Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03
    Announcement
     
    Announcement
     

    Nuts and Sluts In Delaware

    Nuts and Sluts In Delaware

    The “nuts and sluts” defense is a common employment law tactic whenever a female employee brings a claim.  It doesn’t matter what the claim is, the defense — after the usual legal mumbo jumbo — will be something like this:

    “She’s nuts.  And by the way, pssst, she may be a slut.”

    That is the mode of attack Democrats use against conservative women.  Sarah Palin is the prime example, as she routinely is called crazy and is sexualized by the left (to the silence of liberal feminist groups).

    The nuts part of the attack is being used against Christine O’Donnell in Delaware by the local Republican establishment, and also by two leading conservative magazines, The Weekly Standard and National Review.  If O’Donnell is so nuts, why did the Delaware Republican Party nominate her to run against Joe Biden just two years ago?

    If O’Donnell wins tomorrow, you can be sure that the Democrats will seize on the nuts attack from Republicans, and take it to the next step by sexualizing O’Donnell (it already has started).

    By signing on to the nuts defense directed at conservative women, the Republican establishment has adopted the most pernicious line of Democratic Party attack.

    I am not “anti-Mike Castle,” but I do have a problem with someone who was willing to destroy the economy by signing on to Nancy Pelosi’s cap-and-trade plan.  The vigorous attacks on Castle have been focused almost exclusively on his record and policy prescriptions.  Almost none of the attacks on O’Donnell focus on her policies or political agenda.

    In politics, it often is necessary to put bitter primaries behind us.  I’m not sure, after the Republican establishment’s nuts defense, that will be possible in Delaware.

    Update:  See what I mean:

    And, some commenters and articles in the conservative press use O’Donnell’s statement that people are following her as proof that she is nuts.  But, the fact is that the Republican Party in Delaware has hired video trackers to follow her around (nothing illegal about that), as this post at DelawareOnline documents.  Other claims attribute to her the assertion that Castle supporters broke into her house in 2008, but O’Donnell never said that, she simply said in response to a question that she didn’t know who did it.  This is the problem I have with the “nuts” defense; spin replaces facts, and once the image of the candidate is created in the public mind, there is no way to undo it.

    ——————————————–
    Related Posts:
    The Party of Whatever

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Bookmark and Share

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    @mikehinton;
    A vote for O'Donnell is a vote for……O'Donnell. Obamacare is NOT going to get repealed in the next 2 years. Even if we were to achieve a majority in the Senate by electing Castle, there is no way to get 60 seats. That's what's needed to get past a filibuster. And you'd better believe that the Dems will filibuster any repeal attempt. Even if we could get a repeal past the filibuster, it would be vetoed immediately by Obama. Is there any conceivable scenario which ends up with 67 GOP votes in the Senate, to overturn a veto?

    You even say so yourself "We need a supermajority on our side right now." That just WON'T HAPPEN. So repealing Obamacare is no reason to vote for Castle. 2012 brings 21 Dem Senate seats into play, v 12 GOP. That's where the battle over Obamacare will be won, not in this year's fight over Delaware's GOP nomination.

    PS, Delaware is not in New England

    Look, if the left or right doesn't think someone will win, they wouldn't waste their time and resources trying to defeat them.

    In my newly awakened political mind, it is a simple of matter of walking the walk. We've been moaning about RINO's for years, and now, with the most momentum we've had in history, we are simply supposed to shelve our principles? I just don't get it.
    And, awesome that ElRushbo gave you your due today, Professor.

    @Danby
    I understand your points, but the Delaware Senator will still be there in 2012. I have no dreams of repealing Obamacare before then. 2010 is on the way to 2012, when we have the real deal. I just don't want to fall a vote short in 2012.

    PS, I'm embarrassed for not having checked where exactly Delaware is. I felt all those small states in the north east were considered New England, my bad.

    Professor, I'm really sorry to see you join the ridiculous attacks on National Review, the Weekly Standard and others in the conservative camp who are astute enough to recognize that the GOP's winning in Delaware would be a big deal and bring the Senate one step closer to an actual majority, and at the same time realize that O'Donnell is simply not going to win.

    Now, the question that follows from that must be, why can't she win? And the answer is clear, although it does make some people uncomfortable: it's because she is a flake who has never accomplished anything in life in the private sector or politics or government, has an electoral track record of being a total zero, and is carrying heavy baggage that the voters of Delaware will not like.

    To ignore these facts is impossible. The opposition to her among some Republicans and conservatives is not based on her gender or her supposed mental condition or her being "too conservative, but on her life's record, which is barren except for her ability to rattle off the right litmus-test positions for staunch conservatives — a feat that will not help her get elected in Delaware.

    Mike Castle is/was a shoo-in, having won 12 statewide elections in Delaware, most recently in 2008 when he won by 23 points while Obama was sweeping the little state without needing to campaign. In the most recent Rasmussen poll, Castle runs ahead of the Democrat by 11 points while O'Donnell loses to the Democrat by 11 points — a phenomenal 22 point difference.

    Now, you can make some sort of argument to the effect that you'd rather see a Democrat win than a "RINO" like Castle. At NR and WS and many other places, people are making the counter-argument that they'd rather have a RINO who wins and can help deliver the Senate to GOP hands while voting with the GOP half the time (better than none of the time with a Democrat). When they make that argument, they are called all sorts of vicious names.

    Every race is different. Sharon Angle was not the best candidate to beat Harry Reid — but she's got a shot and is running neck and neck with him. But that's Nevada against a badly damaged incumbent. In Alaska, the GOP can easily win with a "Tea Party" instead of an "Establishment" candidate because it's a deeply Republican state. In Delaware, there is not a chance in hell for a candidate like O'Donnell to win. To say so and to warn that suicidal loss is not serious politics whould not be cause for fierce ad hominem attacks.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend