[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.