Christine O’Donnell, Or Miss Opportunities?

Let me start this post by stating, for those who do not know the history of my support for Christine O’Donnell, that I have in the past voted for Ms. O’Donnell three times. In 2010 I wrote nearly daily articles in support of her, and in opposition of her opponents Mike Castle and Chris Coons. I was one of her most outspoken supporters in 2010, both on the blogs and as a caller to local talk radio. I did so because I felt it was the right thing to do.

I say all of this so that what I am about to write, is in its proper context. I still stand behind my support of her in the past, I still have respect for her views and stands on the issues that I feel strongly about.

In the past week, news has broken that Ms. O’Donnell’s claims in the 2010 elections, that her tax records were being used improperly, may have been well founded. It seems that there may actually be evidence to support those claims after all.

Couple this with the fact that she also attended this past Saturday’s special GOP convention in Dover to elect the new state-wide GOP chairman, Charlie Copeland, and you have both the fuel and the spark to build the fire of rumors about whether or not Ms. O’Donnell will once again seek the election to the U.S. Senate next year.

So my title, “Christine O’Donnell, Or Miss Opportunities”, is a play on words. What it should really say is, “MISSED OPPORTUNITIES”. Because I feel that if she truly is considering another run at the Senate, then she has for the past three years been missing one opportunity after another to stay in the public eye and to remain relevant.

And while this story of her IRS records being used improperly, may be vindication for the attacks she suffered in 2010, it is certainly not a foundation upon which to build a campaign. We do not need victims, we need leaders.

Let’s start with right after her loss in the 2010 general election. No one can deny that Sussex County was her conservative base and her strongest supporters in 2010. Yet she did not take the opportunity following the election to come to the monthly meeting of the GOP in Sussex to thank her supporters. In fact, she has not been to a single monthly meeting in three years that I remember, I would know since I have only missed about two monthly meetings in that time.

Now that is not to say that she didn’t come back to Sussex in that time, I do recall seeing her at a couple of events of conservative PACs, sitting behind her table selling and signing her book.

As I said above, we need leaders, so if Ms. O’Donnell wishes to be a leader within the GOP, where has she been for the last three years? I did receive emails from her PAC asking for donations.

But let’s just look at this past legislative session here in Delaware, where was she as a conservative voice on some very hot issues.

More missed opportunities. When did she speak out against gay marriage?

More missed opportunities. When did she speak out on the bathroom bill?

More missed opportunities. When did she speak out on the repeal of the death penalty?

More missed opportunities. When did she speak out on any of the overwhelming number of gun bills?

In fact when has she spoken out on any issue in the past three years that is of any concern to conservatives and Republicans and Delawareans?

The biggest missed opportunity is in fact all of these rolled up into one, the opportunity to stay engaged with her base, to remain in the public eye as a leader of the conservative movement, which no one can deny she helped spur in 2010. To use the public notoriety she had gained to the advantage of the party and conservatives in general.

Instead she has been completely off the political stage for three years, only to re-emerge now, this close to the next election cycle. Does she and her advisers understand what a monumental mistake this has been? That coming back now will only fuel the accusations of her being an opportunist candidate?

The fact is, the only real political move I can remember her making in the past three years, would be her endorsement of accused child molester Eric Bodenweiser in the last election.

I have no idea whether Ms. O’Donnell will again run for the U.S. Senate or not, but I can tell you that in my opinion if she does, it will not be the rock show it was last time. She allowed much of her support to just fade away, not because they no longer agreed with her on the issues, but because as they say, “out of sight, out of mind”.

In 2010 she raised something like eight million dollars, I believe currently she has something like seven thousand, another missed opportunity, to stay in the hearts and minds of her supporters in order to keep raising funds, if in fact she intends to run again.

Maybe the question isn’t will she run? or should she run? Maybe the question is, can she run? After wasting and missing so many golden opportunities to be a leader, can she still pull together enough support and money to actually mount any kind of campaign?

I once said about another candidate that they liked to stand around on street corners waiting for parades, that they would jump out in front of and shout, “look at me! I’m leading the parade!” It saddens me to say this about someone I was proud to support in the past, but after being gone for so long from the party and the movement, if Ms. O’Donnell now announces another run, that is exactly what she will be doing.

 

 

112 Comments on "Christine O’Donnell, Or Miss Opportunities?"

  1. Jonathon Moseley says:

    If I were going to advise a candidate in that situation (heck, not “if”) my advice would be very close in tune with what Frank Knotts has written here. It would be my preference to have a candidate spend the last 3 years in the way that Frank Knotts suggests.

    However, this is a difficult topic for several reasons:

    First, there might not be anyone better to emerge than Christine O’Donnell.

    If Christine emerges as the best or only choice, do I really want to throw out criticism in the public eye? To what purpose?

    Oh, yes, it would be better if people would learn from experiences and even learn from simply discussion. The goal of encouraging personal growth and change and improvement is a good one, and understandable.

    But if the Party doesn’t end up with a better candidate, does it really accomplish anything to say a lot of negative things about Christine?

    Second, some say that the two are related. Hogwash. If there were a better candidate, it wouldn’t make any difference if Christine runs or not.

    The reality, I think, is the opposite: Whether Christine runs will depend upon who else emerges, not the other way around. Christine’s decision is not going to decide whether anyone else runs. On the contrary, whether anyone else runs who is not a RINO is going to decide whether or not Christine runs. At least that’s my guess.

    If a strong candidate acceptable to the entire DEGOP were to run, I believe Christine would avoid the personal abuse and sacrifice of running. I might be wrong. But that’s what I think.

    It is only because there really isn’t anyone else that we are even having this speculative discussion. Who? Pierre DuPont? Charlie Copeland?

    Third, you write: “Instead she has been completely off the political stage for three years, only to re-emerge now, this close to the next election cycle. Does she and her advisers understand what a monumental mistake this has been? ”

    NO, THEY DON’T understand that.

    This I can say with absolute certainty: NO, neither Christine O’Donnell nor her Rasputin believe that it is a mistake.

    They believe that “less is more” and if Christine had stayed involved she would suffer from over-exposure.

    Furthermore, Christine strongly believes, which I know with certainty, that if she had gotten involved in all of the issues you describe, that her participation would have greatly warped those events and issues, and would have changed things to simply be all about her participation. She believes that her participation would have been divisive.

    Think about it: During leadership contests for DEGOP leaders, would you want the allegation that a candidate was Christine manipulating the DEGOP leadership or influencing it?

  2. waterpirate says:

    The only thing worse than a carrear politician, is a carrear candidate. I would ask:
    where has she been?
    what has she done?
    leadership experiances?
    To what end?

  3. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Understood, but you are asking all of that without putting it into context.

    It is irrelevant whether Christine O’Donnell is perfect, if no one else better is running.

    Who cares if Christine is perfect if she is the best candidate running?

    In 2008, where was Greg Lavelle when no one else would run against Joe Biden?

    What good does it do to talk about Christine O’Donnell’s lack of perfection if you look around and all those who want to criticize are sitting on their hands?

    Greg Lavelle says that Christine O’Donnell should decide quickly.

    Well, I agree, not to please Lavelle but to have the greatest chance of success for Christine. In my book, Christine should have decided in March 2011. Christine should have been running continuously since March 2011… but NOT in the way that others do. She should have been doing what Frank Knotts suggests above.

    But wait! If we are to believe anything that Greg Lavelle is saying, why doesn’t Greg Lavelle run for the office? Why doesn’t Greg Lavelle announce — TODAY?

    Because all of these critics and nitpickers are cowards who just sit on the sidelines and throw peanuts from the peanut gallery.

    If a better candidate were in the race, THEN and ONLY THEN might it be relevant to ask if Christine O’Donnell has imperfections. We could ask “Who is the better candidate?”

    And all of this is cumulative. Past events matter. Past events help give Christine the opportunities she has. Past events also HURT Christine today.

    The fact that no one ran against Joe Biden in 2008 except Christine O’Donnell and a businessman with ZERO political experience MATTERS TODAY.

    So Greg Lavelle can moan and groan, but when the Party needed someone to run, Christine O’Donnell took on the challenge. Christine O’Donnell stood up against Goliath. Greg Lavelle sat on the sidelines.

    That matters. Christine O’Donnell stood alone against Goliath, while Greg Lavelle was comfortably in his bed watching TV.

    I am now, as of last weekend, the Treasurer for a new US Senate candidate in another State, who is in the exploratory committee stage.

    We are having this same discussion right now. If my new candidate does not announce soon, then it encourages other people to jump in. We expect that other people will jump in regardless.

    If someone else is thinking about running, they need to run their own campaign. It is a very common scenario. You always have to decide for yourself and take your chances as to who else might be running.

    What any candidate has to do is if you want to run, you announce as soon as possible, precisely to discourage other candidates from jumping in.

    That’s the way it works. That’s the way it always works. Why would candidates who might want to run get DIFFERENT RULES in Delaware than every other candidate in every other State?

    If you want to run, run. If someone wants to be the nominee, show some courage and jump in.

    What kind of leader says I have to wait and see what Christine does first? That’s a leader you want to follow?

  4. Mike Protack says:

    I wish Christine the best as the knives will be out for her in many camps.

    Still, the DEGOP folks who blame her now are the same people who were part of the GOP when it was sliding into nowhere. Moreover, in 2006 COD filed 5 minutes before the deadline for the U S Senate with an out o f state check by a third party for the incorrect amount. The GOP leadership said NOTHING and in fact was elated. Her entry protected Jan Ting. Then she ran a write in campaign after the primary which was a real effort and then the GOP supports her at the 2008 convention when by tradition she would have been rode out of town.

