« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A Friendly Note to Liberty.com

By: Loren Heal (Diary)  |  September 3rd, 2010 at 11:40 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Promoted from the diaries by Aaron Gardner

Yeah, I am an O’Donnell supporter and I am promoting this. Being a player in politics requires you to be mature, Liberty.Com wasn’t. The ad was atrocious and it may have single handedly destroyed any chance for O’Donnell. I will be writting a small defense of O’Donnell over the weekend, as a contrast to Erick – though I agree with him in large part. Regardless of that, the below needed to be said, and said loudly. And I whole heartedly agree.

I haven’t watched the “Castle is teh gay” ad posted by Liberty.com as their big splashy opening.

And I won’t.

But I know, as anyone should, that bringing that kind of charge into a campaign is bad, no matter with how much class it’s done. “Bad” doesn’t cover it.

  • It will (not might) cause a backlash against O’Donnell.
  • It says liberty.com is a sham.
  • It says liberty.com is made of stupid.
  • It sullies the Tea Party name.

Again, I don’t need to watch the ad to say any of those things. Do you guys not read the news? States like Delaware are iffy on whether they’re going to allow gay marriage, for goodness’ sake. That should tell you something. Being gay, or having a gay affair, are not that big a deal with the electorate.

But they may be a big deal within a marriage. That you would sink to saying something publicly about a guy’s private life says something about you.

And it says something about you, and therefore about Christine’s supporters generally, that you would think having a gay affair would matter. It makes you sound desperate, and your preferred candidate, even if she had nothing to do with it, sound like a desperate sleazeball.

There are bigger issues at stake than some candidate’s morals. So with spending in Washington out of control, with our government suing states for enforcing the law, with Democrats trying to set up a tax and a market for carbon dioxide, with our health care system on the verge of being intentionally collapsed into a single-payer human control mechanism, you want to talk about smut.

Stop it. Pull the ad, if you haven’t. Stick to the issues.

Then apologize to your friends, to your donors, to the Tea Party movement, to Mike Caste, and to Christine O’Donnell.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • streiff

    of an otherwise excellent essay.

    There are bigger issues at stake than some candidate?s morals.

    Actually there aren’t. If there is one thing we learned from the long dark night of the Clinton presidency it was that there is no separation between public and private morality. If a man… or woman…. will betray someone with whom they have a sacramental bond they will betray you, the voter, without batting an eye. So if it is true we know up front that he will not vote the interests of either his state or of the voters but rather whatever gives him immediate gratification.

    Having said that, the video is nothing but a calumny. There is no evidence that it is anything other than a scurrilous rumor and a person who would make such a charge is not to be trusted.

    • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

      And in general, I agree to the extent that public and private morality are inseparable. I meant, of course, that the scale of the issues we’re facing is far bigger than the small time gossip at play here.

    • aesthete

      I’d rather have Slick Willie, flimsy morals and all, at the helm than Obama.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • trt1

    …and not for the reason most would think. None of this nonsense matters to me. Do I like “He’s the gay?” Hell no. Does it affect what doctor I am going to be able to see (and when) or how much I pay for electricity…Hell no.

    My point is that you can take to task those who put up ads like this without washing your hands of the race. There are huge issues that affect each and every one of us…but Castle being gay or not isn’t one of them. The fact Castle has just as liberal a voting record as most of the democrats is the issue that matters to me.

    Some want a majority so bad that they are willing to do it with Castle. HUGE MISTAKE. Do you really want to see Castle on Meet the Press explaining the Republican point of view? Voting with the RINOs and libs every chance he gets? Seriously?

    I have noticed a little trend lately with Erick. I hate to say it, but I don’t think he is grass roots anymore. Getting a little big for his britches maybe. You don’t surrender to a liberal no matter what (if there is no crime committed). So, some goofy website posted a idiotic ad. Do we have proof that O’Donnell supported it? Even if it was a lapse in judgement, is her lapse in judgement worse than Castle’s judgement? I hate that politics has come to this…but it has. We can keep working hard to clean up our own side of the isle, but I don’t think we do it at the expense of sending Mike Castle to the Senate where he can be a menace to us all for 6 years.

