCC turned their noses up at these upstarts and refused to give them the coaching and management support that they needed, simply because the electorate had the gaul to go against the establishment candidates. All three of these were winnable races, but the candidates got caught up in the power struggle between the RNC and the Express. They were also victims of their own naivitee and lack of campaign experience. There is little time to correct these fallacies; the 2012 campaign season is right around the corner. Argyle58 I liked your post a lot. You said in a very concise way what I had been thinking all along. None of us know for sure if Colorado, Delaware and Nevada could have been won with stronger candidates. Weak, unknown candidates are not helpful in the end. One of the reasons I am so concerned about the Express and the PAC is the 2012 election. All this sniping has got to stop between the GOP and the Express candidates or we will be in big trouble. I know that most of us will get behind the GOP candidate even if he/she is not our preferred candidate but we need those Independents and all the disillusioned Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cudjo Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Stella -- right, the next election is going to be rough. We need someone that Independents can get behind. I think the press has done so much damage to Sarah Palin and she in turn has hurt herself, we need a candidate that is strong, but please not another John McCain. I think the Republicans do need to pay attention to the Tea Party but I don't think the bickering between them will help anyone but the Democrats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErnstBlofeld Posted November 4, 2010 Author Share Posted November 4, 2010 (edited) TRR wasn't nearly as bad as other sites. I really didn't even notice it until last night. (Of course, I had been gone for 3 weeks due to having to have surgery again.) However, on other sites, it was atrocious. As bad as stuff as would be on DU. As I said, there is a difference in disagreeing with which candidate was the best choice, or various ideological points, but people actively trying to harm the candidate (to nothing but the advantage of the Democrats) is something anyone who claims to be a conservative should never do. Speaking of other sites. I was lurking on FREAK Republic and JR was banning some people who spoke out against Christine O'Donnell on Election night. Of course he called them every name in the book first including his favorite word "A$$Wipe". I really felt bad for one woman who got banned just for saying that O'Donnell was really not qualified. She never got nasty but just simply gave her opinion. He got on the thread and called her a RomneyBot and promptly banished her. I hate to see the purge he is going to do when they start focusing on the 2012 election and anyone who speaks against Palin is banned. For a supposedly Christian site - some people there including the owner have black hearts and really have no right to call themselves a Christian. Sad place - then they wonder why the media calls Tea Partiers racists and lunatics - if you look at that website that is what they really are. It's a shame that they think they represent the Tea Party but there is no controlling that. I'm glad this site is open to dialogue and is accepting of different opinions. It's very important in politics to be open and honest. In defense of Jim Robinson, FR is his site and he dictates the rules.If you do not like the rules go somewhere else.TRR has their own rules and regulations.The FR site is up and running. When it crashes it is up within a few minutes.When you have a question, Jim answers it promptly. Yes, there are a few people who are "off center" and should not be using a computer. Stay away from them. I have been cyber stalked by several people. It is a good store house of knowledge.I learn something every day.By the way, it was Jim's birthday recently, so "Happy Birthday Jim" Edited November 4, 2010 by ErnstBlofeld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_Simmons Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I think the one overarching thing to remember is that all of these candidates were not appointed to run, they WON their PRIMARIES. If there were 'better' candidates, they weren't good enough to win the primary. The Tea Party movement has saved the GOP. If the enthusiasm of the grass roots led to a few 'not-quite-ready-for-prime-time' candidates to get nominated, that is to be seen as an inevitable part of the reform process. Overall is anyone going to argue that the results nation-wide were hurt by the Tea Party movement? Seen another way, these 'flawed' candidates would not have won had the 'mainstream GOP' not failed the rank and file in the past. I cringed at the nominations of Bob Dole in 1996 and McCain in 2008, knowing that both men were doomed to lose. But I didn't criticize them once they won the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollyannaish Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I think the one overarching thing to remember is that all of these candidates were not appointed to run, they WON their PRIMARIES. If there were 'better' candidates, they weren't good enough to win the primary. The Tea Party movement has saved the GOP. If the enthusiasm of the grass roots led to a few 'not-quite-ready-for-prime-time' candidates to get nominated, that is to be seen as an inevitable part of the reform process. Overall is anyone going to argue that the results nation-wide were hurt by the Tea Party movement? Seen another way, these 'flawed' candidates would not have won had the 'mainstream GOP' not failed the rank and file in the past. I cringed at the nominations of Bob Dole in 1996 and McCain in 2008, knowing that both men were doomed to lose. But I didn't criticize them once they won the nomination. I agree with you in all situations except one: If I discover a candidate has intentionally lied in a circumstance, I will not vote for that person. I'm not talking about misunderstanding, or an exaggeration, or a goof, or spinning or avoidance. I mean fabricating something out of thin air or lying to either cover for something you should take responsibility for. I will not vote for that person. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_Simmons Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 I think the one overarching thing to remember is that all of these candidates were not appointed to run, they WON their PRIMARIES. If there were 'better' candidates, they weren't good enough to win the primary. The Tea Party movement has saved the GOP. If the enthusiasm of the grass roots led to a few 'not-quite-ready-for-prime-time' candidates to get nominated, that is to be seen as an inevitable part of the reform process. Overall is anyone going to argue that the results nation-wide were hurt by the Tea Party movement? Seen another way, these 'flawed' candidates would not have won had the 'mainstream GOP' not failed the rank and file in the past. I cringed at the nominations of Bob Dole in 1996 and McCain in 2008, knowing that both men were doomed to lose. But I didn't criticize them once they won the nomination. I agree with you in all situations except one: If I discover a candidate has intentionally lied in a circumstance, I will not vote for that person. I'm not talking about misunderstanding, or an exaggeration, or a goof, or spinning or avoidance. I mean fabricating something out of thin air or lying to either cover for something you should take responsibility for. I will not vote for that person. Period. I would have to agree. But I'd have to be darned sure that the matter was not being misrepresented by the 'state media.' The lies and distortions that I saw in this year's Democrat commercials - especially in the last week before the election - were beyond the pale and far worse than anything I've seen in my 34 years of following politics.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollyannaish Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 I think the one overarching thing to remember is that all of these candidates were not appointed to run, they WON their PRIMARIES. If there were 'better' candidates, they weren't good enough to win the primary. The Tea Party movement has saved the GOP. If the enthusiasm of the grass roots led to a few 'not-quite-ready-for-prime-time' candidates to get nominated, that is to be seen as an inevitable part of the reform process. Overall is anyone going to argue that the results nation-wide were hurt by the Tea Party movement? Seen another way, these 'flawed' candidates would not have won had the 'mainstream GOP' not failed the rank and file in the past. I cringed at the nominations of Bob Dole in 1996 and McCain in 2008, knowing that both men were doomed to lose. But I didn't criticize them once they won the nomination. I agree with you in all situations except one: If I discover a candidate has intentionally lied in a circumstance, I will not vote for that person. I'm not talking about misunderstanding, or an exaggeration, or a goof, or spinning or avoidance. I mean fabricating something out of thin air or lying to either cover for something you should take responsibility for. I will not vote for that person. Period. I would have to agree. But I'd have to be darned sure that the matter was not being misrepresented by the 'state media.' The lies and distortions that I saw in this year's Democrat commercials - especially in the last week before the election - were beyond the pale and far worse than anything I've seen in my 34 years of following politics.... Ha! True that. You're not going to learn the truth from commercials. But you have a pretty good idea of when it's happening and you have to go looking to find the truth. I believe you can smell dishonesty. Even on your own team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now