    Bottom line, there are party office holders but no leadership so if Christine runs it will be her choice and no one else will matter.

  5. Harry Whittington says:

    O’Donnell will run again. Her coffers are nearly empty and she needs hard working people to donate money to her or else she may have to get a real job. Christine knows that most real jobs don’t pay enough to keep her in those $2,000 cocktail dresses and lobster dinners.

  6. Jonathon Moseley says:

    When Christine says she has not yet decided, I am quite confident that that is true.

    I believe that the dominant factor in Christine deciding to run will be the lack of anyone else willing and able to run instead.

    I believe that Christine will end up running, but not because of any of the reasons anyone suggests anywhere (not just here), but because at the end of the day it will be the obvious and inescapable best option available.

  7. Jonathon Moseley says:

    And notice that I am saying this NOW, way ahead…. So if there is anyone who is really equal to the challenge, let him or her speak now or forever hold their peace.

    Now is the time to step forward.

    Don’t criticize later when you had your chance NOW.

    WHO can raise the kind of money it will take?

    Who has the notoriety and name ID?

    If someone really plausible decides to run — not just decide, but gets organized in a credible and effective way — I don’t believe Christine will run.

    Again, what kind of “leader” sits and waits to see if Christine is running? Is that persona a leader?

  8. Harry Whittington says:

    And notice that I am saying this NOW, way ahead…. So if there is anyone who is really equal to the challenge, let him or her speak now or forever hold their peace.

    Wow. Is this guy for real?

  9. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Yes, very much for real.

    Why wasn’t anyone enough of a leader to run against Joe Biden in 2008?

    Where was Greg Lavelle then?

    WHO is going to run instead?

    Kevin Wade ran in 2012. Maybe he should run again in 2014. I like him. But Christine got 40% of the vote. Kevin Wade got only 29%.

    So who is going to run if Christine does not?

    And what kind of leader are they sitting around waiting to see what Christine does?

  10. Dave says:

    COD may run again, but not out of conviction. Regardless of the reason though, she will be entertaining. The downside is that along with the queen we also get the queen’s champion who rises to do battle for her honor and favor against all challengers.

    It kind of reminds me of the movie Knights Tale, but in that case the knight got the girl.

  11. Harry Whittington says:

    Greg Lavelle was busy trying to maintain a Republican majority in the Delaware House. You have no standing, Moseley, to criticize Lavelle on any issue.

    Lavelle is one of the most consistently conservative votes in Delaware Legislature. While Christine O’Donnell was fretting over whether or not she could fit into her $2,000 cocktail dress Lavelle was working to stop bad gun legislation and standing up for traditional marriage. Two important issues to Delaware conservatives where O’Donnell was a no show.

    Greg Lavelle fights for Delaware conservatives every day and not just during election season, and Lavelle raises money for other candidates and he’s visible in his District – again qualities that O’Donnell is lacking.

    On top of that, Greg Lavelle has a full time job.

  12. Laffter says:

    Harry……..Christine sure docent have the qualities of Greg lavelle

    And she certainly cannot be visible in her district either

    Probably coz she does have one US senator Coons on the other hand DOES have a District.

    Thanks to COD

    COD does have a job tho…..raising money (conning it out of folks) for herself to buy 2K

    cocktail dresses to be seen in……..

  13. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Sounds like Greg Lavelle should run for US Senate in 2014…

    … or else stand by the side of the road flapping his arms and clucking like a chicken.

    You have convinced me: Greg Lavelle should get out of the fetal position and climb out of the back of the closet hiding under the blankets and run for US Senate. That’s settled.

  14. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Meanwhile, I can assure you that Christine did not spend $2,000 for a dress. Not that she can’t if she wants to. But she wouldn’t want to.

    It was an enormous sense of pride with Christine that she bought great clothes for almost nothing. Just like my mother, and my friend whose family I am staying with now for a couple weeks.

    After the 2010 campaign, Christine raved about how she bought nearly all the clothes for her US Senate campaign at thrift stores for only a couple of dollars each. My friend just bought me a lot of shirts — even though I didn’t ask for them — for only about 50 cents each.

    So Christine would consider it a great defeat if she had to pay $2,000 for a dress.

    Christine’s eyes would light up and she would beam with delight if she paid only $100 for a $2,000 dress.

    And this is entirely possible. My mother bought me a camel’s hair coat for $10 with the $200 price tag still in it.

    Christine would consider it a terrible failure at the sport of hardball competitive shopping to pay even $500 for a dress.

    For Christine to pay $500 or more for a dress would be like a dude going out to shoot baskets with his friends and getting the basketball in the hoop ZERO times. It would be a defeat.

    Christine might have bought a $2,000 dress. But she would never actually pay $2,000 for a $2,000 dress.

    Paying maybe $250 for a $2,000 dress.. now that’s worth boasting about.

  15. Jonathon Moseley says:

    The point is… The fact that you assume that a dress must cost $2,000 simply because it looks nice shows how out of touch the GOP moderates are with the Republican grassroots.

  16. Laffter says:

    No knucklehead………I recognize designer when I see it. DUH,

    And other people also recognize outdated designer when they see it. Past season goes for 250

    You obviously know nothing about women’s clothing and if you claim you do, being single and all, i would start to wonder about your private proclivities

    Look up …..Shakespeare’s famous quote. ” me thinks she doth protest TOO MUCH”
    Now look in the mirror

    You are obsessed with COD and are the COMPLETE apologist for her and what is even sadder is she doesn’t even want you around.

    Dude…..get some help

  17. Jose Jalepeno says:

    So did you check the label inside her dress freak? Knockoff are made of designer clothing and products all the time.

  18. Frank Knotts says:

    Look at the conversation being had here. It is about a dress and what it did or did not cost. No one supporting Ms. O’Donnell has shown up to defend her on her stand on the issues. No one has even attacked her on her stand on the issues. The trouble for Ms. O’Donnell is that in her past runs for office the race has always ended up being about her personal life. And also she and her team have shown no ability to deflect from this and to pivot back to issues, either by choice, or by mistake they have spent all their time defending against and promoting the personal aspects.
    We all know the whole witch campaign was simply used by the Coons campaign to keep from talking about issues, and the O’Donnell campaign played right into their hands with the “I’m you” commercial.
    Now if Ms. O’Donnell does decide to run again, it seems as though the first salvo will be this IRS story.
    Personally I think it is a mistake to once again play the victim. People in the state of Delaware, the only people who can vote for her by the way, are not interested in this beyond it being another chapter in the on going saga. To win over voters the candidate must be able to relate real issues to the problems that the average citizen is facing, and there are not too many average citizens whose IRS records are being used against them.
    The “Lords of the backrooms” tag line will fall flat, the idea that the government is the enemy will only excite a small radical few.
    Ms. O’Donnell seems to have an idea that she need only go where she is celebrated, not where she is tolerated.
    This may make for more pleasant evenings, but it will do nothing to grow a base of support for her or the party.
    If Ms. O’Donnell’s intention is to run once again on the idea that the party is the enemy, then she is doomed before she starts. This will only further divide the GOP, and that division means that no Republican will win.
    People want to hear about jobs and schools and security in their neighborhoods. Not about whether the candidate has been investigated by the IRS. Oh! Sure there are people outside of Delaware willing to use Ms. O’Donnell’s IRS story for their own benefit, to tie this into the Obama IRS scandal, but how does that translate into votes in Delaware beyond the radical right of the party?
    A leader does not go only where they are celebrated, they go anywhere they can to spread the message.
    If Ms. O’Donnell runs again, and if her team decides to allow the race to once again be centered around her personal life, then they are doomed to repeat history by failing to learn from it.
    My advice to Ms. O’Donnell is, if you do run, then always pivot to the issues, and do not fall prey to constantly answering charges about your personal life.

  19. Harry Whittington says:

    I bring up the dress to make a point. When thousands of conservatives were flooding Legislative Hall in Dover protesting gun legislation and trying to defend traditional marriage Christine O’Donnell took to Twitter.

    But she didn’t use Twitter to help fight for our rights as she claimed she would do during her campaign, she was tweeting about her diet and how she hoped she could fit into her Vera Wang gown for the White House Correspondent’s Dinner.

    Her personal life was more important than our Constitutional right to bear arms, and more important than defending traditional marriage. She did not send out one Tweet in support of our rights,but she had time to Tweet about her diet shakes, her designer gown, her lobster dinner, and all of the wonderful celebrities she met at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner.

    When the “issues” went beyond talk, Frank, and required action, she was only concerned with herself. Why should we waste our time discussing where she stands on issues when she doesn’t back up her promises with action?

    Jon Moseley, O’Donnell won’t let you near her anymore, so stop pretending you know what she’s doing.

  20. Frank Knotts says:

    Harry, I believe we are making the same point, in different ways. Read my original post. The dress is a good example of how out of touch Ms. O’ Donnell is with the needs and desires of the voters during a time in the state of “DELAWARE” when conservatives were under attack and needed leaders to rally the troops. In this, in my opinion she failed.

  21. Jonathon Moseley says:

    “The dress is a good example of how out of touch Ms. O’ Donnell is with the needs and desires of the voters ”

    No, the dress is a good example — which is why I dwell on it — of how out of touch YOU and your crowd are with the needs and desires of Delaware’s voters.

    The fact that you think a nice dress costs $2,000, just because it is a nice dress, shows that you don’t live in the real world where ordinary Delaware voters live.

    Most of Delaware’s voters, at least the women, are consumed with the “sport” of getting a $100 dress for $20. You may not think that is possible, because you don’t live in the real world where most Delaware voters live. Finding ways to stretch a dollar is where real Delaware people live every day.

