Tea Party Tattler? Candidate Sends Erick Erickson's E-Mails to Politico
Based on the dramatic bias of past election cycles, nobody should count on The Washington Post to be helpful (or even fair) to Sen. George Allen. But in Sunday's paper, political writer Ben Pershing reported on how Jamie Radtke, a Tea Party activist running against Allen in the primary, leaked e-mails to Politico from RedState blogger Erick Erickson and turned him from an endorser to someone joking about how one of her speeches made people wonder if she'd been drinking.
Pershing wrote:
On Wednesday, Politico’s Ben Smith reported on an e-mail from Erickson to the Radtke campaign in response to a request from Radtke that she be allowed to speak at RedState’s convention, which happened in mid-August.
“My bosses are huge Allen friends, not just fans. They are socially connected,” Erickson wrote in the message, which was sent to Politico by Radtke’s campaign manager. “So I’m having to tread carefully in this. Happy to help, but it’s got me in a difficult position. So please come and let me introduce you to people, but just understand that I have to be delicate for now.”
Erickson’s “bosses” are the executives who run conservative Eagle Publishing, which owns RedState. In his own response to Smith’s queries, Erickson said Eagle officials “asked [that Erickson] go slower in evaluating that race instead of diving in head first.”
“It was not a commandment or order, but out of respect to the long-term relationship George Allen has with Eagle, I thought it was a reasonable request; I was happy to accommodate.”
Erickson went much further in his own post, which was published later Wednesday on RedState. [It includes a great "Billy Madison" clip!]
First, Erickson posted several blisteringly bad reviews of Radtke’s speech at the RedState convention — where she had, in fact, appeared to introduce the director of the Sarah Palin documentary, “The Undefeated.”
“I assume this act of self destruction in front of 400 attendees of the RedState Gathering is why Jamie Radtke’s campaign decided to orchestrate a hit job on me in the Politico after I both endorsed her campaign and allowed her to speak at the RedState Gathering,” Erickson wrote.
He acknowledged that his bosses have a “very good” relationship with Allen and that they had asked him, when it came to evaluating the race, to “please go slow for once instead of shooting first and asking questions later.”
Erickson added that while he remains no fan of Allen, Radtke's weird actions considerably lessened his opinion of her:
“Jamie Radtke is not a victim,” he wrote. “She’s a candidate. And clearly a bad one at that. Game over as far as I’m concerned.”
...On Thursday, the Radtke campaign fired back in a news release, accusing Erickson of publishing “libelous pejoratives.”
“Erick’s blog goes beyond the pale,” Radtke said in the release. “He crossed the line by publishing complete falsehoods. Now, it is his responsibility to admit he did wrong, set the record straight and apologize – and that is what I am asking Erick to do.”
Pershing added an update that the war of words between Radtke and Erickson escalated further Thursday. Radtke was furious:
An attorney for Radtke sent a letter to Erickson demanding the “immediate and prominent retraction” of his Wednesday blog item on Radtke, primarily because two anonymous reviewers were quoted in the post claiming that Radtke appeared “drunk” when she spoke to the RedState convention this month.
“Those statements are false,” wrote attorney Patrick M. McSweeney. “You plainly repeated the statements quoted above without regard to their accuracy.”
In response, Erickson posted Thursday what could be described as a backhanded apology.
“Okay. I’m sorry I put up reviews of Jamie Radtke’s speech from people who saw it and thought she had been drinking,” Erickson wrote. “She says she had not been drinking. I’ll take her at her word for it. That does then suggest she needs some serious work on giving speeches if people who saw her speaking not under the influence presumed that she was under the influence.”
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Comment from a Tea Party member
Submitted by Anneke9 on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 9:13am.
The Tea Party should do a better job of vetting their candidates. "Two anonymous reviewers"... in a political campaign? Waaaah. Radke is thin-skinned, whiny, and quick to pull the lawsuit card.
My two cents...
Submitted by unkeeaf on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 9:21am.
