Michael Gaynor
Will Christine O'Donnell go 0 for 4 in 2012?
By Michael Gaynor
Biennial Delaware Senate candidate O'Donnell's inability to acknowledge that and immature insistence on whining and blaming others because she wasn't elected, together with her write-in campaign in 2006 after losing the Republican Senate primary, show that her perpetual campaign is more about herself than principles and she's not ready for prime time.
Meredith Viera's post-election interview of Christine O'Donnell on NBC's "Today" went as expected.
Tea partiers, take note:
NBC is delighted to promote O'Donnell as the face of the Tea Party.
O'Donnell is delighted to be promoted.
NBC is delighted to have O'Donnell blame the Republican establishment for her loss.
O'Donnell is delighted to blame anyone but herself. (She even blamed the Republican establishment for her "I am not a witch" commercial, which she now concedes was a mistake (although not her fault).
Watch the interview: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40024863#40024863.
Viera knew what to ask,,,and what not to ask.
O'Donnell blasted the Republican Party for not getting her elected after she won the 2010 primary.
Viera did NOT ask the obvious question: since O'Donnell had run as a write-in candidate in 2006 after winning but 17% of the vote in the Republican Party, why did she expect the Republican party to make her race its main priority.
O'Donnell seemed pleased to have gotten 40% of the vote in this year's Delaware Senate race. (She got 4% as a write-in candidate in 2006 and 35% in the 2008 race.)
An O'Donnell fan emailed: "What if the Republican Establishment had gotten behind her instead of licking its wounds and stabbing her in the back?"
She would have lost! She is too flawed a candidate. The Republican establishment could not provide her with the education and the experience she lacks, or cover up her past mistakes.
Ironically, Karl Rove helped O'Donnell raise millions of dollars by allowing her to run against him. She didn't lose for fund of funds.
Liberal Democrats in Delaware must be hoping for O'Donnell to run again in 2012, because she's not electable in Delaware.
Smart Tea Partiers helped Scott Brown shock the world early this year by winning a Senate seat in liberal Massachusetts over Democrat Martha Coakley. They realized that Brown was not a Reagan conservative, but he was the conservatives' best bet.
The year before, there was a similar success as Chris Christie was elected governor of New Jersey, beating incumbent Jon Corzine. In the primary on June 2, Christie won the Republican nomination with 55% of the vote, defeating more conservative opponents.
We are much better off with electable candidates like Scott Brown and Chris Christie than unelectable ones like O'Donnell.
The media did not make mentally challenged South Carolina Democrat gubernatorial candidate Alvin Greene the Democrat face in the 2010 election and instead treated him as an anomaly.
Unfortunately for conservatives, O'Donnell became the Republican candidate instead of the electable Mike Castle and there will be one less Republican in the Senate when the next Congress convenes.
Maybe others. Republican Tea party favorites Sharron Angle in Nevada, Ken Buck in Colorado and Joe Miller in Alaska were not helped by the national coverage of O'Donnell and the winner in Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey, carefully kept O'Donnell at arm's length, and still won by less than he seemed likely to after Pennsylvania Democrats tried to tie him to O'Donnell.
Team Obama would be pleased to have the Tea Party become a political party and field its own candidates.
Failing that, it will have to be satisfied with trying to paint Tea Party-backed candidates as too extreme and to focus attention on unelectables like O'Donnell to taint the Tea party movement.
Conservative South Carolina, which sends Jim DeMint to the Senate, should be able to send someone much better than Lindsay Graham too.
But political reality is that liberal Massachusetts is doing the best it currently can with Senator Scott Brown...and that's much better than Senator Martha Coakley.
But for the personally ambitious O'Donnell, we'd all be better off with Senator Mike Castle instead of Senator Chris Coons, and liberal Delaware would hve elected him.
Biennial Delaware Senate candidate O'Donnell's inability to acknowledge that and immature insistence on whining and blaming others because she wasn't elected, together with her write-in campaign in 2006 after losing the Republican Senate primary, show that her perpetual campaign is more about herself than principles and she's not ready for prime time.