    My friend here in Virginia I am staying with for 2 weeks can’t stop herself from buying me really nice shirts for 50 cents each at yard sales. I didn’t ask her for any shirts. I have lots of shirts back home. But the “sport” and challenge of getting a nice shirt for 50 cents is too much fun to pass up the opportunity.

    Actually paying $2,000 for a $2,000 dress is the world that you live in, which makes you out of touch with Delaware’s people…. not unlike when George W. Bush the father didn’t know the price of a gallon of milk in the grocery store when a voter asked him at a debate.

    As for Frank Knott’s comments, Frank makes many points about “if Christine intends……”

    I emphasize my firm conviction that Christine O’Donnell does not have ANY intention along any of those lines one way or the other.

    I am convinced that if no one else satisfactory runs — satisfactory to all of the DEGOP — then Christine will decide she should run because it is necessary for her to do it.

    All of Frank’s questions I think are answered by Christine isn’t intending anything. She is just waiting to see what things look like as we get closer to the election. So if someone else has it covered, she will probably feel relieved and go off do to other things. If no one has it covered, then she will do it.

  22. Jonathon Moseley says:

    As for the

  23. Jonathon Moseley says:

    As for the question posed by the main post:

    Missed opportunities?

    YES!

    Missed opportunities is the story of Christine O’Donnell’s entire life.

  24. delacrat says:

    “People want to hear about jobs and schools and security in their neighborhoods. Not about whether [Christine O’Donnell] has been investigated by the IRS.” – Frank Knotts

    Frank,

    I agree with that statement… as far as it goes.

    The problem for Delaware Republicans is….

    What people hear about jobs from Republicans are anti-union “right-to-work” laws , job killing “Free Trade” agreements and opposition to a minimum wage increase.

    What people hear about schools from Republicans are private charter schools and school prayer.

    What people hear from Republicans about “security in their neighborhoods” are more guns in the hands of more gun nuts.

    Those are not remedies that sensible people take seriously, whatever their political affiliation.

    The DEGOP’s problems go much, much deeper than Christine O’Donnell.

  25. Laffter says:

    See Jose? COD tweeted it herself

    I didn’t have to check the label inside her dress…….

    Sorry your age group, and demographic is so out of touch that you cannot even connect to your favorite politician using social media
    Which leaves you out of the conversation and looking like the fool, well, frankly, that you are.

  26. Jose Jalepeno says:

    laffter since I saw the Vera Wang interview on mainstream tv I consider myself part of the conversation. You obviously missed the interview where Vera Wang discussed her line of clothing she launched well below the $2,000.00 price tag. Have a nice day tool, tell us how you can relate while you post with your ipad, talk about someone being a fool.

  27. Laffter says:

    As long as I work for the money I make and can afford a home a car an iPad and iPhone etc

    Whatever , I am not grifting from other people nor illegally getting my family members jobs nor sucking off the system and then denigrating the system…..

    I can do as I please….and if you think the little darts will silence me think again
    You clowns are irrelevant but hey, keep trying

    Just remember THE WHO of access to Lexus- nexus and the how.

    And the electronic traces you leave all around while trying to stalk people on the Internet will only be sweeter when eventually your own arrogance and pride buries you.

  28. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Moseley, the point for me has nothing to do with the cost of the dress. The point is that instead of being front and center on hot issues facing DELAWARE, Ms. O’Donnell seemed to be more concerned about such things as dresses.
    Delacrat, some of us Republicans believe that reducing regulations and streamlining the permitting process alone would create a more business friendly atmosphere, but if by anti-union you mean allowing businesses to compete for employees without state mandated union wages, well yes.
    On education, if you have followed my writing at all, you know that I am not a supporter of any form of mandated school prayer, I do not however see a problem with children praying over their lunch. And as for charter schools? While I don’t see the harm, I don’t think they solve the problem since they are still basically public schools, I would rather see parents allowed to use their tax dollars to purchase the education they choose for their children in whatever form that takes. Be it public schools, charter schools or private schools. So in my view a voucher system would create competition in the education system that would force even the public schools to try harder and to succeed. Now of course you will see this as being anti-union, but if the teacher’s unions are as strong and as productive as they would have us believe, then why do they need the government to mandate their use in public schools?
    Finally, security in neighborhoods, yes I believe that every citizen has the right to protect themselves in any manner they see fit. They can rely on the police, they can hire private security, they can build ten foot walls around their homes, they can have attack dogs, or yes they can have a weapon in their homes. But security also means more police on the streets in the areas that need it. Cities such as Wilmington should be the focal point of crime prevention in the state. But the police should not be seen as an occupying force, but as partners with the citizens within those neighborhoods. The police should receive the best training, and wages should be high enough to attract the best to serve. Conservatives have allowed the issue of unions to be used by the Democrats to put a divide between conservatism and law enforcement. The GOP was once the party of law enforcement, now because of its stand on unions it is seen as not caring about security, that must change.

  29. Zachary Caruso says:

    Frank on education where would you suggest students with special needs go? Under current education laws neither charter nor private schools have to accept special needs students.

    To the person attempting to intimidate people use proper acronyms for the systems you claim to have access to you only make yourself look foolish.

  30. Harry Whittington says:

    One of the biggest criticisms about O’Donnell was that she was basically a con artist with no record to stand behind, that she was only in it for the money.

    O’Donnell has been running for office since 2006, saying she would fight for conservative values. In 2010, she wins the GOP nomination over a man she called a “traitor” to conservative values and a “RINO”, she plays the victim for the entire campaign, she raises over $7 million, she loses.

    She transfers a chunk of our donationns to her new PAC, she sells our personal information for money, she only appears to endorse one Delaware republican candidate, Eric Bodenweiser. She tosses Rick Santorum and Gingrich under the bus to endorse the biggest RINO in the race for president.

    Then when conservative values were right on the line in Delaware with “marriage equality” and stacks of anti 2nd Amendment legislation being railroaded through in Dover, Christine O’Donnell is on Facebook and Twitter talking about ball gowns, cocktail parties and lobster dinners.

    And now she’s back in the limelight claiming to be a victim again.

    The problem is that no one really buys it anymore.

  31. Dave says:

    The problem is that people bought it in the first the place. COD talked a good game (at least for those who she resonated with) but talking a good game is different than playing the game.

    In order to “hire” her, one had to suspend belief that she could effectively legislate with little to no real world experience in much of anything. And that’s exactly what people did is to suspend belief.

    When you hire a carpenter, you don’t hire the one that talks about building things, you look for someone who has actually done it. How could people listen to her messaging on things like economics when she had visible means of support and appears to have never had to worry about budgets, revenue, etc? Suspension of belief? Convinced that all one requires is values or convictions in order to govern?

  32. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Dave writes: “In order to “hire” her, one had to suspend belief that she could effectively legislate with little to no real world experience in much of anything. And that’s exactly what people did is to suspend belief.”

    No, this reflects your assumptions about what it means to “legislate.”

    The kind of candidates which Republican moderates will try to offer will NOT be acceptable to DEGOP conservatives — again, even if we never hear from Christine again, if Christine marries a botanist and goes to live in the Amazon Rain Forest cataloguing discoveries.

    Dave and other moderates and DEGOP elites believe that the job in question means coming up with a new solution to every (old) question.

    So when Dave talks about whether someone can “legislate” — you have to ask WHAT does it MEAN to “legislate?”

    Conservatives believe that we already know what the correct answers are on the nation’s problems, and they

    a) Want someone who will do down there and DO what we already know should be done.

    b) DO NOT want someone to be creative and come up with some new — invariably WRONG solution.

    Conservatives believe that the very activity of looking for new solutions necessarily means ignoring what is proven and time-tested and being open to being manipulated, fooled, deceived, confused, and tied up in knots.

    So discussions about qualifications for doing the job requires precisely defining what the job is.

  33. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Therefore, conservatives believe that what makes a candidate qualified is the intestinal fortitude to stand by their beliefs and refuse to be distracted, deflected, discouraged, or dissuaded from voting their beliefs.

    For a conservative, a candidate who can be manipulated is NOT qualified.

    A candidate who cares what the news media is saying is NOT qualified.

    A candidate who takes “advice” from those trying to defeat the GOP is NOT qualified.

    A candidate who gets creative is, by necessity, open to being manipulated and deceived by highly-skilled, entrenched interests who do not have the best interests of the American people at heart.

  34. Laffter says:

    Oh , I’m so sorry

    Here ……..

    LexisNexis Accurint

    There better now? Seems spell check thinks I was referring to a car
    But you obviously got my point…

    Regardless of how many proxies you use. :-)

  35. Laffter says:

    I’m with Harry

    She has had SEVEN , count them, SEVEN years to convince people of what she can do

    When she had the money and the chance….she did nothing except exhibit what a self- absorbed narcissist she is

    The gig is up……..even the believers have her number now- with one GLARING EXCEPTION.

  36. Frank Knotts says:

    Zachary, are you saying that there are no private schools for special needs children? If those parents could use their tax dollars as they see fit, then more would open, that is competition. If there is a need, then someone will fill that need. And I don’t, like others, believe that vouchers would be the end of public schools, I believe that it would be the beginning of a rebirth, because to survive they would have to improve, and if they improve, then people would want to send their children there. That too is competition.
    Mr. Moseley says, ” A candidate who cares what the news media is saying is NOT qualified.” Mr. Moseley, do you actually read what you write? One of the big mistakes of 2010 was that the O’Donnell campaign cared TOO much about what the media said, responding to every ridiculous accusation, including the most ridiculous, the witch story.