Not a fan of Erick Erickson. If' you've ever listened to him sit in for Neal Boortz, you realize how little he really has to say. I appreciate the fact he's on our side, but I just don't like his style.
Erik Erikson leaves himself open
Submitted by Bumr50 on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 9:45am.
Erik Erikson really damaged RedState's rep as an objective and reasonable blog a couple of weeks back by going all-out "Rick Perry is the man and everyone else should get out of the way."
The more that Iearn about Perry, the more I like him as a candidate. To the point that I've switched from Michele Bachmann as my personal favorite. (I think billing the Feds for taking care of the immigrants they're not deporting pushed me over the top)
That said, the slobberfest over there was a bit much to take. Especially this early.
He maybe right about this woman, but I'm sorry if I don't take his word very seriously anymore after witnessing that little episode.
Perry has some big problems,
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 9:48am.
Perry has some big problems, investigate carefully.
Dan, they all have problems
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 10:27am.
Dan, they all have problems (or will have). Which is why it's way too soon to go all in on anyone.
There is only one perfect candidate.
Submitted by GregE on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 11:34am.
Obama.
I agree.
Submitted by BoilerFan on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 12:29pm.
I agree. It's too early to pick a horse in this race. They all possess attributes that are extremely attractive, but they also possess obvious shortcomings.
Let the process play out, allow them all to be thoroughly vetted, then we'll have to pick the horse with the best combination of backbone and endurance and the ability to sprint to the wire ahead of the man Newsweek's Evan Thomas described as "sort of God." We'll need a particularly strong candidate to defeat a man/god. ;)
Jesus Christ died for my sins
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 11:22am.
He is NOT running for the Presidency. Get used to imperfect people, and support the least imperfect one.
BTW, that is NOT DR. Ron Paul.
Dennis Prager
When a popular and dynamic
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 9:47am.
When a popular and dynamic movement like the TEA party emerges there will always be those who are hangers on who just want to ride the wave of success but are not ready for prime time.
Erick was wrong.... trashed another Conservative
Submitted by JamesPhilip on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 10:06am.
Erick can promote Perry all he wants. As long as Red State is up front about it and they are not. Erick talks about how he wears his defence of Conservatism as a badge of honor and then turns around and trashes another Conservative... Jamie Radtke.
Look, he first supported Radtke and then flip flopped when his bosses, who support Allen, told him to lay off. Fine, nothing wrong with that.... happens all the time.
But there are two things wrong here...
- first, that Red State tries to maintain some image of being neutral... which it is not. It supports some candidates over others... ie. Perry promotion over hightlighting Palin negatives.
- second, when this Radtke flip flop and the emails that confirm it were outed, Erick decided to go on a mission of destruction against Radtke (and Dan Riehl) for doing it. And the way he trashed Radtke is my big problem. He posted up on Red State, a highly visible site, a number of anonymous statements saying that Radtke was drunk and rambling nonsense when she introduced Bannon at the Red State gathering recently. "she rambled on drunkenly for almost 30 minutes", etc.
Now, apparently there were 400 people listening to her and not one person seems to have video of this horrible drunken rambling speech. Yet Erick posted this comment on the front page of his site, very prominently, in an effort to personally trash Radtlke, who used to be the state Tea Party leader and is a true Conservative. When threatened with a lawsuit, because the comments about drunkeness were all lies and bull crap, Erick retracted it.
My complaint with Erick is this... he deliberately and falsely accused Radtke of this drunkeness in order to personally trash her to make himself look better after admitting to flip flopping on his support to keep his job. That is bull crap. If he wants to trash someone, how about a Democrat? Not a real conservative for personal gain. I call bull crap on Erick on this one.
Fast and lose...
Submitted by Ragspierre on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 11:38am.
I'd say it was you who was trashing a conservative...without the least self-awareness or fidelity to the truth.
Erickson has not "retracted" his report of the comments of others...mostly because they are not his to retract.
