Christine O'Donnell Endorses Mitt Romney

Does this come as a surprise to you?  It doesn't to me.  From day one when this woman came onto the national scene I have not liked her nor did I trust her.  I took a great deal of flak for saying so.  Maybe I wasn't so far off.  The true blue Tea Party darling (whom they never bothered to vet before they jumped on her bandwagon) picks the least conservative of the crew we have left.

“It was not an easy decision because I too think any of our candidates would make a great president and a great candidate going against Barack Obama,” O’Donnell said. “But I think there are certain tie breakers and I know that in making my decision I might be hurting some people but I think infrastructure and executive experience are important, and for that reason I’m endorsing Mitt Romney.”

Would Huntsman make a good president too?  She has previously stated this:

“I hope the fact that I stood up to the liberal establishment within my own party gives me the bona fides among conservatives to say this,” she said. “I find the tone and nastiness of some of the things circulating around the Internet about Romney extremely offensive.

What things are those Christine?  The fact that he burdened the people of his own state with the highest insurance premiums in the country? Or maybe that hospitals there are going broke due to the mandates and the lack of funding.  Could it be that people in MA now have an average time of 23 days to get a doctor's appointment.  Do you find it offensive that people are reporting that RomneyCare funds abortions and illegals?  I know I do.

Christine has offered to go out and stump for Gov. Romney.  Oh my, what a treat.  I wonder if she will advise Romney to leave more than $1 million in the campaign coffers like she did.  Of course he doesn't then file for the next elected office so he can use that money like she has done.

Christine, why don't we call this what it is?  A blatant attempt to get a seat at the table of a Romney administration, because you will never get elected to any office in Delaware on your own with your constant cries of being victimized and your somewhat casual relationship with the truth.

H/T to The Other McCain. 

Cain V. O'Donnell

This is classic.  Enjoy!!!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Quote of the Day - Rosie O'Donnell Edition Part 3

ROSIE O’DONNELL: There is a legacy of the Shrivers in America, of the Kennedy/Shrivers, right? And it’s not the Schwarzeneggers, and I always felt like, you know – He, this Republican guy, kinda snuck in and…







BOBBY PEARCE (staffer): She married beneath her.






O’DONNELL: …I don’t know, I always felt that’s not my place to say. But I always did feel that, and, I feel like, “You don’t have a right to that legacy”…






PEARCE: And he proved it.




Um, let's see here, both brothers were sleeping with Marilyn Monroe, there is Mary Jo who some say may have been pregnant, then there is the "waitress sandwich" between Kennedy and partner and crime Chris Dodd.  Seems to me like he fit right in. 

Was it all a Heist?

That's the question that Jim Geraghty is asking about Christine O'Donnell failed senate campaign.  It seems that she has almost $1 million left over in her campaign coffers.  A campaign spokesman has said that this was advised by legal counsel in case funds would be needed for legal challenges.  Sadly, many elections incur legal costs after election day for recounts and charges of voter fraud. 

But, this isn't what the legal costs would have been for.  O'Donnell had two investigations filed against her; one from the State GOP and one from CREW.  Both of which were filed very early on.  The state party filed before the  primary and CREW filed shortly after her primary win. 

It is no secret that I questioned the honesty and integrity of Christine O'Donnell and reading this has done nothing to change my mind.  While I am no fan of either Senator-Elect Coons or of Congressman Castle, I still felt that people rallying around a candidate that seems to have a Clintonian relationship with the truth was not the best of ideas. 

The money will be allowed to stay in that account in case she decides to run for political office again.  The real issue than becomes that once she declares her candidacy for another public office that money can be used to generate a monthly salary for herself.  This is something that she had been doing in the past.  Her federal income tax return shows that in 2009 she made an income of $5800.   How does one live off of that?  The law states that she will be able to collect an income of either the amount of her last year's income or the income of the office that she is seeking.  Her salary will be much higher in 2010 as she just recently signed a book deal. 

I have no problem with the fact that she is planning on writing a book and using her experience as running for senate to make some money.  That is the way a capitalist system works.  My issue is that her history is one that deserves more scrutiny than it received by grassroots activists.  The Tea Party and Sarah Palin rallied around a woman without doing the due diligence into her history. 

The grassroots movement needs to be more careful which candidates that they are raising the banner for.  While it is true that many involved in the tea party are new to politics, that doesn't mean that doing some background checks on potential candidates is something that should be ignored.  Backing candidates that have questionable personal histories is not something that this movement can afford to keep doing if it wants to move forward. 

There is no way to know at this time what O'Donnell plans on doing with these funds, but if she does choose to run again in two years, these questions should be raised before the tea party rallies around her once again.  If we are saying to Washington that we want them to act more responsibly, then we need to thoroughly vet who were are attempting to send in to replace them.  Otherwise we are just continuing the cycle instead of turning the tide to a more honest and transparent government. 

In Defense of Rove

There is talk all over the blogosphere and talk radio about Karl Rove's resistance to the candidacy of Christine O'Donnell.  It was not all that long ago that people in the tea party were complaining of "party hacks".  I am among them.  I don't want to follow a candidate blindly, that is exactly how we got President Obama.  The average voter did not research on their own. 

There are some serious questions regarding Christine O'Donnell.  Her foreclosure, her lack of income, her being fired by company for using their resources to start her business, and her accusations of being followed and harassed but not reporting this to the police, and her campaign staff allegedly being behind the accusations of Castle being gay.  There very well may be logical explanations to all of these issues.  But wanting answers to these questions is not only our right, but also our responsibilities as voters and people who donate to her campaign. 

Politics is a nasty business.  Like it or not, your entire life is put under a microscope.  Every mistake that you have made will become public fodder.  While I don't think it should necessarily be this way, the reality remains that it is.  This is the exact reason that I NEVER would run for public office. I have way too many things in my past that I would not want printed in the newspapers or talked about on television. 

One of the things that the Tea Party has been saying is that both parties have become too powerful and are more interested in power.  The politico's in Washington are too entrenched, dishonest, and corrupt.  Why then would we automatically back a candidate that has these serious issues to clear up?  Her explanations on these have not been detailed and in many cases have just turned into attacks on other people. 

Rove has stood up and said that if we talk about wanting principled based government, we should only be backing principled based candidates.  Many don't even realize that this is O'Donnell's third attempt at office.  She is not a candidate that was motivated by the "Tea Party" movement to through her hat into the ring.  She is an ambitious flawed woman.  Not there is anything wrong with ambition.  Ambition is a good motivator, especially in a market based economy that we have in America. 

While we are all flawed and there will never be the "perfect" candidate there are some flaws that go directly to question of character.  Honesty is the very least that we should be expect from our candidates and our representatives.  If we just going to say "well, they all lie" than what exactly is the point of what we are doing?  The power to end all of this is in the hands of O'Donnell, she can answer these questions thoroughly and honestly and then move on.  One would think that with all that has been dug up during the primary process, there is nothing more damaging to come out.  If she answers these questions she then can concentrate her efforts on the general election and she may also find that she will start to receive support from the conservatives that have some questions about her honesty and integrity. 

The Fair & Unbaised Media Strikes Again ABC News' Klein Against O'Donnell Candidacy

God Bless aides at DE GOP whose job it is to try and kill off Christine O'Donnell's candidacy

Tweet from ABC News' Rick Klein


Gotta love them!!