Chelene Nightingale Article by Jill Flyer

[Ayatollahgondola]

As soon as I read Tancredo was endorsing her, I sent several letters to him advising that his credibility would suffer. Same for a few others. This writer says Tancredo and Nightingale share the same virtues in the immigration law enforcement movement. That is false. Tancredo placed his political futures at risk to expose the immigration scam long before there was any hint of Nightingale. In contrast Nightingale used the movement to further her own aspirations, as she had nothing to risk in the first place. To place them in the same category is not only an injustice, but a travesty

[PochoPatriot]

This columnist nailed Nightin-ghoul to a tea (no pun intended).

[Ayatollahgondola]

Geez! I'm moved....

She's using our Public Document Distributors site as a source

[Jeanfromfillmore]

This was a republican hit piece if ever I saw one. It was damned ugly. I can see the republicans are a bit concerned that their not completely running the show and taking the time to slam anyone who doesn't march in lock step with them.

Chelene gave the republicans all the ammo they needed to criticize those not agreeing 100% with them, but this was just an ugly hit piece. The only consolation to having the right wing mouthpieces spew their bile is that it shows they're running scared because they're now realizing they're not in complete control of how we vote.

Chelene doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of even competing with Whitman or Brown, and some of her platform issues are her greatest problem. But I have to give one thing to her and that is she has put a lot of effort into it. If she would have just put that much effort into paying back the debt she owes and using some common sense she could have really started on a decent political future. But she would not listen to anyone, and that could and possibly will be her greatest downfall.

[Eagle1]

I agree with Jean. Though I did not want to place the thought in anyone's mind
I too felt that this had some Republican cash behind it.

In a way it flatters Chelene that they felt her worthy enough to be slimed as they did someone's bidding.

Yes it is a very ugly piece.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

This article actually works to Chelene's benefit.

Firstly, this author doesn't do a lot to establish her own credibility.

A. Her writing isn't very good. You could easily edit/condense 20% of what she wrote out and still cover the subject matter in depth. She rambles too much in this piece.

B. Who on God's green Earth cites either of Tony's loon Yahoo pages?

C. She engages in gratuitous name calling (cuckoo birds, LiberTEArians, etc.). It's too much. If you want to tear Chelene a new one, you don't need to sell it so hard. She goes overboard.

Secondly, she attempts to damn the hard right (Arpaio, Paul and Tancredo) by draping Chelene around their neck. She succeeds, however, in equating Chelene to their position(s) and stature.

Tancredo is a well known multiple-term Congressman, as is Ron Paul. They both also enjoy a degree of substantive and intellectual credibility. Joe Arpaio has a quality and enviable track record in law enforcement, and is well-renowned for his commitment to principal and law and order (because of the positions they have staked out, they are precisely the GOP members that Karl Rove and establishment Republicans would like to see either spontaneously combust or move to Nairobi). Chelene, on the other hand, has good hair, a nice chest and an insatiable desire to hear herself talk while others seek her leadership. Nonetheless, based upon this offering, you'd think the four of them were co-equals in terms of accomplishment and prominence.

It'd be like me attempting to damn/besmirch Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters and Alan Alda by making repeated references to Naui or Cliff, each time I spoke about them. And, yes, I understand that that the link is the endorsements, but still ...

Finally, it seems that the worst thing she can think of Chelene doing is costing Meg Whitman a close election. I beg to differ. Quite to the contrary, the best thing Chelene could accomplish would be to cost Meg Whitman the election. For all of her warts (many of which some of us have, oh, mentioned in passing on this board), Chelene Nightingale is a tow-the-line conservative. Gun rights, prayer in school, immigration, fiscal responsibility ... right down the line, she is what you expect from what, at least used to be, considered a conservative. Further, she hasn't been saying one thing to one audience comprised of people darker than Mariah Carey, and something else to white folks.