While Erickson was not there, Wolf and Lane WERE, and report the same impression as others; Radtke was so bad she appeared impaired.
Nobody "falsely" accused Radtke of anything; they reported their perceptions of her.
Radtke was invited, offered a chance to speak (during dinner), and she blew it.
Then she chose to shop her story to Politico, and started waving a lawyer at RedState (which is REALLY stupid if you know anything about libel law).
Red State apologist
Submitted by JamesPhilip on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 12:56pm.
Blah Blah Blah.... you are arguing what the meaning of "is" is.
What if I had a highly visible web site and posted a number of anonymous posts saying your wife was drunk and appeared to be grabbing men by their balls and massaging them and sticking her tongue in other women's ears at at party, looking for someone to boink because you apparently can't perform anymore...
do you think most people would assume your wife was a skank and you a useless dick?
Just a perception of course...
Quit apologizing for that narcississtic idiot Erick. He screwed up and publicly. And why? Why trash another Conservative? Since there is no evidence - video or otherwise - that she was drunk and rambling and made a fool of herself, no one outside of the 400 would have known about it if it was true until Erick decided to make it very public. He is the a**hole in this... not Radtke.
For all I know she is a terrible candidate... but that is not any reason to personally trash her character.
If Erick is going to "honor Conservatism" then he better start doing it.
Ad hominem
Submitted by Ragspierre on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 2:11pm.
I note that all you have is ad hominem. And you can't stand opposition to your broke-dik ranting.
Eye witnesses are "evidence".
I think it is also evident that RADTKE made this public, and stupidly so.
She chose to go to Politico, instead of dealing directly with Erickson. She chose to PUBLICLY threaten a lawsuit (which is a cardinal blunder).
I don't subscribe to thought-control, and that includes sucking your teeth when you see a fatally flawed candidate...regardless of the flag they have chosen to fly.
More information is better. Move vetting is wise.
The only
Submitted by Tjexcite on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 10:24am.
The only conservative firing squad is circular.
If one on the right can not take any critique from a fellow right side traveler they would be chum for when the left attack machine gets going.
but the fighting
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 12:00pm.
should be done in private. get the differences settled then emerge in a unified front. division in the face of the enemy never works. it wont work this time either. and this isnt one conservative criticizing another, this is just plain back stabbing.
Red State is a joke...
Submitted by jdripper on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 10:46am.
The problem with Red State and Erickson is that they both have this self destructive bent of not accepting 98%. You either believe in what they say and preach 100% or it is nothing.
Red State has shown they can beat candidates in a primary, but they have no clue what to do next. They win primaries and lose general elections. That for conservatism is a losing and probably disastrous outcome in the end.
Jack
Jack, there is no reason not to be idealistic
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 11:20am.
All I can say about you "compromising" Republicans, is, "Thanks for $14+ trillion in debt". We got here when Reagan started to compromise with Tip O'Neil, when Bush did the same, and when Bush and the Republicans kept trying to compromise with Daschle, Reid, and the rest of the gang. We all saw how well compromise works with Obama.
As part of the Boehner compromises, we got nothing except an increasing budget and spiraling deficit.
Maybe YOU need a little more idealism?
Dennis Prager
That's Not What He Meant
Submitted by Tenebrous on Mon, 08/29/2011 - 9:18pm.
Red State does not excoriate compromise -- that's not their thing. Their thing is to trash everyone who doesn't agree with Erick. It's not a conservative hangout. It's a freaky little PC RINO cult.
Visions and Principles blog
Yes. Your thing.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/29/2011 - 11:56pm.
Your thing is to call anyone you disagree with a liar and/or a homosexual.
---- Let's all act like the cut and run sissy Tenebrous and attack those we disagree with.
Violet and Purple blog
The 11th commandment
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 11:20am.
"Thou shall not speak ill of any fellow Republican." -Ronald Reagan
I guess it doesn't extend to TEA party conservatives.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
The 22nd commandment of the Troll Bible.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 1:07pm.
