Ace of Spades doesn’t buy Christine McDonnell’s blame shifting and buck-passing for the election results in Delaware:
But here’s O’Donnell saying it wasn’t her “standing up for principle” that cost her the election, but shady machinations against her.
I also agree it wasn’t “principle” that cost her the election. I think it had more to do with the fact that 1, she wasn’t bright (at all), 2, she had no accomplishments whatsoever (and yes, people do want to know someone’s actually done something to earn the right to be one of 100 in the Senate), 3, she had a series of bizarre statements from her past (“mice with fully functioning human brains”), and 4, she couldn’t articulate a conservative message in a way that sounded appealing or intelligent.
And 5 — I want a strict accounting of how her campaign donations were spent. Know what I mean? I’d like to know if any money was squirreled away for “future campaigns.”
Although, yeah, 6, her bright-red right positions of course were a drag in blue Delaware. I think a Joe Miller type or Sean Bielat would have had a chance to sell such a message even in blue state — as either easily passes the hurdles of credibility and seriousness — but even for a strong candidate, you can still lose when you’re advocating positions the constituents just don’t agree with. As Bielat lost, and as Miller will almost certainly lose.
Those were good candidates I endorse rolling the dice with.
But, on the other hand, a candidate who begins in a hole due to serious questions about credibility and qualifications and whose positions are in disagreement with the majority of people she would presume to represent? That right there is the difference between a race that could have been won and a blow-out.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.