  37. Zachary Caruso says:

    Frank what I am saying is even though charter schools are partially taxpayer funded they do not have to accept special needs students whereas public schools do. While more specialized schools might open with a voucher system these children shouldn’t be ostracized by attending schools only for them. Some would opine that’s an elitist attitude which I personally would agree with.

    You miss the whole point of what I have written. Public schools cannot compete when they can not refuse by law to accept special needs students, yet their competition (charter private schools) can refuse those same students. Academic ratings for school are based on mandated standardized testing ( which special needs students must take as well). Their inherently poor test scores still must be averaged in with all the other test scores which results in a distorted view of how well the school is doing in reality versus a school with no special needs student. As an example the CHSD test scores are lower than some other districts. No factored in or explained is the CHSD runs the Sussex Consortium where special needs students from Sussex County not just the Cape district are bused in.

  38. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Both my niece and my good friend Tracy (a guy) teach special education in the public schools. Tracy is a specialist in teaching autistic children.

    I also worked at the Center for Choice in Education in the U.S. Department of Education as part of the 5 years I spent in the Education Department.

    I assure you that a public school’s test averages do not include those in special education programs. Test results and performance results for public schools are compared apples to apples with private schools and charter schools.

    Private schools and homeschooling are vastly more successful than government-run monopoly schools.

    Special education is the last desperate excuse of those who oppose parental choice in education and believe in government command and control over our lives.

    The truth is that private schools are MORE successful with teaching special needs students. However, for my niece and my friend, the public schools pay significantly higher salaries, so they work in public schools for the better money.

    Private schools not only take special needs students, they do a better job teaching them than government monopoly bureaucracy schools.

    One of the main reasons that private schools do a better job than the government bureaucracy schools is that in private schools most of the money goes into the classroom, whereas in government schools the money goes into the bureaucracy and very little of the taxpayer funds filter their way down into the classroom.

    The major difference between public and private schools is that public schools have many extra, unnecessary layers of bureaucrats and administrators who do not actually teach the kids.

    As is true in everything, in private schools decisions are made in terms of what is best for the children.

    In government schools, decisions are made based upon politics and political agendas, not what is best for the children.

    In this case “politics” does NOT necessarily mean “partisan” as in one party or the other. It means that decisions are made by public officials with the goals of the government and officials in mind, not what is best for the children.

  39. delacrat says:

    “Private schools not only take special needs students, they do a better job teaching them than government monopoly bureaucracy schools.” – Moseley

    I have a special education kid in a “government monopoly bureaucracy school” who is doing just fine. I am not aware of any studies that support your claim that “they [Private schools] do a better job teaching them”. Since you apparently do, I ask where’s the LINK ?

  40. Harry Whittington says:

    Therefore, conservatives believe that what makes a candidate qualified is the intestinal fortitude to stand by their beliefs and refuse to be distracted, deflected, discouraged, or dissuaded from voting their beliefs.

    “Intestinal fortitude” that O’Donnell showed us she lacked when it came to our 2nd Amendment rights and traditional marriage when she was too “distracted” by her shiny ball gowns and cocktail parties with celebrities.

  41. Jonathon Moseley says:

    You continually assume that my purpose, or anyone’s purpose, is to defend Christine’s actions, rather than to bring mutual understanding among the different factions of the Party, in the hopes that there might be greater understanding and cooperation.

    I do feel that conservatives opposing Mike Castle have upended the situation, and the DEGOP has yet to be put back together again. I do feel that I and others have a duty having once disrupted things to help see them through to final resolution, and put things back together again.

    Republicans moderates and elites, in my opinion, do not understand WHY the grassroots is rioting with pitchforks and torches.

    If Christine had never run for office at all, the grassroots would still be just as upset anyway. The division within the DEGOP was there before and it will continue to be there if people don’t understand one another and try to co-exist — maybe not happily but at least constructively.

    I believe that if both sides UNDERSTAND the other’s motivations and beliefs, there may be a greater chance for everyone to get along and cooperate, even if begrudgingly and less than cheerfully.

    Yet everyone repeatedly assumes that the question is defending Christine and everything she has ever done.

    I might have more to say about what Christine has done or not done, but it would be far more productive for me to do as much as possible of that privately to her. At the moment there doesn’t seem to be much chance she will ever listen to me personally. But that still doesn’t mean that I should dump a lot of criticism out in public.

    Frankly, I am far more upset at some of the people who have given Christine bad advice. You have no idea how much of what you are criticizing Christine was advised is the right way to do things in politics.

    But the fact is that the conservative wing does not want a candidate to come up with new ideas, which necessarily means ignoring tried-and-true, proven solutions and being easily manipulated by the snakes and liars in politics.

    Conservatives want a candidate who will represent THEM, not who represents the editorial pages of the New York Times.

    Conservatives are fed up with candidates who cave on their beliefs under pressure from the news media. Members of Congress are elected to represent the voters — not to represent the beliefs of news anchors and newspaper editors.

    Now, we are talking about abandoning beliefs on issues.

    Christine was right to respond to false lies against her in the news media. That is not what we are talking about.

    Christine was wrong in not responding ENOUGH to false lies against her in the news media.

    Christine’s PR team failed her by NOT refuting all the lies against her, or doing it very badly, very late, and very incompletely.

    The issue is that conservatives want Members of Congress who VOTE as they promised to vote.

    This has nothing to do with responding to false smears in the news.

  42. Mama Grizz says:

    I’ve had enough of Christine O’Donnell. O’Donnell needs to stay in New Jersey or Philly or wherever she’s living now and stay away from Delaware politics. She is keeping decent, hard working candidates from coming forward. No one wants to face her DISGUSTING accusations during a campaign. She has no place with decent people anymore, she sold her decency to the Devil to win a primary. I wouldn’t allow her near my children.

    What candidate wants their child to pick up the newspaper and see a headline that their parent is having a gay affair or is a “traitor”?

    O’Donnell needs to step away from Delaware politics so good, DECENT candidates who actually stand by their values can come forward.

    She’s lost her decent values, if she was still decent, she would have been outspoken about gay marriage here in Delaware. She’s nothing but a disgusting politician now, she’ll burn in Hell with the rest of them.

  43. Harry Whittington says:

    The issue is that conservatives want Members of Congress who VOTE as they promised to vote.

    If O’Donnell won’t fight for the rights and values she promised to fight for, why would anyone expect her to vote for those rights and values?

    Jon Moseley, move along, she’s done here, if she runs people who showed up to fight for those rights and values will take out full page ads in newspapers to tell the truth about how O’Donnell was worried about ball gowns, celebrities and cocktail parties when the rest of us were fighting for our 2nd Amendment rights and trying to preserve traditional marriage.

    In short, she’s done. She stabbed conservatives in the back. She stabbed moderates in the back, and everyone to the left of that would never vote for her anyway.

  44. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Now, see, lies being told in politics is part of the problem. Why is the DEGOP still divided? When either side tells lies about the other, it is not helpful and is not bringing healing or bringing the DEGOP back together.

    Christine O’Donnell never told any lies about anyone much less any “disgusting” lies.

    Christine never said anyone was having a gay affair. You are believing lies, which are rather nuts given things you don’t know about Christine’s own family.

    Christine condemned independent actors who made that claim and asked them to stop. They did.

    I don’t know if she ever called anyone a traitor, but Mike Castle IS a traitor to the GOP and the voters whom he made promises to. And I don’t care whether anyone likes hearing it or not, he is.
    By contrast, Republican moderates and elites campaigned ONLY, exclusively, by telling lies about Christine O’Donnell.

    This has to stop.

    On December 9, 2009, Russ Murphy told Karl Rove in person what Mike Castle was doing wrong in failing to win over the grassroots.

    So did Karl Rove, campaign expert, advise Mike Castle how to make corrections in his campaign — to spend more time meeting with voters? HELL NO. They responded with a campaign of disgusting lies and smears against Christine O’Donnell.

    So to lie about Christine lying is part of the division and problems with the DEGOP.

    To refuse to admit and apologize for the DEGOP elites lying about Christine O’Donnell is part of the division and problems with the DEGOP.

    The DEGOP elites need to admit they lied about Christine. Even if Christine gets a job as Press Secretary for the Vatican and spends the rest of her life in Italy, until the DEGOP elites admit and apologize for lying about Christine, the DEGOP cannot heal.

    Personally, I think Christine should buy a house in John Boehner’s district in Ohio and scare the living bejuss out of John Boenher and make Boehner straighten up and fly right.

  45. Frank Knotts says:

    Zachary, I will respond in a second. First Mr. Moseley, about that “independent video”, well I know who was behind it and the connection to the campaign, I was sent a copy of it by email and it was suggested that I post it on the blog I was writing for at the time, and I refused. So please be very careful how you spin the truth here, I was actually here and involved and I will not tolerate out and out misinformation being put forth when I know the truth.
    Zachary, what you have touched on cannot be discussed without debating the benefits and cost of “mainstreaming” special needs children. Actually you comment could be seen as a reason not to.
    However, while private schools may not be forced to accept these children, if the parents had the tax dollars that are taken from them and any other resources available, they could afford to send them, and the free market would provide schools that were interested in integrating them into the mainstream of their schools as well. Face it, the dollar would rule in the end. If there is a market, then someone will supply the product.

  46. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Well, Frank, you may know something I don’t, but you do know that a member of Christine O’Donnell’s own family is homosexual, and everyone knows that

    Furthermore, just last week a political activist insisted to me that the substance of that comment about Mike Castle was not only 100% true but has been known to be true for a long, long time, many, many years.