22. Present multiple personalities.
Create throwaway identities to enter the newsgroup to spread discord and, after a few days or weeks, stop using that identity. Change your identity with every few articles you post to their newsgroup. Appear to be supporting all sides of the issues. If things are getting slow, you can even get into an argument with yourself. If you are losing an argument, start a n-on-1 argument with your primary identity being outnumbered. Then have each of your new identities be convinced by your primary identity to the error of their ways. This could also cause readers to dismiss the subject of the thread.
That was an enjoyable link.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 5:57pm.
Duly noted.
I believe you have established yourself as a "troll" to me. According to your list, so far, you have defined yourself to me in numbers 1-7, 10-13,15-21, 23-28, 31, 32, 36-38, 41, 42, and 47. That's a long list of transgressions and an enjoyable link. Of course, as I have said to you in earlier comments, I respond to you when I feel I need a laugh. Thank you so much for today's delightful link and proof of who you are to me.
LOL
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
He who laughs last, Blofeld,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 6:04pm.
laughs best.
The Vet has smiled over the "ACCESS DENIED" label laid on many a troll.
Keep working at it.
You'll get there, too.
MD
They don't get TV in trollietown.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 6:57pm.
We are the only entertainment trollies got.
Jampony (banned) : You make me laugh....
The Irishman (banned) : ...you made me laugh.
Garlock (not seen in months) : Excuse me while I laugh out loud.
barack_must_go (banned) : The way you type is jamai-kin me laugh mon...
barack_must_go (banned) : ...laughed at your temper tantrums...
Or maybe they are just stupid in that they think that a loser that has to stoop to trolling saying he is laughing is somehow supposed to be.... what? I don't even know why they say they are laughing. This is supposed to be what in the world of the written word? Threatening? Humiliating? Who knows. Trolls sure do it a lot. Maybe it scares another troll. Troll cackling has been known to scare small animals.
Bingo?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 6:32pm.
Anyone understand why this retread thinks throwing numbers at us will make sense?
It's Time for Your Nap With Jer
Submitted by Tenebrous on Mon, 08/29/2011 - 9:21pm.
Seriously, man? Why don't you go find your bbf Jer and slobber all over each other? Bleh. You want to talk about someone who's hard to take seriously? You take the cake on that one.
Visions and Principles blog
The NB community stands in awe....
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 08/29/2011 - 10:22pm.
How DOES this man keep turning out such memorable prose. Solid gold, Tenebrous. Solid gold.
Jer
Red State
Submitted by im41 on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 11:56am.
I stopped taking that site seriously a couple of years ago.
Go hang around there a while; they are practically liberal. You get the impression that they are struggling to gain acceptance with the liberal media, by leaving "the great unwashed" to their back country beliefs. The site is a joke.
Erick Erickson is a dip that considers himself too cosmopolitan to associate himself with opinions that three quarters of all conservative share.
You know, a RINO
DIARIES... not journals, not postings, not rants, not blogs, but diaries!
Can't do it... It makes me feel like a fairy at the Kos
DIARIES!!
C'mon man!!!!!!!
Yikes -- much ado about
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 11:44am.
Yikes -- much ado about nothing -- then elevated.
Neither side comes out well here.
Though, unlike foul-mouthed leftists, I note the lack of eff words and expletives used.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
As a supporter of the tea
Submitted by BoilerFan on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 12:16pm.
As a supporter of the tea party movement (and who has participated in three significant tea party-organized events in our community, in mid-north Indiana), I believe tea party activists need to be much smarter when it comes to picking their candidates. It isn't enough to draft somebody who says all of the right things in a primary election.
At the federal level, in particular, it's critically important to pick the nominee with the best combination of conservative/libertarian principles who can actually WIN a general election (either in a specific congressional district or statewide, in a senatorial race or gubernatorial contest). Such decisions need to be made on a district-by-district or state-by-state basis. All we have to do is look back to the Senate races in 2010 (e.g., Delaware, Colorado, Nevada, etc.) to see how insisting on ideological purity in the primary/caucus process can invite electoral disappointment in general elections.