    You tell O’Donnell to knock it off if she hasn’t been paying close enough attention to what others are doing on her behalf…but you don’t throw your hands in the air and say “I am out of Delaware.” What the hell is wrong with you people? This election matters because of issues far more important that Rent, lawsuits, and who is or isn’t gay. You support the person who will vote to repeal health care…who won’t vote for cap&trade, etc. Period.

    • Matt In The Hook

      Castle DID vote against Obamacare. And while we’d all love to see 60 Jim DeMints, that will never happen. So what do we do? Just cede a state to the blue team because the guy on our team might bail on us 30% of the time? Castle will never be in a leadership position in the Senate so don’t worry about him being the mouthpiece for the caucus.

      I don’t see the Maine sisters or Dick Lugar constantly front and center when it comes to speaking for our side. And with outspoken and intelligent folks like Rubio and Buck headed into the caucus soon enough, I’m sure the conservatives will be plenty powerful.

      Let’s not act like having a guy who votes for us 70% of the time is worse than 0% of the time just because he wears the same jersey but doesn’t line up on the same side when it comes to every issue. I’m not a fan of Castle’s positions on cap/trade or DISCLOSE and I find any politician that supports or is at least OK with abortion to be abhorrent. But the choice is not between a good candidate and a bad one. It’s between a guy with a mid 50s ACU rating versus one with almost a zero rating.

      Despite her conservative views, O’Donnell is a terrible candidate; a conspiracy theorist who thinks that Scott Rasmussen is paid off by the NRSC, floated the idea that Castle supporters literally stalked her during her 2008 run against Biden and hasn’t held a real job for years. Conservative box-checking got us Dan Maes in Colorado and would get us a similar result in the First State if the rank and file somehow gets behind O’Donnell.

      • trt1

        …he would have voted for it if they needed the vote. He has already said he would not vote to repeal the health care deform so you can pretty much consider that he voted for it.

        Listen, it isn’t like O’Donnell is down 50 points in this race. I believe it is within the margin of error. It is insane to just walk away because of some stupid ad, rent payments, lawsuits, etc. That is the point. We give up political ground every chance we get for stupid reasons and that has to stop.

        In other words, get your balls out of your wife’s purse and fight for what matters and stop paying attention to what they want us to pay attention to. Have we not learned to ignore Alinsky tactics yet?

      • trt1

        Castle will vote for conservatism 70% of the time? Really? Have you not looked at his voting record? The guy is a pinko.

    • pilgrim

      This seat will be up for re-election in 2014 and not 2016.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    which uses alleged moral issues as means of divining how a person will fulfill their duties. This attempt a scandalous revelation to denigrate a candidate is the handmaiden of Democrats. One might think we would be a bit weary of that by now.

    I frankly don’t give a pig’s ear who Castle sleeps with, even if it’s a goat. What I do care about is how his time in Congress has been spent supporting an agenda that is contrary to American values.

    Ultimately, this is about how O’Donnell is much more principled and will vote for an agenda consistent with our country’s values.

    Great job, Loren.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      5

  • rdelbov

    that a movement promotes is of a vital interest.

    Christine O. basically left employees and vendors holding the bag after her 2008 race. Besides the politics of anything lets do the right thing with people who you owe for printing-payroll-other services.

    NRO raised today the issue of her financial report filed with the US senate office for 2009. She has listed only $5800 income and claims that while she has earned more there is no reason for her to report it. Sorry this is too much for me. She is already living in a rented house that her campaign is helping to pay for. Plus she is living off her campaign donations. This is just too Charlie Rangel like for me.

    Now she these trashy connections with this strange website.

    This is no longer about Mike Castle but what sort of candidate that you want to associate a political movement with.

    • trt1

      Look, I am in Texas and we have our own fights with Cornyn and Kay Bailey. I have nothing to do with the O’Donnell campaign…but we are worried about her income and bills? I am worried about how she will friggin vote. Period. End of story. That is ALL that matters right now. What you are basically saying is unless they are bulletproof…you want nothing to do with them and will allow this country to march on into Tyranny. God help us.

      • rdelbov

        unpaid bills -her ethical lapses do reflect on her basic honesty and her ability to get elected. She can talk the conservative talk all day long but if she cannot be honest in dealing with her employees and vendors. How can we trust her to vote conservative?

        She is toast in a GE with her baggage. In addition she has zero legislative votes and any assumptions about how she would vote is based on her honesty.

        • Aaron Gardner

          I reject your premise.

          • trt1

            Yes, Aaron…because it isn’t like she is raping dead horses in the middle of Sunday school class or she isn’t voting to spend trillions of taxpayers money or she isn’t voting to put cap & trade in place…etc etc. As far as I know she files proper tax returns. Should she pay her personal bills…yes. People who are owed money have recourse.

            In the meantime, I would take a vote against health care and a vote against cap & trade and a vote against card check and a vote against another stimulus and a vote against just about anything Obama wants from a person who owes some money any day versus the alternative. Your view is exactly the kind of thinking that has helped get us into this mess.

            So, I reject your premise.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Put your weapon on safety .. I’m on your side. ;)

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
      • aesthete

        So discussion of how she will vote should, IMO, be dwarfed by the discussion of whether it is better to be represented in the general by O’Donnell (followed by a loss of the seat to Ds), or by Castle (followed by a likely liberal R win). There are no good choices here: though I’m generally on the “R in the general side” of the debate, it is easy to sympathize with the argument that DeMint as Minority Leader is a more worthy goal than McConnell as Majority Leader. In addition, Castle ain’t a gem, himself. We should not sully the Tea Party and conservative brands by supporting an abortive candidacy that will repel Delewareans from the conservative and R labels based on personal and culture warrior issues. However, one can make the argument that allowing a status quo blue blood such as Castle is an equally repellant proposition, and potentially just as bad in the imaging department.

  • http://www.hickpolitics.com Dave Poff (haystack)

    choosing to ditch “Conservative in the primary/Republican in the General” in lieu of just the good ‘ol fashioned “Republican in the primary/Republican in the General” approach.

    It’s worked out so well for us in places like, oh I dunno, John McCain?

    Well done-nothing to see in Delaware folks…Castle’s in…move along.

  • abeldred

    Do you HONESTLY believe that a person’s moral compass is superseded by the “issues”. If a person doesn’t have a firm foundation in his/her morals, values and principles with the spine and conviction to stand on them, I cannot say that I would be able to trust them. More than ever when it comes to a politician.

    Morals matter!

    • trt1

      Great…send Castle some money. His honesty and moral compass is rock solid. You have two options…supporting a conservative or supporting the pinko. Period. Some of you have to be Castle campaign workers. This line of thought is just stupid.

  • Superheater

    “There are bigger issues at stake than some candidate?s morals.”

    Translation: We don’t mind detestable people as long as they do what we want.

    Lets me honest, by morals “Socrates” means disregard of marital vows. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t make that assertion if the candidates “morals” included say -doing anything necessary to reduce the number of “parasitic” human infants,-like an armed takeover of a Cable channel or proposing that nuclear blackmail was an acceptable method to have the U.S. accept some foreign group’s demands, or that clubbing baby seals for fun was ok.

    I’m fully aware people screw up, make mistakes. I know people who have had affairs-regretted and repented. But I can think of one reported serial adulterer who practiced lying to the public,(over and over) by first lying to his wife. You know you have to lie to yourself to have an affair, because you have to tell yourself its ok.

    How easy would it be to say you worked harder than you ever have to cut spending or fix the roads or whatever.. after you’ve told your spouse “honey, I’m going to have to worker harder than I ever have” to carry on a tryst.

    Of course-”morals” have had a direct effect on the conduct of the officeholder- there’s the governor yeah Ssnford, who went AWOL and became derelict in his duty because of a dalliance.

    Yes, people screw up, but acknowledging that doesn’t mean we give it a blanket pardon.

    Nicolas Nassim Taleb made an excellent point about exceptions being the essential part of a person in his book “The Black Swan”. The fact that you never murdered anybody in X years of living really doesn’t matter after the first time you pull the trigger.

    I’m a conservative, not a libertine.

    • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

      to streiff.

      My point is that there is plenty of material with which to attack Castle, none of which involves his physical person.

      (Note also that I carry a pseudonym as a tip of the hat to the Old Days at Redstate, when many more members did. I make no secret of my real identity, nor do I hold any pretense of great understanding.)

  • SirGladiator

    I don’t think anybody is saying that morals don’t matter, I certainly wouldn’t say that, but given that the person who started the rumor has absolutely no evidence to support it, that means the ‘issue’ is irrelevant, not the morals behind it. Of course if it turned out to be true Castle would have to withdraw, just like Nikki Haley would’ve had to withdraw if she had turned out to be guilty, but the point is that there’s no actual evidence of guilt, in either case. That means this race should be all about the issues, not rumors. The issues are that Castle has a decades long far-left voting record, and that O’Donnell is a strong Conservative. While its true that O’Donnell isn’t rich like Castle, and thus hasn’t always been able to pay her debts in a timely fashion, that isn’t a problem for normal people who can sympathize with having trouble paying your bills. Only the super-rich who have never had any money troubles in their life would find that to be some kind of character issue, for the rest of us its just normal life. She pays her bills, she doesn’t declare bankruptcy and default like so many people do these days, she always pays what she owes even if it isn’t always on time, I’d say that’s a sign of good character, not bad.

    Ultimately this isn’t about which candidate has the most scandalous rumors, or the most money, its about the issues. Mike Castle’s liberal voting record is causing him to sink like a stone in the polls, O’Donnell’s Conservative platform is causing her to surge. The long knives of the liberal Establishment are out for her between now and Primary day, because they know that she is very close to victory. The latest polling shows a 5 point race, and that’s before any of the Tea Party ads have even aired. Once they do she’s going to be in the lead, and unless they can destroy her between now and Primary day, this race is effectively over, O’Donnell will win. I for one will be doing my part to help make sure they don’t succeed in taking her out, and I’m glad to see so many here feel the same way. We’re close to victory, let’s not get discouraged by the angry attacks from the left, let’s keep standing up for what’s right, we’re gonna win this race!

    • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

      Thanks.

  • nickm

    That’s what Christine O’Donnell is. She’s in full-on kook territory, with her staff making paranoid rants about Rasmussen polls being NRSC tools to harm her campaign, with her losinjg it during an interview and accusing the questioner of being on the take – and the parallel to Keyes’s campaign salary history when she pays herself for campaign rent for running it out of her house is eerie.

    She is dead meat in a general election. “Doesn’t pay her bills” is a huge loser among average and swing voters. I don’t care how much you try to spin it that she’s not rich and gets excused that way, there’s no excuse for a $20K plus campaign debt sitting around almost 2 years later from a race that she had to know quite a while out was hopeless (although she seems to think she won a county that she lost by 14 points).

    If this is a wave year, a more conservative candidate than Castle (Pete DiPont, for example) might be able to win the Senate seat in DE. That doesn’t mean anyone can win just by claiming to be a conservative.

    “Don’t date the crazy” needs a corollary rule. Don’t vote the crazy.

    • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

      Just so we’re clear.

      • nickm

        Just so we’re clear.

        I heard the audio of her meltdown on WGMD. I suggest you listen to it.

        Perhaps her funniest looney tunes claim is what she recently told the Weekly Standard:

        Is O’Donnell suggesting that Castle supporters vandalized her office in
        2008, when she was running for Senate against Joe Biden? ?I?m not sure
        who did it, but I know for a fact that Mike Castle and [Delaware GOP
        chairman] Tom Ross were campaigning against me,? O?Donnell
        says. ?They?ve been sabotaging my candidacy since 2008. So who knows
        who did it back then.? O’Donnell says there are no police reports of the
        2008 break-in because she didn’t want to make an issue of it at the time.

        I call BS on the campaign office breakin claim. If you were a candidate and someone really broke into your office, you would immediately go to the police and the press with it. You get positive press about it,and if it can be tied to your opponent’s campaign, that’s the sort of thing that has been known to turn elections.

        Your heroine’s 2005 tax return claimed deductible expenses for “travel, meals, and entertainment” of $5700 during a year when she claimed wages of less than $15,000. Since normal meals are not deductible, I suggest that she really needs to stop taking so many trips she can’t afford. Ms. Cuckoo put it on her own campaign web page in a letter from the IRS as if that supposedly showed she is in the right.

        Or how about what she told a Delaware political reporter:

        “I’m not rich, I’m not working, and it is perfectly legitimate for me to use
        campaign funds for my living expenses while campaigning–food, gasoline,
        etc. I can even pay myself a salary as long as I’m not working,” said
        O’Donnell.

        Is she making your skin crawl yet?

        • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

          She is a normal person who doesn’t have a lot of money.

          Been there, pally.

          And if you don’t take every tax deduction that you are legally allowed to take, you’re a moron.