    I don’t know anything about that myself, but accusing Christine O’Donnell of making some accusation that apparently has been widely known for many, many years is ridiculous and unfair and outrageous.

    No one has a right to blame Christine O’Donnell for what a totally independent group said — once — AND WHICH CHRISTINE IMMEDIATELY CONDEMNED, without some overwhelmingly solid proof.

    Tell you what, Frank: You pick up the phone and call Christine’s family member. You know the one. We both know all about that.

    You talk to her family member about that accusation against Christine.

    Just be sure to turn down the volume on your cell phone or the response you get may pop an ear drum.

  47. Frank Knotts says:

    Moseley, I know what I know and you can make all the excuses you want.

  48. Dave says:

    “Face it, the dollar would rule in the end. If there is a market, then someone will supply the product.”

    Well sort of Frank. That generally is correct but it is not absolutely correct. Or rather the first sentence would always be correct without society’s (read government) intervention. Why is this? Well because the second sentence presumes that there is market for everything (i.e. special needs children). The reality is, there is not a market for everything because the dollar does rule in the end and tiny markets are not profitable.

    Orphan diseases are a prime example. They number in the two hundreds but only affect a miniscule part of the population. No real market and because the dollar rules, little to no effort on developing treatments. Without the efforts of the FDA Office of Orphan Products Development (OOPD) incentivizing development of products and treatment through grants and other means, there would be little to no work being done on them at all.

  49. Straight Nate says:

    Castle is happily married with a long line of ex girlfriends behind him.Why don’t we look at CODs sexuality.

    She’s well over 40 with no prospects. Her last known romance was with her 2008 campaign manager that she soaked for money. She met him after a drunken Halloween where she stripped down naked and hopped into bed with his roommate. After she didn’t need Brent’s money anymore she dumped him.

    What do we call a woman who has sex for money?

    Maybe you need to go talk to her neighbor on Lincoln Street, the one who told the News Journal that COD had relationships with both men and women, what a shame the NJ wouldn’t run the story. But someone else in Delaware has the story, so it will come out soon enough.

  50. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Irrelevant as well as wrong.

    1) The comment was made — once and only once — by someone Christine had FIRED from her campaign.

    2) Christine O’Donnell’s own personal family circumstances make the disgusting accusation against Christine preposterous and outrageous, and really DUMB as well.

    3) The story about Mike Castle existed widely throughout the political world for a long time starting from many years before Christine O’Donnell ever got involved in politics

    4) You are making an accusation for which you have no facts whatsoever.

    5) It is a typical liberal tactic — I don’t care what you call yourself or what your party registration — to ignore WHO is actually responsible for something, to smear the wrong person and smear everyone indiscriminately.

    Conservatives believe in accurately determining what happened and who did what.

    Liberals engage in sloppy, fuzzy thinking and can’t keep straight what happened and who did what.

    And liberals intentionally try to pin things on the wrong people in order to advance their liberal political agenda.

    6) Furthermore, Christine O’Donnell condemned the comments about Mike Castle, praised Mike Castle’s marriage to a “classy” lady, noted that the comments were hurtful to a classy lady, Castle’s wife, and said that people should stop saying these things.

  51. Jonathon Moseley says:

    NOTE for clarity: Christine did not fire the person because of the Mike Castle comment. Christine had PREVIOUSLY fired him ALREADY, before the fact, indicating that she did not feel comfortable with his tactics or ideas.

  52. Straight Nate says:

    Comment deleted. Straight Nate, you wrote this not as a comment but as a fact. I would ask you to please refrain from this sort of comment in the future. The incident you were relating has been in the public forum in the past and can be discussed if need be in a manner that is less inflammatory. Frank Knotts

  53. Straight Nate says:

    In 2006 Christine O’Donnell said that homosexuality was a mental disorder so it’s comical for Moseley to even suggest that she wouldn’t spread the gay rumor because of her lesbian sister. That lesbian sister was around when COD was smearing gays before.

  54. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Now, who is disgusting and who is discouraging people from running for public office?

    Alcoholism is a mental disorder as well. My cousin Sharon drank herself to death. That doesn’t mean I didn’t love my cousin and respect her.

    But again, bottom line, liberals like you have no facts and don’t care that you have no facts.

  55. Straight Nate says:

    “We’re looking to compete directly with MoveOn.org. We’re looking to be a player for a long time. No one else on the right is doing what we’re doing,” said Liberty.com spokesman Yates Walker, who remains a consultant on Christine O’Donnell’s U.S. Senate campaign in Delaware.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41262.html#ixzz2adH7viOw

    The man responsible for the video was still a consultant for O’Donnell.

    Expect O’Donnell’s sex life to take center stage if she runs again, you can thank yourself for that Moseley.

  56. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Again, this has nothing to do with Christine O’Donnell. So you can say or not say whatever you want about Christine’s sex life. Doesn’t matter. (Except that people will see how disgusting you are and will continue to turn against you, and give more sympathy to Christine O’Donnell.)

    Yates had been fired weeks earlier and was starting this new website BECAUSE he was then out on his own and no longer employed with Christine’s campaign.

    So you have no facts. You don’t care if you have no facts. AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

    It is the corruption of our politics by people who make false and disgusting accusations against people like Christine and are destroying our country.

    This is not about Christine.

    To me, this is about exposing the tactics used by liberals to corrupt our politics and our country.

    And you give us a refresher course right in front of our eyes of the tactics we want to stop and ban from our nation’s politics.

    The fact that Yates did something has nothing to do with Christine.

    and again, Christine publicly CONDEMNED it and asked people to STOP.

  57. Tuxamus Maximus says:

    Tuxamus Maximus hasn’t commented here on this one yet mainly because the subject just keeps getting kicked around the floor when it falls off the table. Consensus here is that the warnings not to pay attention to Jon Moseley was prudent but he’s almost as comical as the subject herself. Have some modicum of self respect for yourself Mr. Moseley. It’s never going to happen, you most certainly are NOT her ‘type’ so stop defending her. She’s a LOSER in so many ways it’s past comprehension why you, or anyone for that matter would defend her concerning anything.

    Tuxamus Maximus thinks Puppy love is so special. Puppies just follow and sniff and want to be loved.

    Tuxamus Maximus loves that we even get to read letters to Mr. Knotts Penthouse. This really is a GREAT site!!

    Tuxamus Maximus will be back when the laughter from the floor area calms down a bit.

    Tuxamus Maximus wants to once again thank Mr. Knotts for a relatively nice place to play, read and ‘learn’.

  58. Jonathon Moseley says:

    WHAT’s not going to happen? Integrity in elections?

  59. Harry Whittington says:

    Frank, I’m interested in your comments, and your lack of comments, why not get it all off of your chest, hiding facts about a politician isn’t in the best interest of the people.

  60. Laffter says:

    Puppies also sniff bigger dogs butts

    Then they want to lick your face

    YUCK, – dont allow puppies to lick your face , coz you will never stop them from sniffing butts

  61. Frank Knotts says:

    To all, I would ask that any discussion, about past statements about past incidents involving anyone, please be written in a manner that clearly demarks them as quotations. Some of the things mentioned above have already been discussed and debated in the public forum, however Delaware Right will not condone the implication that any of them are known facts.
    Harry, I apologize for my lack of commenting here, I am currently dealing with work and personal issues that have severely limited my time for blogging, my apologies.
    I assume you would like me to elaborate on my comment about the video. All I can tell everyone is that the person/or persons that sent me the video in the hopes that I would post it, had been and were at that time affiliated with the O’Donnell campaign and I refused to even consider posting it and spoke with Matt Moran about my concerns of its use. Who actually made the video? I have no idea. How the video first came to the person who sent it to me? I have no idea, I wanted nothing to do with it. I felt it was on the same level as the people talking about Ms. O’Donnell’s sex life.
    As for Ms. O’Donnell’s denial and condemnation of the video? Well I can deny that the sun exists, and condemn the heat it gives, but it doesn’t make it so.

  62. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Frank, the “video” was a posting on a website maintained by Yates which was very explicitly a simulated (regular) newscast BY THAT WEBSITE.

    You talk about a video as if its origin is unknown or unclear.

    Yates’ new project included a regular news commentary segment. One of those regular weekly or daily news commentary segments is the “video” you are inaccurately referring to.

    So you do know who made the video and where it came from. It is very EXPLICITLY presented as a regular news or news commentary of Yates’ specific website and project.

    Now, you also do know that a campaign consists of LOTS Of people, and if someone sent you a link to it, you KNOW — YOU KNOW, FRANK, as well as I do — that that does not mean Christine knew anything about it or approved of it.

    One has to be truly dumb to think that everything that happens in a campaign is personally discussed by the candidate.

    You also know that Christine was very unhappy with the performance of her campaign team, particularly her PR team.

    Jennie told me that Christine would come home after a long day campaigning, read the PR releases her PR team had prepared and Christine would want to cry because she would have to stay up even later, with a 6 AM event in the morning, but she would have to rewrite all their work instead of getting some sleep.

    Doug Schachtlebein told me in the conference room with some defeat that he had only known Christine for 3 weeks.

    So it is disgusting and despicable for anyone to suggest that a news commentary segment explicitly created by Yates’ independent project has anything to do with Christine — even if some nitwit in her campaign had the bad taste to send you a link to it.

    YOU ARE NOT THAT STUPID, GUYS.

    I know you are smarter than that.

    You know you are smarter than that.

    And the average voter is smarter than that.

    Journalists… maybe they are pretty stupid.

  63. Jonathon Moseley says:

    If someone had the bad taste to link to Yates’ news cast / news commentary segment, that person should be outed — even if it is Matt Moran — and should not be tolerated in future campaigns.

