It appears that the endorsement of Sean Hannity has come on the heels of more Christine O’Donnell lies. It is a shame when a big name pundit can’t even name what bills Mike Castle has or has not voted for:
Speaking of Sean Hannity, he is one of the prominent talk-show hosts who (inadvertently, I’m certain) has incorrectly described Castle’s voting record. Last night Hannity said “Mike Castle voted for Obamacare, TARP, cap and tax, the establishment wants him. What can we interpret from that?” Actually, Castle voted against Obamacare.
It was the same with Rush Limbaugh:
Along the same lines, Rush Limbaugh said yesterday that Castle voted for the stimulus. In fact, Castle voted against the 2009 stimulus bill, which is what people understand “the stimulus” to mean. Castle did vote for 2008 stimulus legislation in 2008. However, as Jim Geraghty points out, that bill passed by a vote of 81-16, with the votes of solid conservatives like Richard Burr, John Thune, David Vitter, Jim Bunning. Mitch McConnell, Sam Brownback, Saxby Chambliss, and Orrin Hatch.
Sarah Palin was fed the same line of bull as Hannity and Limbaugh.
“Let me go ahead and endorse Christine O’Donnell because, Sean, she’s the conservative in the race,” Palin said. “She is against Obama’s cap-and-tax scheme, she is against Obamacare, she is for the free market principles that need to get plugged in to put our economy back on the right track.”
Again, Castle did not vote for Obamacare.
Does Sarah Palin do her homework? Obviously not. As we know, Chrstine O’Donnell and her henchman, Yates Walker have a penchant for lying to out-of-staters (in-staters too) about her record and about Mike Castle’s record when she thinks that she can get away with it.
According to Politico.com, Yates casually floated the rumor that Castle, who is married, had a gay affair. Castle vigorously denied the affair. It’s not the only bizarre charge lodged in the primary, which will be decided Tuesday.
Walker’s explanation, to the (Wilmington, Del.) News Journal, as to why he brought up the affair:
Walker, who said in an interview that he left the campaign last month on good terms, said he had no evidence supporting the rumor. He said he had not discussed the video with the O’Donnell staff.
“We’re happy to attack him whenever we can,” Walker said.
The Xavier Newswire also has this story on Walker, noting his military background and a rape charge, for which he was acquitted.
Here’s the item the Enquirer ran on that in April, 2007
A Xavier University senior has been found not guilty of sexually molesting two female freshmen. Hamilton County prosecutors had alleged Michael Walker, 28, of Norwood, invited them to his off-campus house for a party in October, where he gave them so much alcohol they passed out. One woke up the next morning naked, unable to remember what happened, said Assistant Hamilton County Prosecutor Seth Tieger. The other woman also did not remember what happened but didn’t suspect anything was wrong and went to the movies with Walker. During the date, Walker attacked her again, Tieger said. Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Fred Cartolano found Walker not guilty during a trial last week on two charges of rape and a charge of sexual battery. Cartolano tossed out two other charges of rape – one relating to each victim – saying there was not enough evidence to go forward.
Dan Gaffney’s Interview with Christine O’Donnell:
“I was the 2008 endorsed Candidate against Joe Biden and I won 2 counties.”
Christine lost all 3 counties in Delaware. Obviously, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Tammy Bruce, etc. would never let the truth get in the way of endorsing a “conservative” republican.
I think that Dan Calabrese from North Star National Blog sums it up the best:
I suppose it’s widely known that I like and respect Sarah Palin. I think highly of her record governing Alaska. I think she’s made a huge and positive impact endorsing candidates around the country this year. And I certainly don’t share the unhinged notions about her that afflict one of my friends and colleagues.
But why the hell did Palin endorse Christine O’Donnell yesterday in the Delaware Senate primary?
I haven’t agreed with all of Palin’s endorsements to date. John McCain in Arizona, I understood because a) she’s personally loyal to him; b) J.D. Hayworth is a moron; and c) on the issues that matter most, spending and national security, McCain is better than Hayworth, whether “true conservatives” like it or not.
I wasn’t crazy about the endorsement of Rand Paul in Kentucky, but that’s mainly because of Paul’s moonbat father, and the fact that the kid sounds an awful lot like him. But given the choices in Kentucky this year, it’s probably fair to say Paul is now the most palatable choice.
But Christine O’Donnell?
OK, I get it that Palin prefers to endorse the more conservative candidate, and O’Donnell certainly espouses positions that are more conservative than the voting record of her primary opponent, U.S. Rep. Mike Castle. I get it that Palin likes to support women – yeah, the Mama Grizzlies. Fine by me.
And I understand that Palin is tight with Sean Hannity, who has a tendency to put Christine O’Donnell on the air either as a guest host (why, I have no idea, because she’s terrible) or as a panelist.
So the surface reasons make sense.
But has Palin listened to this interview? Is Palin aware of O’Donnell’s abysmal handling of her own campaign finances? Has she heard O’Donnell blather on about the people in her bushes? Has she seen the polls that say O’Donnell is an almost certain loser in the general election if she gets through the primary?
Here’s what’s most ironic about this: You know all the critics of Palin who wrongly say she’s stupid, unbalanced and unskilled at governing? You know how they say without any justification that she’s just in it for her personal glory and ambition? Those criticisms of Palin are complete and utter garbage.
But if you leveled them at Christine O’Donnell, you’d be right on the mark.
O’Donnell has no qualifications for the job she’s seeking. She practically runs for office in lieu of anything more substantive to do with her life. She is a professional conservative activist, and I don’t mean that as a compliment. She’s a media talking head, and not even a good one, and she doesn’t demonstrate the slightest clue about how to be an effective senator in the unlikely – no, impossible – event that she is elected.
As for Palin, well, nobody’s perfect. I am still a fan, but endorsing Christine O’Donnell was a mistake. As many things as are wrong with Mike Castle, he’s the only Republican who has a chance to turn Joe Biden’s old Senate seat red in Delaware, and Palin has just made that a much more challenging proposition.
In a year when the GOP has a chance to take control of the Senate, but will truly need to win just about every competitive race to do it, there’s no margin for error to nominate an empty suit who mouths the platitudes of a “true conservative” but is the walking embodiment of “lights on, nobody home.”
If not for Palin, I don’t think serious reformers would be rising up as they are all across the country. Her impact this year has been huge and good. It would be a shame if the GOP fell just short of the Super Bowl because, just as it was getting into range to kick the winning field goal, Palin threw an interception and rescued the Democrats from themselves.
Have all of these endorsers done their homework? I think not. Shame on Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Tammy Bruce, Independence Hall Tea Party, and Tea Party express for endorsing a PROVEN LIAR!