In state after state (though certainly not all the candidates she's backed), Palin's endorsement has taken a little known candidate and thrust him/her into the spotlight, resulting in Tea Party publicity and conservative money heading their way. The candidate then becomes a household name, and their message resonates, eclipsing the Establishment Candidate.
Whether this is all for the good of the Republican Party or not is debateable. Joe Miller, Marco Rubio, Kim Ayotte, & Nikki Haley are all good candidates.
The big controversy is in the Delaware Senate primary, where, with a boost from Palin, Christine O'Donnell overcame much controversy and a big deficit to beat long time Delaware Republican RINO Mike Castle. Mike Castle is a type of Republican that would make Jeff's (and my) blood boil, with his vote for Cap 'n' Trade, and his vote before the Iraq Surge for a Congressional Resolution against it:
pledges support for U.S. personnel serving “bravely and honorably in Iraq” but says Congress “disapproves” of the president’s plan to add more than 20,000 combat troops. The resolution was approved 246 to 182. Seventeen Republicans joined 229 Democrats in support of the resolution. Two Democrats opposed the measure.This was similar to a statement made by Oregon Republican Senator Gordon Smith in Dec 2006, just before the surge:
I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that any more. I believe we need to figure out not just how to leave Iraq but how to fight the War on Terror and to do it rightThat statement by Smith convinced me that Republicans and Americans didn't need him and I refrained from voting for him in the 2008 election, helping to hand one of Oregon's senate seats to uber-lib Jeff Merkely. That doesn't make me happy, but a Republican undercutting the war effort, particularly at that critical time, was unconscionable.
However, and this is a big however, in every poll conducted in Delaware so far, Mike Castle easily defeats the Democratic candidate, Chris Coons, while every poll also shows Chris Coons easily defeating Christine O'Donnell. It's quite possible that Republican control of the Senate could come down to the Delaware vote. If Mike Castle were nothing else, he would at least be a number determining whether Harry Reid will be the leader of the Senate or not. And that, as Joe Biden says "is a big fucking deal". Well, it doesn't matter if it was right or wrong for Sarah to endorse O'Donnell, but she did, and she won. We'll see if O'Donnell can close the gap in Delaware. Even if she doesn't, she has poached RINO from the Republican Party, and maybe we don't even want control of the Senate at this time. Many blogs have given this topic in-depth analysis. See Ace for the most even-handed.
But, regardless, the Power Behind the Republican Party: my gal Sarah, and the Tea Party continue to roll on and transform the Republican Party and America. The MSM destroyed her as a candidate, but, as in Star Wars, striking her down, made her stronger than they could possibly imagine. This campaign season is a sweet revenge.
Really, I've just been waiting for quite a long time for a good excuse to post that exclusive photo of Sarah during her last Arctic hunting trip.
That picture is super sweet.
ReplyDeleteThe conservatives over there need to get off their ass and vote for O'Donnell. I think they will. They might be stunned by the initial shock of all this but when they realize the weight of their potential votes then they will know what to do.
O'Donnell needs to cut all the religious dialogue. I like almost all her political points of view but she needs to separate church and state. I don't mind politicians bringing in their ideologies to influence their decisions because that will inevitably happen with any decision. But reading things like this concern me
ReplyDelete"In a 1996 discussion on CNN, O'Donnell, advocated the teaching of creationism in public schools and argued for a literal interpretation of The Bible's Book of Genesis.[16] O'Donnell has rejected Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, asserting that it "had not met scientific criteria" and that "when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory.""(wikipedia)
I don't mind her accusing Darwinism as a theory but teaching creationism is a stretch.
The Delaware race has been in the news quite a bit. Mike Castle was an Obama-Republican as O'Donnell called it. Her victory over the establishment candidate has really angered them. Look at Karl Roves' attack on her.
ReplyDeletehttp://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/15/video-rove-doubles-down-against-odonnell/
Even Charles Krauthammer called Palin's support of O'Donnell stupid. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/13/krauthammer-palins-and-demints-endorsements-of-odonnell-are-destructive-capricious-irresponsible/
Mike Castle also voted with some Democrats to impeach President W. Bush for misleading the nation in to the Iraq war.
There is a war for the soul of the Republican party. And the anger and attacks from the established republicans demonstrates this. I don't see the purpose of having people like Castle being supported just because they call themselves a republican no matter how likely they are to win. These attack on O'Donnell shows that the establishment Republicans are very similar to the Democrats.
Toejamm, on the religious stuff, you have to be careful about what wikipedia says about current controversial people as anyone can post something on wikipedia and often people are slandered. I looked up the article and looked up the source and I did not actually see where she supported teaching creationism in schools: it just referenced a CNN interview. On the subject of teaching the theory of creationism, I would support this being taught in schools along side the theory of evolution. I don't think teaching the creationist theory is that big of a stretch as a good number of scientist believe in some type of intelligent design and the theory of evolution does have a lot of holes. I did gleam from the source that she does believe in a young earth. I do think it is sad that Christianity has such ignorant defenders and proponents as the Bible does not specify a certain age but actually points to the universe being fairly old. Also on the separation of church and state, this only means that the government can't establish a church and force people to attended it. It doesn't mean that there can't be elected officials that have strong religious views. The separation of church and state has been abused in our time to remove references to God and religion in public buildings and public schools and public discourse. I don't think she is currently making religion a big deal, but if she did I would support that as long as it doesn't go too far.
Since writing the article, I've found that Palin was not 100% successful on Tuesday. The Tea Party candidate in Maryland was not able to beat popular ex-governor Paul Erhlich in the Republican primary there.
ReplyDeletehttp://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/odonnell-in-1996-just-as-much-if-not-more-proof-for-creationism-than-evolution.php?ref=fpb
ReplyDeleteO'Donnell said that evolution needs to be taught side by side with evolution. Teaching creationism in public schools is a separation of church and state issue.
"I don't think she is currently making religion a big deal, but if she did I would support that as long as it doesn't go too far."
Every political battle she has ever taken on has been based on religion. She is the founder of a religious organization called SALT, she is pro life, anti masturbation, she was a spokesperson for Concerned Women for America (conservative christian group).
Her entire bio is pretty much religious based issues.
I don't think that any of her arguments are wrong. I'd even vote for her. It will be hard for most other Americans to though.
That is the article I read from Wiki. It is from the Huffo post. I would disagree with teaching that the earth is young, but I would not oppose teaching intelligent design as long as it was taught along side evolution. And I don't think teaching intelligent design, but maybe a one religious point of view, is a separation of church and state issue. From what I read in the article she said that evolution and creationism should be taught side by side. It is sad that most creationist insist on teaching a young earth though. So I can see why that if people equated creationism with teaching a young earth that they would be against creationism.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the anti masturbation, I don't think she actually supported making it a crime. From the article, I just gleamed that she viewed it as cheating. I don't think anything she has said or supported is that big of a deal and I don't see why her religious beliefs should be such a big deal, but to some people it might be a turn off. Obama's radical church and his ties to Islam was not an issue, which it should have been, so why should O'Donnell's? According to the media her "radical" Christian views makes her a dangerous person, but a man who attended an American hating church that taught liberation theology is off limits and ok. There is a double standard here. And there is a major bias against Christianity because it is the foundation of our nation and these people want to "fundamentally transform" America. So attacking such a fundamental building block serves their purpose.
The bottom line is that she is far better than Castle even if he was a guaranteed winner because he is basically not a conservative and it would have done no good for the conservative cause to have him elected. And I don't think O'donnell's religious views should be an issue at all unless she is trying to make masturbation a crime and wants to make a state church that people must attend and if she wants to have young-earth-creationism be taught as the only theory on the orgin of everything. I think her religious views are being unfairly attacked.
Those are the flaws she has, along with issues paying off debts. She is a flawed candidate. But, the creationism and the sexuality issues are distractions. The Tea Party is about fiscal responsibility. Which she campaigns on. The other things, which you can agree with or not, are irrelevences that the MSM will try to blow into big deals but should be ignored.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do agree that the debt issues are real issues and flaws in her candidacy. But compared to the self-proclaimed "bearded Marxist" she's up against?
For the voters to decide I guess.