In a release pointing out that “Sean Bielat believes that marriage is a state issue and opposes a federal Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage”, GOProud announced today that it is endorsing the Republican candidate running against the unhappy Barney Frank.

Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of “the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies”, faulted the 15-term Democrat for supporting policies which destroy private-sector jobs.

If we really want to protect gay jobs we don’t need to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act [ENDA], we need to fire Barney Frank. . . . From his perch atop the Financial Services committee, Barney Frank was one of the architects of the financial meltdown that cost millions of Americans – including gay and lesbian workers – their jobs.  Sean Bielat is a common-sense conservative who supports policies that will grow our economy, create jobs, and improve the lives of all Americans, but especially gay and lesbian Americans.

Not just that.  LaSalvia noted that Bielat supports numerous reforms which help gay and lesbian Americans:

Sean Bielat supports free-market healthcare reforms that will make domestic partner benefits more available to gays and lesbians and will give individuals – not the government – more control over their healthcare. . . . Sean also supports reforms to Social Security, creating personal savings accounts allowing gays and lesbians couples to leave their Social Security to their partners or whoever else they choose – reform opposed by Barney Frank.

Join us in supporting Sean Bielat.

Well, maybe.

This morning, to test a theory that the votes were there (with the question remaining whether or not she could get them to the polls), I checked Michael Barone’s Almanac of American Politics. In her 2008 bid for the same Senate seat, O’Donnell won 140,595.  In the most recent off-year Senate race in 2006, Democrat Tom Carper won with 170,567 votes, Republican Jay Ting had 69.734.  Throw in the Libertarian candidate and you have a total turnout of 242,972.

If O’Donnell gets all her 2008 voters to the polls (and that’s a big if) and turnout is roughly same as 2006, she wins with 58% of the vote.  But, how many of those voters came to vote in the presidential election and voted for her as the Republican candidate?

If “O’Donnell spends the next seven weeks pounding away on ObamaCare and deficits while Democrats talk about masturbation and Bill Maher,” Timothy P. Carney ”wouldn’t be surprised to see a Senator O’Donnell.”  Hitting those issues and factoring in the relative enthusiasm levels of the two parties, he may well have reason for his absence of wonder.

While Rasmussen has Coons over 50%, that pollster’s numbers have also been fluctuating widely over the course of the contest, with O’Donnell currently only 11 points behind.  Not entirely insurmountable.

. . . how come Democratic candidates

. . . . are spending three times more advertising against the health reform law than they are in support of it[?]

Since the beginning of Congress’s August recess, Democratic candidates have poured $930,000 into ads deriding the health overhaul but just $300,000 in pro-reform spots, according to Evan Tracey at Kantar Media.

And it doesn’t seem that paltry expense on pro-reform spots mentions the actual legislation:

Even Democratic candidates’ pro-reform ads can offer tepid support for the law. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) ran an ad last week that mentioned his support of health reform briefly, sandwiched between other legislative accomplishments.

“When the economy collapsed, Sen. Feingold helped pass tax cuts for 95 percent of Wisconsin family,” the script reads. “Russ also fought for tax credits for small businesses and relief from rising health care costs.

Guess voters’ views on the legislation haven’t been softening after all.

(H/t Reader Carly Beason.)

I will not rehash the case I made against Christine O’Donnell here, suffice it to say that while I don’t think she’s the best candidate Delaware Republicans could have nominated for Senate seat once held by Joe Biden, I do think she is the better of the two candidates currently vying to serve out the Vice President’s term.

She didn’t run a stellar campaign (but her opponent ran an inept one).  She isn’t a charismatic figure like Scott Brown, nor an insightful conservative thinker like Pat Toomey, but she was in the right place, at the right time, with the right message.

She wasn’t just running on the “Tea Party” themes of small government and individual freedom, she was also running against the Republican establishment that doesn’t get the popular mood.  (One could argue that those themes and that opposition are one and the same.) “O’Donnell’s victory was,” James Taranto contends, “a rebuke to an out-of-touch Republican establishment in both Delaware and the District of Columbia“.

Voters, Mattie Fein, Republican nominee in California’s 36th Congressional District (you can support her campaign here), writes

. . . in 2010 are not being swayed by the anointment of the Good Ol’ Boys in the GOP’s picks to run for office. They are rejecting the career politicians and the system; the O’Donnell win is representative of this. And, while I do not agree with many of O’Donnell’s social issues or statements, her win is indicative of the rejection of politics as usual in the GOP.

Exactly.  A rejection of politics as usual. (Mattie, by the way, is a heckuva nice gal (I met her).  She opposed Prop 8 and supports repeal of DADT.)

Mattie’s not alone.  And this anger, as Mark Tapscot notes, is rooted in principle:

First, the anger among Republican voters is not limited to the far right reaches of its “base.” Castle was one of the most popular political figures in the state, yet his support in Congress for TARP bailouts, the radical House version of Cap-and-Trade, and the DISCLOSE Act marked him back home among his fellow Republicans as more a representative of the Washington Establishment to Delaware than Delaware’s representative to Washington. (more…)

There are classy ways to accept defeat and classless ways.  Ovide Lamontagne, as Moe Lane informs us, though losing the nod for the Republican nomination for a United States Senate seat for New Hampshire by a whisker (fewer than 2,000 votes), showed us the classy way:

He conceded the primary, will not seek a recount, and has endorsed Kelly Ayotte (video here).  Ayotte has accepted the concession with equal grace and politeness, calling Lamontagne a gentleman and a principled conservative (H/T: Hot Air). From now on, it’s all about defeating [Democratic nominee] Paul Hodes in the general election.

That’s how it’s done in politics.

While I supported Castle and have concerns about Christine O’Donnell, she won the Delaware GOP primary fair and square.  She has an uphill battle to beat Harry Reid’s “pet“, former Marxist, Chris Coons.  Her fellow Republicans shouldn’t make that climb any steeper. (more…)

Over at the Washington Examiner, Mark Tapscott reports that on the uncovering of some new evidence showing

. . . that House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-MA, and committee Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA, intervened to help OneUnited, a very sick bank, get $12 million TARP-funded bailout.

What’s wrong with that? Well, for one thing, the TARP funds in question were only supposed to go to healthy banks in an effort to get them to restart their lending programs that had been hobbled by the Great Recession of 2008.

According to Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton whose organization obtained potentially incriminating e-mails through a Freedom of Information Act  (FOIA) request:

These emails suggest that without the corrupt intervention of Barney Frank and Maxine Waters OneUnited would not have gotten a $12 million taxpayer bailout. . . .  And these documents show that this so-called community bank wasn’t actually lending much to the ‘community’ that Frank and Waters were purporting to help.

I do expect the MSM to be on top of this issue, especially giving Mrs. Waters’ ethics woes.  Seems the Ethics Committee also needs to look into the unhappy Massachusetts Democrats’ actions as well.  And not for the first time.

If the Ethics Committee doesn’t take up the matter, the people of Massachusetts 4th District can.  Join me in supporting Sean Bielat running to replace ethically-challenged incumbent.