    However, Christine was and remains still very mad at me for thinking that I did something like that in 2008. Christine is wrong. But so hyper-sensitive was she and is she to such things, that she still claims I did something unethical in the 2008 campaign.

    Specifically: Tim Smith was running around PUBLICLY telling everyone who would listen IN PUBLIC that (a) God had told him that he should run for US Senate, (b) God told him that he was going to win and defeat Joe Biden, and (c) a prophesy by two local Delaware ministers confirmed that Tim Smith was the candidate whom everyone should support and who was going to win.

    Now there is nothing wrong with believing that God told him to run. God often tells us to go through an EXPERIENCE — with no expectation that you are going to win. God may very well have told Tim Smith to run for office, in order to have the experience and personal growth opportunity. People need to understand: It is entirely possible that God told EVERYONE in a particular campaign they should run for the office — ALL of them. That does not mean that God is saying who is going to win or who should win. God may be saying “You will learn some things…. Go ahead and have the experience of running.” God may know that Tim Smith is going to run for another office in a couple of years and having had that experience will be good preparation for him. God may know that it will build confidence in public speaking which Tim Smith might use in some other job. So I have no problem with that part of the story.

    But it is quite another thing to imply “You MUST support me and endorse me BECAUSE GOD SAID SO.” And that was what was happening. A great many conservative Christians were impressed that Tim Smith was called by God, and endorsed Tim Smith because of the prophesy.

    Trouble is: The ministers who gave the prophesy were saying that Tim Smith was misinterpreting the prophesy and that that is not what they said (in delivering the prophesy). This is a common problem in dealing with God.

    Christine was so hyper-sensitive about public image and confidentiality that she was angry at me for posting a reference to these VERY PUBLIC statements by Tim Smith, and then adding that the prophets thought he was misinterpreting their prophesy.

    Christine felt that this was confidential.

    I wholeheartedly, adamantly, vehemently disagree.

    When someone is using a prophesy IN PUBLIC as “THE” #1 reason why they should be elected to public office, they have waived all confidentiality, there is no confidentiality, the public has a right to know, and it becomes a question of very public interest.

    When someone is running around arguing that you MUST support me because God says so, and people are actually being persuaded by that argument, I think the public has an absolute right to know that the prophets involved are saying that their prophesy is being misinterpreted.

    There cannot be any confidentiality, and it is irresponsible to act that way, when someone is running for office on the basis of something, and you know it isn’t true.

    Yet so hyper-sensitive is Christine to such things that to this day she claims I did something unethical in the 2008 campaign by simply posting that the prophesy was being misinterpreted by supporters of Tim Smith, EVEN THOUGH TIM SMITH WAS REFERRING TO IT ALL OVER THE PLACE.

    So I know that in my case, Christine not only didn’t approve, she doesn’t approve, and she is still upset about it to this day.

    Based on that actual experience that I know about, I don’t believe that Christine could possibly approve of anyone in her campaign promoting Yates’ news cast mentioning Mike Castle.

    And I am quite sure that is why she fired Yates and his team weeks earlier, because he wanted to do things Christine did not approve of.

  64. Straight Nate says:

    Frank, you deleted my comment which was the story of a one night stand with COD told by the man who she jumped into bed with but you leave Jon Moseley’s hearsay comment about some unknown and most likely non existent politico talking about the Castle rumor.

    Which is more factual a firsthand story of COD being a whore or the hearsay posted by a lawyer who lost his license for 6 months for hiding evidence from the court?

  65. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Straight Nate, I am not saying or suggesting that the rumor about Mike Castle is true. I have no reason to think it is true, and I rather doubt it.

    My point was that the YOU and others are making the claim that the story came FROM Christine O’Donnell, personally.

    The point is that the story was widely known — true or untrue — having nothing to do with Christine.

    The issue is not whether it is true or untrue.

    The issue is whether you are simply leaping to conclusions about who is responsible for Yates website spreading the rumor in their news cast / news commentary weekly video.

    We are not saying it is true.

    You are claiming WHERE it came from, without any evidence of that.

  66. delacrat says:

    I once believed DelawareLiberal.net’s prurient fascination with CO’D could not be surpassed.

    You’ve proved me wrong.

  67. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Delacrat, next time a Republican is in the White House, are you okay with the IRS under a Republican Administration accessing tax records of Democrat candidates, issuing fake tax liens when no money is owed (audit still not finished), and other things?

    Remember: If you tolerate such shenanigans against Republicans, they can be used against Democrats, as well.

    The ACLU was always very strong in fighting for everyone’s rights, knowing that if the law allows an unpopular person to be discriminated against, then the same abuses will eventually be used against other people, too.

  68. delacrat says:

    “Delacrat, next time a Republican is in the White House, are you okay with the IRS under a Republican Administration accessing tax records of Democrat candidates, issuing fake tax liens when no money is owed (audit still not finished), and other things?” – Moseley

    Jon,

    I never voted for Obomba for anything. In 2008, I voted for Cynthia McKinney for Prez and for Jill Stein in 2012. My conscience is clean.

  69. waterpirate says:

    We grow so weary of the re-hash of past events and mistakes we/ that were made. The only reality left is that to the voters in Delaware, COD is as palatible as a heaping bowl of lutefisk. Pun intended.

  70. waterpirate says:

    I take great umbrage, that my epicurean comment did not last. I hope that it got moderated only untill someone had time to google lutefisk for a definition. I sought only to entertain whilst expressing a common feeling pervasive in Delaware voters minds.

  71. Tuxamus Maximus says:

    Tuxamus Maximus wants Jon Moseley to know that COD is never going to ask you to be her Knight in Shining Armour that will one day save her from all that are unkind by sweeping her off her feet and driving off into the sunset. It’s just NOT going to happen. Your loyalty is admired but your continued efforts at defending a THREE TIME LOSER that, as once stated, isn’t qualified to be a dog catcher just make you look all the more foolish. You just can get past the fact she in unelectable for so many reasons. Give it up because all COD is good for anymore is jokes by talk show hosts and so many others.

    Tuxamus Maximus thinks that if no other candidate steps up that DEGOP would be better served and save the money it doesn’t have rather than make a mockery of an election by putting up a PROVEN LOSER. Face the facts Jon Moseley. See if she could be an elected dog catcher first.

    The House of Tuxamus Maximus wants to thank all that have made the comments concerning this post so enjoyable and it is the hope here that Mr. Knotts will be able to find time to respond to Mr. Whittington’s request and maybe even the one about Pod People video.

    Tuxamus Maximus expects Jon Moseley to protest that he harbors no affection short of she’s a viable candidate that has been unjustly wronged and other stuff that will have the house of Tuxamus Maximus rolling on the floor laughing out loud but please keep in mind that the advise given that avoiding reading his missives may well be heeded henceforth. The real world is calling Jon Moseley and you need to ANSWER THE PHONE!

  72. Tuxamus Maximus says:

    Tuxamus Maximus got the point you intended Waterpirate and coming from you in that manner is all the more meaningful.

  73. Harry Whittington says:

    I don’t know if she ever called anyone a traitor, but Mike Castle IS a traitor to the GOP and the voters whom he made promises to. And I don’t care whether anyone likes hearing it or not, he is.

    By your own definition Christine O’Donnell is a “traitor.” because she promised to fight for our rights but when the time came and our 2nd Amendment rights and traditional marriage-a basic conservative values-she was tweeting about being fabulous with celebrities.

  74. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Harry, Mike Castle was elected, and sworn in to office, and paid a very large salary to serve as a Congressman.

    Representing the voters was Mike Castle’s job.

    Harry amassed a fortune of over $3.5 million as I recall on a public service payroll.

    Christine O’Donnell was not elected, was not sworn in, and has not been working in an elected or paid position or anything else like it.

    My advice for Christine has been and would have been to pursue a very different strategy than the “Hide Under the Bed And Hope They Go Away” strategy of Matt Moran.

    However, even though I would have liked to see Christine pursue plans much closer to what you and Frank Knotts suggest, you cannot compare Mike Castle who was getting PAID to work in a public office he was sworn in to officially carry out and someone who is just a private citizen.

  75. Harry Whittington says:

    The thousands of citizens who flooded Legislative Hall to fight for those rights were not paid, and many of them had to take time off from work to fight for our rights. If O’Donnell needs a paycheck to do what’s right I would gladly vote for any one of the thousands who stood by conservative values on principle instead of someone who is only a conservative for money like O’Donnell.

  76. Jonathon Moseley says:

    What about the hundreds of thousands of Delaware citizens who DID NOT flood Legislative Hall to fight for those rights?

  77. Frank Knotts says:

    Straight Nate, Mr. Moseley spoke of the Castle video in a way that clearly showed that he was giving an opinion about an event. Your comment was written in a manner that made it seem as if you were making the statement, you used no quotation marks or italics, and gave no reference to the person who originally made the statement. If you would like to try again to repost the comment, please feel free, but please make it clear that you are quoting someone else and not making the statement yourself.
    Moseley, please do not presume to tell me what I do and do not know.
    What I do know is that people who were working “with” the O’Donnell campaign were attempting to spread the video in question, that there was time for the campaign to demand them to stop it before it was widely spread, and/or to get out in front of it with a statement condemning it and those responsible. Instead it was allowed to run its course, and only then did the campaign come out against it when the reaction was negative. As I and others had advised the campaign it would be by the way.

  78. Harry Whittington says:

    What about the hundreds of thousands of Delaware citizens who DID NOT flood Legislative Hall to fight for those rights?