In short, the ideological passion of tea party activists--which I certainly share--must be tempered by the political reality of individual districts and states.
"It isn't enough to draft
Submitted by amyshulk on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 4:04pm.
"It isn't enough to draft somebody who says all of the right things in a primary election" Aye, there's the rub. Huntsman says all the right things as did Obama on the stump.
Going by past actions means essentially making a list of L & R and going with the one who has more on the R side of the ledger. This vetting wasn't done to Obama, so we do it to ALL R's, and end up infighting.
To me it's pretty simple. Past was predicated upon the playing field, so they will ALL have baggage. Rare exception - Sharron Angle. In the Nevada Assembly the inside joke was "99 to Angle" because she refused to go along to get along. It was easy to vote for her.
Ronald Reagan
"It was easy to vote for
Submitted by BoilerFan on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 6:57pm.
"It was easy to vote for [Sharron Angle]." Sure. And if I had been a citizen of Nevada in '10, she would have received my vote, but not with a whole lot of enthusiasm. She was right on the vast majority of issues (which would have been enough to earn my vote), but she didn't exactly impress me as being the brightest bulb in the chandelier. And far too many people in Nevada simply didn't take her seriously enough to toss out the known commodity: Harry Reid. IMHO, Sue Lowden would have had a much better chance of beating Sen. Reid in the general election.
...And Jane Norton almost certainly would have beaten Michael Bennet in the general election in Colorado. Ken Buck was clearly a severely flawed candidate.
...And while Mike Castle was/is the epitome of the "RINO" Republican, he would have been a shoo-in to win the general election in Delaware. Christine O'Donnell had to be one of the most unimpressive U.S. Senate candidates in the history of the republic. Coons, understandably, won that race going away. It would have been better to have someone (Castle) voting with us 60 percent of the time instead of a Democrat voting with us five or ten percent of the time (if you're lucky).
Those were three Senate races that never should have gone to the Democrats in 2010. More Republican senators would have translated into more votes AGAINST the Democrat's agenda.
You have it backwards. The
Submitted by amyshulk on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 8:24pm.
You have it backwards. The whole reason we're in this mess is because we let the left define what electable is. Angle destroyed Reid in the debate, even the paper admitted it!!! I'm so tired of the "what will they think of me if I vote for X" attitude, along with the IDOL vibe. 2010 proved I'm not alone, and people get it.
Ronald Reagan
The Outcome Shows What "Electable" is...
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 9:01pm.
"we let the left define what electable is..."
Sometimes, in the past, perhaps that has happened. But, Amy, doesn't the fact that these conservative candidates lost their respective races - in a good year for conservatives - prove that, by definition, they were unelectable? If Sharron Angle had done so great, why did she lose so badly? It wasn't all voter fraud. If Christine O'Donnell wasn't as bad a candidate as she appeared, she should have won also. The truth is, despite all the tough talk I read ere about how O'Donnell was betrayed, etc. the fact was she was just awful as a general election candidate and had way too much baggage. It's all well and good to be a hardcore supporter of conservative principles, but to deny the obvious isn't helpful to the advancement of conservatism..
Chris,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 9:39pm.
you have always been impeccable in your statements defining the perils of crying RINO at the top of one's lungs; and I agree with you.
Nonetheless, for any and all baggage carried by O'Donnell, even up to the point of (maybe turning out to being) absolutely unelectable, the failure of the old guard to support, rather than either sharpshooting or abandoning her altogether, ONCE she beat Castle, seems unfair; "realistic" in the frame of modern politics or not.
The more I read amyshulk, the more I like her commonsense.
Between the two of you, some great food for thought.
Much appreciated.
MD
Chris, you don't know my back
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 08/29/2011 - 12:34am.
Chris, you don't know my back story if you think I'm a hardcore anything! As matthewdean says, I attempt to apply common sense.
I'm a HS dropout, 11 years USN disabled vet, went to college in my 30's. Grew up in Callie {La Canada - dad worked for JPL} and went with a friend to church once, when I was *very* young. Bought into the religion is eeeeeeeevil meme, that gov't was the answer, yada yada yada. I test out as a Libertarian, but I have a reality on bullies, so I guess that really makes me a neocon? No clue. Not really into labels except to use as shorthand because I do tend to go on, lol.
I identified with the TP's message from day 1, and never regretted it. I watched the debate and Angle DID destroy Reid. Talk about common sense!!!
I started watching Glenn Beck, identified and comprehended his message from day 1, and *never* regretted it. He helped me to hone my critical thinking skills.
I have paid attention off and on to {mostly} local gov't through the years after I got out. First in Va., then Fla., now here in Nv. Fla. was the most liberal.
Maybe it's because I'm 50 and I remember all these same arguments back in the 70's/80's, or maybe it's because I'm just wiser now, but I think I always felt it should be from family out to community and back again, not top down from the gov't.
As to the electability issue? Again, matthewdean gets it.
I've long believed we create our own reality - that we choose how we *want* to act/feel/react about things, but too many abdicated their responsibility re: gov't. and allowed the PTB's to tell them how to act/feel/react about things. This created all those surface voters that are called independents. No they aren't independent, they just don't know which way to go until they are told - It annoys me to no end that they are coddled and attributed with so much power!
We are being played by the big gov't types. Stop listening to who can't win, it's a lie - the reality? People don't fit into boxes. Enough with the sideshows. Elect those who get it. Just like Sharron Angle does.
Ronald Reagan
Well done! Couldn't agree
Submitted by Martin2717 on Mon, 08/29/2011 - 1:50am.
Well done! Couldn't agree more.
Amy,
Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 08/29/2011 - 2:59pm.
Amy, you have a very compelling story, but I have to disagree with you on the bottom line. The power of positive thinking will not get a bad candidate elected. They can believe and promote every last issue we conservatives hold dear, but - if they have skeletons in their closets, a hint of scandal, deliver their message badly, get distracted and defensive about side issues thrown at them by the media, have bad advisors, a bad personality - whatever - they will not get elected. I am fifty-three and also remember when the moderates controlled the Republican party - and I didn't like it either. I laugh when some here demand that the GOP "return to it's roots" and be more conservative "like they used to be" - the fact of the matter is the GOP before 1980 wasn't what we would recognize as conservative by today's standards (Bob Dole was considered as ultra-right). However, there is a reasonable position that a conservative can take and still be a "real conservative". If I lived in DE or NV, of course, I would have voted for O'Donnell or Angle. That does not negate the fact that they both ran losing races - with O'Donnell being a train wreck of a candidate. Winning a primary is one thing, but a conservative has to be skilled enough to overcome the media obstacles and successfully sell their message in a general election. Obviously, neither candidate was able to do so. Yet, many "establishment" Republicans - working as news political analysts - were castigated for merely observing that they didn't believe certain candidates were going to win for various reasons. I, for one, supported Karl Rove's and Charles Krauthammer's honest assessments of these candidate's chances. We here at NB demand fair and honest political analysis from the media - yet many here jumped all over these two men because they weren't acting like unquestioning cheerleaders for O'Donnell - like liberal "analysts" do for Democrats (aside from Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen - who many here cheer). That's hypocrisy. I subscribe to William F Buckley's rule - I want the most conservative candidate possible that is electable. I suppose that in this hyper heated political climate we find ourselves in, many will accuse WFB of being a "RINO". Sigh.
Chris, I'm no fan of The
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 08/29/2011 - 3:38pm.
Chris, I'm no fan of The Secret, and don't believe I can wish things into being, lol. My point was a longer one of what matthewdean said - if the consensus is is that x can't win, well, then of course x can't win! This is what I'm pushing back against - and as much as I like Rove and Krauthammer, I think they fall into the trap too.
Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen impressed me at first, but now I feel like they are more like remnants of what the D's used to be. Their goal seems to be to co-opt the R's into becoming blue dog D's.
Reality on the ground is that while I do know a few far L and far R people, most want the buffet - a little from each plate with a healthy dose of "I paid at the office, so leave me out of it"!
As to skeletons & scandal? The D's consider those to be features, while the R's consider them bugs. Makes it difficult if not impossible to get yeomen into the job - now everyone has to be everything. Impossible task.
Until/unless we understand that the issue is between bigger vs. smaller gov't. and all that entails, we will get caught up in the minutia and shoot ourselves in the foot.
Ronald Reagan
Not yet.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Mon, 08/29/2011 - 8:59pm.
Why did Christine O'Donnell win the primary? Was it because people were so disgusted with the liberal Castle? Was it because people couldn't depend on Castle when the chips were down? Your ignorance of the situation at hand is appalling; more Republicans would not have meant more Republican votes! Castle couldn't be depended any more than Jim Jeffords could!
It is better that those seats went to the Dems than they went to traitors in our midst. I'd rather have my enemy have the seat than have some b.s-ing fairweather friend have it. Of course, you don't argue from the basis of trustworthiness, just more of the same Rovian claptrap and/or Monday-morning quarterbacking. If you can do better, I urge you to get into the situation and do better. Until then, it's just more of the same self-congratulatory "I know better because I'm so awesome" egocentric liberal hubris.
Lastly, no-one cares about whether a candidate passes your IQ test. You, like all liberals, are obsessed with the adjective "intelligent" as long as it is never qualified. Other characteristics are far more important than raw IQ, but of course, you wouldn't recognize them.
Visions and Principles blog
We only need to pick the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 4:47pm.
We only need to pick the candidates who are well schooled in conservative principles and able to educate the public about them. The rest will take care of itself. We have far too long picked those who we believe are electable and see where it has gotten us.
That's all well and good, but
Submitted by BoilerFan on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 7:06pm.
That's all well and good, but if the voting public doesn't take a person seriously and reach a comfort level with them, it won't matter one iota if a candidate is "well schooled in conservative principles." America's political graveyards are littered with the headstones of candidates who were extremely intelligent, right on the issues, morally and ethically upright and had impressive resumes...and went down to flaming defeats because they simply didn't connect with the voters.
Unless you WIN elections, you don't govern. And if you aren't governing, the folks from the OTHER side of the spectrum are sitting in the big chairs, making the decisions that impact our lives.
You Liar.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Mon, 08/29/2011 - 8:59pm.
It's not about the voting public, in the case of Angle. It was about freakin' UNION VOTE CORRUPTION. How many people did the casino unions and Harry Reid bus in at the last minute again? All this talk about Tea party candidates being unelectable because they lost, without really analyzing the races in question is doing nothing more than brushing the big brush of failure over them -- in other words, ignorant smearing.
Why don't you get back on the phone to Rove? He gets angry when his calls aren't returned, you know.
Visions and Principles blog
Why don't you call him a homosexual?
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/29/2011 - 11:42pm.
It has done so much to shut me up. Look. I am not posting right now.
---- Let's all attack anyone we disagree with and call them homosexuals and liars.
Vexing & Pushup bras blog
ERICK ERICKson?
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Mon, 08/29/2011 - 2:11pm.
What kind of name is that? Erick Erickson? The two names even misspell "Eric" the same way! What drugs were his parents on when they came up with that name?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
Red State is a Cult
Submitted by Tenebrous on Mon, 08/29/2011 - 8:45pm.
I left there many months back when they turned their firepower against Doug Hoffman in NY-23, because the cult members couldn't stand voting third party. Really. When it was time to really help a guy out when he needed it, Red State chose either silence or attacks. They are just as creepy and as despicable as the Kossaks. In fact, if you read their defense of Rick Perry's Gardasil decision, you'll find several members far to the left of the Dkos loons. It's pretty scary.
Visions and Principles blog