Sarah Palin Endorses Delaware Liar

From Power Line:

Sarah Palin has endorsed Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware primary. Apparently, she did so on Sean Hannity's radio program.

Delaware may or may not be Palin country. However, the endorsement figures to improve O'Donnell's chances of capturing the nomination. It therefore also figures to improve the chances that the Dems will hold a seat they had all but written off in the expectation that Mike Castle would be the Republican candidate.

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.

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.

As one of our readers wrote to me after watching Hannity's show last night, "Wouldn't it be terribly disappointing if the GOP knocked off such liberal stalwarts as Boxer, Murray, and Feingold but failed to gain control of the Senate because they blew an eminently winnable pickup in Delaware?"

I think so, especially if incorrect information about Castle's record plays a role.

But before the incorrect information about Castle's record came the lies from Christine O'Donnell.

Not about Mike Castle, mind you. About her own past election results.

In a recent interview, O'Donnell claimed to have carried two of Delaware's three counties in one of her prior bids for office. In fact, she lost both, and one by 14%.

Readers of this blog know I am no great fan of moderate Republicans, and there's no doubt that Mike Castle is a very moderate Republican.

But there's plenty of evidence of his positions and his record without the need for conservatives to put forward misinformation. Period.

And a serious and viable candidate wouldn't lie about their past election record, or delve into rediculous conspiracy theories about every misfortune to fall her (including accusing someone of interviewing her of taking bribes from her opponent while sitting in the interview).

Geraghty:

A candidate who doesn’t like the questions she’s being asked should always tell the host that there are rumors he’s taking bribes from the other campaign. When she says she won two out of three counties, no one should acknowledge that she lost both, one by 14 percentage points. Conservatism is best served when we all close our eyes and pretend we don’t see a false statement by a candidate we prefer!

Now, I’m not going to tout Mike Castle as anything other than what he is. He has a lifetime ACU rating of 52.49. That’s pretty darn “meh” for conservatives. But the moderation of the other guy isn’t sufficient reason to give a thumbs-up to a candidate who makes blatantly, easily verified false statements on the trail, nor to countenance her attacks on those who have the audacity to bring her the bad news.

Asked about a financial disclosure showing that O’Donnell only had $5,800 of earned income last year, O’Donnell told me that she actually made more but didn’t have to and wouldn’t disclose how much. “The only thing they can use against me is that I’m not a multi-millionaire,” said O’Donnell.

It says on the Senate financial disclosure report that O’Donnell filed and signed, ”Any individual who knowingly and willingly falsifies, or who knowingly and willfully fails to file this report may be subject to civil and criminal sanctions. See 5 U.S.C. app 4, 104, and 18 U.S.C. 1001.” The only listed exceptions are for amounts less than $200 and spousal income, although the employer of the spouse must be listed. (O’Donnell is not married.)

It’s fascinating that Levin and others lament the “backstabbing” among conservatives. I wonder how they would characterize the O’Donnell campaign’s response to Rasmussen polls showing her losing to the Democrat quite badly:

There haven’t been any recent public polls on the Castle v. O’Donnell primary, though an August 5 Rasmussen poll showed Castle leading Chris Coons, the Democrat, 49 percent to 37 percent, while O’Donnell was trailing Coons 36 percent to 46 percent.

O’Donnell’s campaign manager Matt Moran thinks that this poll isn’t accurate, calling it “more of a push poll.”

“Scott Rasmussen has to pay his bills,” says Moran. “We understand that the RNC and NRSC have long tentacles.”

I see. You’re suggesting RNC and NRSC pressure prompted Scott Rasmussen to change his results. If O’Donnell is losing, it must mean the numbers have been fudged.

I wouldn't vote for this woman for dog catcher, let alone for the United States Senate. She obviously has trouble with the truth and likes to make outlandish attacks whenever confronted with facts that don't suit her.