    Did any of them run for US Senate three times on the promise that they would fight for conservative values and our Constitutional rights? No. Only one person in Delaware has done that, Christine O’Donnell, and when the time came to fight she was Tweeting pictures of the celebrities she was having cocktails with, worrying about fitting into her designer gowns and eating lobster.

    She’s a RINO. Plain and simple.

  79. Jonathon Moseley says:

    On the topic of Christine’s missed opportunities, What Christine O’Donnell should do for the good of the country and to serve and save the nation is rent an apartment in Springfield, Ohio (Eastern side to be near Columbus for convenience), register to vote in the 8th Congressional District of Ohio, and start warning pretend Republican Speaker John Boehner to stop promoting Obama’s liberal agenda in the House, such as amnesty. After knocking off Mike Castle, no one could put the scare into Boehner to start acting like a real Republican more than Christine O’Donnell. Christine should warn Boehner that if he pushes amnesty, he can join Mike Castle on the golf course in retirement. She could still move back to Delaware. She doesn’t have to actually run or declare in Ohio. Just the warning enough could save our country from boat loads of bad legislation.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/stevedeace/2013/08/03/a-profile-in-failure-john-boehner-n1653290/page/full

  80. Harry Whittington says:

    When you look at the lack of donations to her PAC since 2010, it’s pretty clear that the rest of the nation is as tired of her as Delaware.

    But by all means, move her to Ohio.

  81. Harry Whittington says:

    Incidentally, Mike Castle has done more for Delaware Republicans, and national Republicans during his “retirement” than O’Donnell has done in her entire 7 years of running for office.

  82. Jonathon Moseley says:

    No, Harry, Frank Knotts and others are right.

    What has Christine O’Donnell done or proposed to do that would motivate anyone to donate to her PAC?

    People need a reason to donate — a project, a goal, a purpose.

    No one is going to donate if you say “Send me a donation and I will figure out what to do with it later.” People will respond (think) “When you figure out what you are going to do, get back to me and talk to me THEN.”

    No one is going to donate if you say “I’m working on X, send me money.” What do you need the money FOR? What is my money going to in playing a role in that?

    Okay, maybe YOU are doing something, but what does that have to do with me?

    Fund-raising requires saying: HERE is what we propose to do. If you give, it can happen. If you don’t give, it won’t happen.

    ChristinePAC has never done any fund-raising whatsoever, within the meaning of what actual fund-raising really is.

  83. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Yes, trashing Republicans, promoting liberal policies and playing rounds of golf is exhausting work for a man of Mike Castle’s years. Doing everything he can to silence conservatives is a full day’s work for Mike Castle.

  84. Harry Whittington says:

    You and Matt Moran may want to check out Castle’s FEC report, in 2012 Castle donated almost $300,000 to republican candidates.

    http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do

    My point stands as the truth, Castle has done more for Delaware Republicans, and national Republicans during his “retirement” than O’Donnell has done in her entire 7 years of running for office.

    Castle has supported conservatives, not “silenced” them, while O’Donnell is silent on conservative issues while she plays the socialite.

    You can’t sell your fish oil here.

  85. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Mike Castle has done absolutely nothing for anyone since his retirement.

    My Grandmother who died over a decade ago has done more for the Republican Party since 2010 than Mike Castle.

    If Mike Castle was sitting on unused campaign funds, what else would he do with it but to donate it to someone?

    On the contrary, all that Mike Castle has done is to throw more gasoline on the fire of the alienation of the Republican leadership from the grassroots voters. Castle has continued his sour grapes temper tantrum and encouraged disgruntled, whiny Republican insiders not to listen to the voters and not to heal the wounds.

  86. Frank Knotts says:

    So Moseley has demonstrated why the so called grass roots movement was doomed to fail. By suggesting that simply causing a Republican to lose is enough. No Jon, we have to do more than scare Republicans and win primaries, we have to win elections if we are to govern. Saying that Ms. O’Donnell should run around the nation acting as some sort of bludgeon says that you think that every race is the same, that she could raise the same support in Ohio as Delaware, how simple minded. Every race and district is different, did it ever enter your mind that Boehner wins in his district because he fits his district, and that Ms. O’Donnell’s views would doom her to lose there, or are you so blinded with hero worship that you can’t see that?

  87. Harry Whittington says:

    Mr. Moseley is clearly blinded. In 2012 Mike Castle donated $297,000 to republican candidates in Delaware and around the country. Unlike O’Donnell, he didn’t require time to speak at their fundraisers, he didn’t require the press to be present. He did it because he still believes in the Republican party.

    Matt Moran slammed Castle in the News Journal for sitting on his campaign fund, when the reality is that Castle is using his campaign fund to fund other Republican candidates. Something O’Donnell isn’t doing even though that was her promise when she formed her PAC.

    Mike Castle still throws high dollar fundraisers for the Republicans in the Delaware General Assembly – these are the Republicans who stood up for us against gay marriage and the attack against our 2nd Amendment rights. – fights that O’Donnell couldn’t even find the time to send out 140 letters in a Tweet of support.

    Mr. Moseley, stop your lying and deceptions. Christine O’Donnell is done in Delaware, she proved herself to be a liar when it came to her campaign promises and she doesn’t care about our state at all which she proved when she failed to defend conservative values and instead spent her time drinking cocktails with celebrities.

  88. Jonathon Moseley says:

    “Mr. Moseley is clearly blinded. In 2012 Mike Castle donated $297,000 to republican candidates in Delaware and around the country”

    He has no choice. There isn’t anything else he CAN do with the money. So what?

  89. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Frank Knotts: “So Moseley has demonstrated why the so called grass roots movement was doomed to fail. By suggesting that simply causing a Republican to lose is enough. No Jon, we have to do more than scare Republicans and win primaries, we have to win elections if we are to govern”

    Yet, we CANNOT win elections if the Republican Party abandons what it stands for.

    There is the complexity that simple-minded moderates refuse to recognize.

    The Republican party CANNOT win elections if it compromises its beliefs with Democrat, ruins its image, and demoralizes the Republican grassroots.

    So while of course we want to win elections, the GOP will never win elections if we don’t stop the nitwits like John Boehner from destroying the meaning of the Republican Party.

    If there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the parties, why would anyone lift a finger or give up even 1 hour on a Saturday morning to do a damn thing for a Republican candidate?

    The only way to win elections is to expel those in the Party who are destroying the meaning of what the Republican Party stands for.

    If when you buy a can of Coke, half the time you get warm piss instead of Coca-Cola, you will stop buying cans of Coke all together.

  90. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Frank Knotts writes: “did it ever enter your mind that Boehner wins in his district because he fits his district, and that Ms. O’Donnell’s views would doom her to lose there, or are you so blinded with hero worship that you can’t see that?”

    It is not your place or mine to IMAGINE what you think might happen, and then force conformity to your imagination.

    Elections are about giving the voters the choice.

    If you simply sit around and IMAGINE what you think might happen, then you and your imagination are making the decision, rather than letting the voters have the power and the choice.

    Did it ever occur to you that just like Delaware Republicans were eager to give Mike Castle the boot, the Republicans of the 8th District of Ohio would be eager to sink a boot in John Boehner’s backside if someone could raise a war chest of $2 million to oppose Boehner?

  91. Harry Whittington says:

    “Mr. Moseley is clearly blinded. In 2012 Mike Castle donated $297,000 to republican candidates in Delaware and around the country”
    He has no choice. There isn’t anything else he CAN do with the money. So what?

    No, he could have done what O’Donnell did with her campaign funds, he could have shifted them to a PAC and spent the money on things other than donations. So you’re wrong again.

    It’s time to face the facts, O’Donnell wasted the past 3 years pandering to herself and endorsing the biggest RINO in the race for President. She’s selling our personal information to keep her PAC alive, and when the two most basic conservative values were on the line in Delaware, traditional marriage and our 2nd Amendment rights, she was worrying about whether or not she could fit into a designer gown for a cocktail party with celebrities and couldn’t even bother to send out a short email or a 140 character Tweet in support of our rights and conservative values.

  92. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Mike Castle is in his 80’s. He became a multi-millionaire while spending decades on a government payroll.

    What would he do with a PAC? Nothing, except giving money to the exact same candidates he did anyway, directly.

    Mike Castle became a multi-millionaire — suspiciously — while working on a government salary.

    When Mike Castle starts donating his own personal money, then we can say “Wow, he took 5 seconds to write a check.”

    But those campaign funds are NOT HIS. So he hasn’t done anything for anyone by just retiring those surplus campaign funds.

  93. Frank Knotts says:

    Okay we have officially entered “Moseley Land”, where all the rides go around in circles.
    Moseley says, “He has no choice. There isn’t anything else he CAN do with the money. So what?”
    Wrong, he could have given the money to any candidate, even Democrats, or as Harry said created a PAC. Look I don’t want to sit here and defend Mike Castle, but let us have an honest discussion Mr. Moseley.
    I do however agree with Mr. Moseley when he says, ”
    If there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the parties, why would anyone lift a finger or give up even 1 hour on a Saturday morning to do a damn thing for a Republican candidate?

    The only way to win elections is to expel those in the Party who are destroying the meaning of what the Republican Party stands for.”

    I would take that one step further however and include the hard right radicals that also are destroying the meaning of the Republican Party with their hate filled rhetoric.

    In talking about Ms. O’Donnell moving to Ohio to oust Boehner, Moseley says, “It is not your place or mine to IMAGINE what you think might happen, and then force conformity to your imagination.”
    Well isn’t that all that you were doing in imagining that Ms. O’Donnell has some special ability to run off other Republicans?