© Michael Gaynor
November 7, 2010
Biennial Delaware Senate candidate O'Donnell's inability to acknowledge that and immature insistence on whining and blaming others because she wasn't elected, together with her write-in campaign in 2006 after losing the Republican Senate primary, show that her perpetual campaign is more about herself than principles and she's not ready for prime time.
Meredith Viera's post-election interview of Christine O'Donnell on NBC's "Today" went as expected.
Tea partiers, take note:
NBC is delighted to promote O'Donnell as the face of the Tea Party.
O'Donnell is delighted to be promoted.
NBC is delighted to have O'Donnell blame the Republican establishment for her loss.
O'Donnell is delighted to blame anyone but herself. (She even blamed the Republican establishment for her "I am not a witch" commercial, which she now concedes was a mistake (although not her fault).
Watch the interview: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40024863#40024863.
Viera knew what to ask,,,and what not to ask.
O'Donnell blasted the Republican Party for not getting her elected after she won the 2010 primary.
Viera did NOT ask the obvious question: since O'Donnell had run as a write-in candidate in 2006 after winning but 17% of the vote in the Republican Party, why did she expect the Republican party to make her race its main priority.
O'Donnell seemed pleased to have gotten 40% of the vote in this year's Delaware Senate race. (She got 4% as a write-in candidate in 2006 and 35% in the 2008 race.)
An O'Donnell fan emailed: "What if the Republican Establishment had gotten behind her instead of licking its wounds and stabbing her in the back?"
She would have lost! She is too flawed a candidate. The Republican establishment could not provide her with the education and the experience she lacks, or cover up her past mistakes.
Ironically, Karl Rove helped O'Donnell raise millions of dollars by allowing her to run against him. She didn't lose for fund of funds.
Liberal Democrats in Delaware must be hoping for O'Donnell to run again in 2012, because she's not electable in Delaware.
Smart Tea Partiers helped Scott Brown shock the world early this year by winning a Senate seat in liberal Massachusetts over Democrat Martha Coakley. They realized that Brown was not a Reagan conservative, but he was the conservatives' best bet.
The year before, there was a similar success as Chris Christie was elected governor of New Jersey, beating incumbent Jon Corzine. In the primary on June 2, Christie won the Republican nomination with 55% of the vote, defeating more conservative opponents.
We are much better off with electable candidates like Scott Brown and Chris Christie than unelectable ones like O'Donnell.
The media did not make mentally challenged South Carolina Democrat gubernatorial candidate Alvin Greene the Democrat face in the 2010 election and instead treated him as an anomaly.
Unfortunately for conservatives, O'Donnell became the Republican candidate instead of the electable Mike Castle and there will be one less Republican in the Senate when the next Congress convenes.
Maybe others. Republican Tea party favorites Sharron Angle in Nevada, Ken Buck in Colorado and Joe Miller in Alaska were not helped by the national coverage of O'Donnell and the winner in Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey, carefully kept O'Donnell at arm's length, and still won by less than he seemed likely to after Pennsylvania Democrats tried to tie him to O'Donnell.
Team Obama would be pleased to have the Tea Party become a political party and field its own candidates.
Failing that, it will have to be satisfied with trying to paint Tea Party-backed candidates as too extreme and to focus attention on unelectables like O'Donnell to taint the Tea party movement.
Conservative South Carolina, which sends Jim DeMint to the Senate, should be able to send someone much better than Lindsay Graham too.
But political reality is that liberal Massachusetts is doing the best it currently can with Senator Scott Brown...and that's much better than Senator Martha Coakley.
But for the personally ambitious O'Donnell, we'd all be better off with Senator Mike Castle instead of Senator Chris Coons, and liberal Delaware would hve elected him.
Biennial Delaware Senate candidate O'Donnell's inability to acknowledge that and immature insistence on whining and blaming others because she wasn't elected, together with her write-in campaign in 2006 after losing the Republican Senate primary, show that her perpetual campaign is more about herself than principles and she's not ready for prime time.
© Michael Gaynor
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