Chelene is a loon and a liar, but a traditional GOP-type with loon and liar augmentations. Meg Whitman, by contrast, will spend whatever it takes and say anything to anybody. Chelene can't possibly win, but Whitman deserves to lose. The latter is completely untrustworthy and should be defeated for numerous reasons; chief among them that what she represents shouldn't be acceptable to Republican voters.

Meg Whitman being ultimately undone in a close contest, by a small number of GOP voters defecting to a "true conservative," would be an appropriate fate for someone who never should have been handed the GOP nomination to begin with.

If Nightingale is unhappy about this article, she shouldn't be. The author said little about her that those who already dislike her haven't already, and nothing that will change the minds of the sycophants/conspiracy theorists who had decided to cast their ballots for her before this piece ever appeared online.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com

Finally, it seems that the worst thing she can think of Chelene doing is costing Meg Whitman a close election. I beg to differ. Quite to the contrary, the best thing Chelene could accomplish would be to cost Meg Whitman the election. For all of her warts (many of which some of us have, oh, mentioned in passing on this board), Chelene Nightingale is a tow-the-line conservative. Gun rights, prayer in school, immigration, fiscal responsibility ... right down the line, she is what you expect from what, at least used to be, considered a conservative. Further, she hasn't been saying one thing to one audience comprised of people darker than Mariah Carey, and something else to white folks.

Chelene is a loon and a liar, but a traditional GOP-type with loon and liar augmentations. .

There's a big difference between an actual conservative and one that latches on to the conservative handle in a boisterous manner that attempts to bolster the image of one. Chelene is the latter. Practicing conservatives do more than dramatize the obvious. They live them. I've rambled on before as to the lack of Chelene's credentials on conservative causes, but there's little to no evidence that she was a 2nd amendment proponent, a defender of state's rights, a fiscal tightwad, or proponent of smaller government prior to her coming to SOS. None! In fact, since she arrived, she has hypocritically asked the feds for protection from her state creditors, which places her at odds with her 10th amendment stance. No fiscal tightwad would jump into the governors race with their own personal finances in total chaos, and with such surreal expectations of winning.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

There's a big difference between an actual conservative and one that latches on to the conservative handle in a boisterous manner that attempts to bolster the image of one. Chelene is the latter. Practicing conservatives do more than dramatize the obvious. They live them. I've rambled on before as to the lack of Chelene's credentials on conservative causes, but there's little to no evidence that she was a 2nd amendment proponent, a defender of state's rights, a fiscal tightwad, or proponent of smaller government prior to her coming to SOS. None! In fact, since she arrived, she has hypocritically asked the feds for protection from her state creditors, which places her at odds with her 10th amendment stance. No fiscal tightwad would jump into the governors race with their own personal finances in total chaos, and with such surreal expectations of winning.

I really detest being placed in the position of having to defend Chelene Nightingale but your comments are unfair.

There is much to berate Mommy Dearest about. Lack of conservative convictions is not among them, however.

Firstly, there's nothing hypocritical about her filing bankruptcy. Chelene has represented herself as a "Constitutionalist" and bankruptcy is provided for in Title 1 Section 8.

Secondly, the fact that she can't raise or manage money doesn't mean that she fails to advocate for fiscal restraint. Hell, I support the idea that missed shots from the perimeter should be rebounded and put back in by post players in the paint, but I can't slam dunk a basketball to save my life.

Finally, and most significantly, Nightingale has staked out conservative positions and not wavered from them; at least since any people involved with SOS have known her. Prayer in school, lower taxes, etc. etc. Chelene is in lock-step with the GOP platform.

There's been a good deal of speculation that Chelene would abandon her espoused immigration or gun rights views in a city second if she thought it would draw her more attention or gain her more votes. The reality, however, is that that hasn't happened. She hasn't pulled a McCain or Whitman. She has consistently campaigned with the same messages.

Conspiracy theory marinated screwball? Yes. Shamelessly self-centered? Absolutely. Unreliable friend or associate? An understatement. Inconsistent or flip-flopping conservative. No. That's what the record shows.