    And finally Moseley says, “Did it ever occur to you that just like Delaware Republicans were eager to give Mike Castle the boot, the Republicans of the 8th District of Ohio would be eager to sink a boot in John Boehner’s backside if someone could raise a war chest of $2 million to oppose Boehner?”
    I return to my earlier statement, that we have to be able to win elections, not just primaries. Mr. Moseley’s statement is a half truth. It was not “DELAWARE” voters who were ready to give Mike Castle the boot, it was “DELAWARE REPUBLICAN”, voters who were ready to Castle the boot. It may have been a case that no one did enough “imagining” before hand to realize that even though Ms. O’Donnell could win the primary, she may not win the general based on political history in Delaware. To suggest that the same thing should be done in other states, may only result in more Democrats, if like in Delaware we do not seek Republicans that can win general elections. Of course Delaware is unique in having only one Rep. for the entire state.

  94. Harry Whittington says:

    Mike Castle is in his 80′s. He became a multi-millionaire while spending decades on a government payroll.

    Mike Castle is 75 years old. He became a multi-millionaire because he was a well respected and successful lawyer before he entered into politics. He was a founding partner in a Delaware law firm. He was also invested in several successful business in Delaware. You know nothing about him, so stop lying.

    What would he do with a PAC? Nothing, except giving money to the exact same candidates he did anyway, directly.

    Really, well Ms. O’Donnell shifted a great deal of money into her PAC and spent $600.00 on candidates in Delaware in 2012, the rest of the money went to rent, utilities, travel, and her real legal defense. So there is a wide range of options for PAC spending.

    Mike Castle became a multi-millionaire — suspiciously — while working on a government salary.

    No, he became a multi-millionaire because he, unlike other people, was a well respected and successful lawyer and businessman. Keep lying.

    When Mike Castle starts donating his own personal money, then we can say “Wow, he took 5 seconds to write a check.”

    At least Castle donates his time to Republican causes he believes in, like the high dollar fundraisers he hosts for members of the Delaware General Assembly. On top of that, he donates his money to republicans – $297,000 – to republicans.

    Christine O’Donnell is so busy with her diets and designer gowns she can’t even find the time to muster up 140 characters for a Tweet in support of traditional marriage and our 2nd Amendment rights – rights she promised to fight for.

    But those campaign funds are NOT HIS. So he hasn’t done anything for anyone by just retiring those surplus campaign funds.

    No, and he doesn’t treat them like they are HIS, he uses them to fund other candidates, and in 2012, he gave $297,000 to republican candidates in Delaware and around the country.

    Christine O’Donnell’s PAC, meanwhile, spends money on rent, utilities and paying her own legal fees, and didn’t even donate 1%, NOT EVEN 1% to republican candidates.

    Keep posting lies about people, Moseley, some day it will come back to bite you.

  95. Jonathon Moseley says:

    “Mike Castle is 75 years old. He became a multi-millionaire because he was a well respected and successful lawyer before he entered into politics”

    NOPE. Mike Castle became a multi-millionaire AFTER he was elected to Congress, on a government salary.

    How does someone became a multi-millionaire on a government salary, without double-dipping and getting special favors because of being a Congressman?

    It’s called corruption, Harry.

    The campaign funds are not his, and he has no other choice but to distribute them. So distributing them is not doing anything special.

    The people who donated those funds to him in the first place get the credit, not Mike Castle

  96. Jonathon Moseley says:

    And by the way, the complaints with the Federal Election Commission by Tom Ross and the DEGOP and a big Joe Biden donor required Christine’s campaign to set aside $500,000 in funds and hold those back.

    So if you don’t like that, talk to Tom Ross and Joe Biden about causing those false attacks — which were later thrown out.

  97. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Frank Knotts writes: “I would take that one step further however and include the hard right radicals that also are destroying the meaning of the Republican Party with their hate filled rhetoric. ”

    Name 3. Name even 1. You can’t.

    “Hate filled rhetoric” means anything that disagrees with you.

  98. Harry Whittington says:

    The bottom line is that Castle won’t run for office again, but thankfully he still takes the time to host fundraisers for Republicans and he still donates to Republicans ($297,000 in 2012).

    Meanwhile Christine O’Donnell has been a no show. She took a dump on her supporters in 2012 by endorsing the most liberal candidate in the Presidential race, Mitt Romney, and she only got up off of her butt to support ONE Delaware Republican candidate – the one who was arrested and indicted for child molestation.

    She gives no money to other candidates, she still has no job, she spent her PAC money on her “office” and her own legal defense, and she broke her campaign promise to “fight” for us when she was WORSE than a “no show” when traditional marriage and our 2nd Amendment rights were on the line, she was too busy preening herself for a fabulous cocktail party with a bunch of Marxists while our rights were swirling down the drain.

  99. Harry Whittington says:

    No, Moseley, Castle was already a millionaire when he went to Congress, he had a successful and well respected law practice, was one of the top 5 lawyers in Delaware, and he was invested in several businesses.

    Real lawyers make a lot of money, Moseley, and Castle’s own law firm was a money making machine.

    And stop lying about campaign funds. Campaign funds can be moved into PACS that have barely any strings attached. It was no surprise to anyone that O’Donnell moved money to a PAC, where she could use it for whatever she wanted. Too bad she didn’t want to use it to get Republicans elected.

    Thank God Castle decided to use his campaign money to get Republicans elected.

  100. Harry Whittington says:

    Let me use the 100th comment on this to hammer home the point, here is opensecrets.org’s ChristinePAC page:

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cmte=C00492215&cycle=2012

    The PAC shelled out over $325,000 during the entire 2012 election season with $245.00 going to candidates/political pacs.

    $245. During a Presidential election year. She’s a phony.

  101. Frank Knotts says:

    Moseley,
    1. The TEA “party”
    2. patriot and militia groups
    3. any religious group that pushes their beliefs upon others

    There Mr. Moseley is your three.

  102. Tuxamus Maximus says:

    Tuxamus Maximus is pleased to see Harry Whittington back and active and has truly come to understand the ‘warning’ that was offered about Mr. Moseley. As much as Harry is appreciated we wonder why he continues to bang his head against Moseley’s wall. His blinders are so large that Tuxamus Maximus feels it is a case of tunnel vision. Reading the many mass missives of Moseley trying to make a point is becoming the waste of time of which he was described upon arrival. But it is people like him that make the pods less and less of the force they used to be or at least what they thought they were. The bottom line is that Christine O’Donnell is not a viable candidate in Delaware, Ohio, or anywhere she may want to try to be a candidate if for no other reason than the baggage that comes with her.

    So many have tried to help Moseley to see from outside the box. There is a saying that goes along the lines of Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Trying to get Moseley to read, and understand, any point of reasoning other than his own is insane.

  103. Dave says:

    Also, the PAC spent nearly $60,000 on rent and utilities in 2012. That’s some mighty fine living for some folks in the PAC. At $5,000 per month, that wasn’t a storefront office either.

    Well, it wasn’t my money. So no harm no foul.

  104. Jonathon Moseley says:

    OFFICE rent, dumbkopf.

    Rent does not mean living

  105. Harry Whittington says:

    How is she spending $5,000 per month in rent in an apartment/townhouse complex where the highest rent is $2,110.00 per month?

    http://www.midatlanticrealtyco.com/comm_greenville_place_floorplans.php

    BTW, I called Mid Atlantic Realty today and asked what the most expensive unit in the complex cost per month. $2,110 was the answer. So O’Donnell is either a bigger idiot than any of us imagined, or her PAC is paying rent for two townhouses in that complex. Time to call Melanie Sloan.

  106. Jonathon Moseley says:

    I have no idea what office or multiple offices PLUS UTILITIES they are paying for.

    You have to pay attention to the category. That may also include office supplies, photocopies, postage, courier (Fed Ex and Express Mail), etc., etc.

    However, when you assume that “rent” means “residential” you are not that stupid — you are being dishonest.

    EVERY campaign has rent for office space.

    For you to talk about rent as if that means someone’s living space is deceitful

  107. Harry Whittington says:

    Well we know for certain what Christine O’Donnell has not used hundreds of thousands of dollars in her PAC money on – getting Republicans elected.

    We all expect her to run for office again when the money dries up and she figures out how to paint herself as a victim again.

  108. Dave says:

    What Moseley misses (which is usually most everything) is not that COD’s PAC is paying rent. It’s how much rent and utilities were. She paid Mid Atlantic Reality $33,907, which if that was all rent, works out to be $2,825 per month. That would leave the remainder of the rent and utilities category at $25,394. A hefty sum for utilities ($2,000 per month).

    Additionally, she had little to no staff (Annette Burgess at $53K). And then there is the Miscellaneous Administrative at $47,369. That’s also a significant sum for miscellaneous.

    Not to mention the Joseph Fox Bookshop at $16K. Since they are an independent book seller, someone bought a whole lot of books. It can’t be COD’s books, wouldn’t she have gotten them direct from the publisher? Well, someone has a nice library. Imagine spending $16,000 on books! I’d love to do that!

    As I said, it’s not my money but I am sure getting a lot of entertainment bang for someone else’s bucks and as P.T. Barnum said so eloquently… Nah, everyone already knows what he said.

  109. mouse says:

    But I do have a thing for witches

  110. mouse says:

    Does the Republican party understand that normal people just want competent, effective non corrupt government and not someone whose only qualifications are pandering to sexual and religious obsessions and bigoted resentments ?

  111. mouse says:

    Mike Castle was mostly a reasonable well respected person. The rabid republicans don’t want that. They want some pandering religious nut that panders to their bigotry.

Trackbacks for this post

  1. Around the Horn for the Week of July 26-August 1, 2013 : Delaware Liberal

Got something to say? Go for it!