          • nickm

            O’Donnell basically hasn’t held a real job since she was fired from ISI in 2005 for running her public relations business while on their time. She filed a bovine scatology sex discrimination claim against them (here’s a hint – if you have a real claim, lawyers take that type of case on contingency).

            She claims tax deductions that appear fictitious – you don’t spend the kind of money she claims to on travel and entertainment when you’re making less than $15K a year – especially when you can’t make your house payments.

            So, did she earn $5,800 in 2009 (for political/PR consulting gigs), as she told the FEC under penalty of perjury, or did she earn a lot more than that, as she told an interviewer?

            The more I look into her background and statements, the worse she gets. The documents she posts to her website to justify her history (like the letter from the IRS) do not say what she says they do.

            Then there’s the fact that other people’s documents put the lie to her claims – like her assertion that she knew nothing about the lawsuit or sheriff’s sale order, even though the sheriff personally served her with the summons and complaint.

            She makes things up as she goes along (when she’s not just refusing to answer questions about her behavior), and relies on the fact that most people won’t spend the time to look at the public record.

            You’re making excuses for a crook and habitual liar, because she tells you what you want to hear.

            Oh, and I’m not your pally. I’ve been down the road of dealing with true believers in nutso candidates before. I was in California when a crackpot (now felon) named Nick Jesson ran for governor in 2002, and was a conservative darling until people started realizing he was a sociopathic pervert. The more awful stuff came to light about him, the more his Kool-Aid drinkers became defensive and conspiratorial.

            Mike Castle is a squish. Christine O’Donnell is morally unfit to hold any position of public trust.

  • furious

    …Judiciary chairman. I thought it was Democrats who hunted heretics, and
    Republicans who sought converts. Way to blow a chance for a pickup

    Oh, btw, noted RINO Chris Christie endorsed Rep Castle
    in the primary.

    • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

      If your point is that we shouldn’t have a disagreement during an election run, you’re right.

      But you’re taking pot shots at everyone, as far as I can tell.

  • furious

    …and you can achieve purity at the expense of leaving Joe Biden’s seat in
    the Democrats’ hands…and keeping Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader.

    Just looking at likely outcomes, instead of diving perceived slights. Christie’s
    Castle endorsement is a fact, not a potshot at people who disagree. Sorry you took that the wrong way, but then that’s not MY problem, is it?

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    INFORMED CONSENT:

    The dynamic between electability (against a D) and desirability (conforming with conservatism) is starkly evident, here, noting that Delaware is a “blue” state. Practicality should prevail, notwithstanding what some commentators wish to convey from their hearts. This interview was not just a disaster…it was a campaign-killer, for her “host” had endorsed her and was trying to be sympathetic. She could have handled the data more deftly, but she chose to adopt a combative posture repetitively.

    As Edmund Burke noted, we are electing a REPRESENTATIVE and not a DELEGATE, endowing trust in the judgment of the elected official IN OUR REPUBLIC–which is NOT a pure Democracy–recognizing that the alternative is a mailed-in vote, surely a double-edged sword.

    **************

    …With just days left before her primary election day challenge against Mike Castle (R) here is the complete interview with Christine O?Donnell (R) from today?s Dan Gaffney Show.

    http://www.wgmd.com/?p=9496&cpage=2#comment-8244

    http://www.wgmd.com/?p=9496

    1. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:
    September 3, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    I heard her speak off-the-record on Thursday-a.m. in Philly [@ the Union League] and she was impressive, albeit a bit repetitive; I asked her about the specifics of her personal finances, and her reply was nonspecific.

    This radio-performance is sad, notwithstanding whatever predisposition one might have to support an opponent of some of Mike Castle?s positions (such as favoring Cap & Trade).

    A few weeks ago, I had read the documents related to her background on the Internet, but I had not brushed-up on their content prior to our ?Loyal Opposition? meeting; the homework performed prior to the interview by Dan Gaffney was impressive, and he certainly provided her sufficient ?space? to explain-away her campaign rhetoric/behavior.

    It is unfair to compare her to Sarah Palin for many reasons; even when Sarah was new on the national stage, she did not dissemble or filibuster as was evinced during this radio interview.

    One cannot elect a candidate solely based on positions adopted on the issues, as attractive as they (and she) may be; as an independent thinker and as a GOP Committeeman in PA, it is simply not possible to support her candidacy?based on a fair hearing of her own words.