Chelene Nightingale Article by Jill Flyer

[Eagle1]

Jill Flyer of Examiner.com has written an obviously anti-Nightingale article.
I am not sure why but here is the link to the piece as well as the article.

http://www.examiner.com/ventura-coun...te-nightingale


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Paul, LiberTEArians and Tom Tancredo promote California's Truther candidate, Chelene Nightingale

* September 13th, 2010 2:57 pm PT

"Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night." So goes Bette Davis' famous film line as aging stage actress Margo Channing in the 1950 classic, All About Eve. It's a line that could certainly be used to describe the upcoming November 2nd election night's returns in California's Gubernatorial race between Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown, currently considered a Toss-Up in Rasmussen Reports Gubernatorial Scorecard.

And, it's a line actress wannabe, Tea Party activist, community organizer, 9/11 Truther, Birther, chem trails conspiracy theorist, now American Independent Party (AIP) Gubernatorial candidate, Chelene Nightingale, could certainly co-opt for her election night "close-up."

With only 3% of likely California voters expressing a preference in the poll for "some other candidate" in the race, Nightingale's efforts as a third party "patriot" candidate is a lost cause defined by both delusional and disingenuous "intention," the result of which is taking votes from the only viable opponent to D-Jerry Brown. Hardly heroic. It is rather, the self-serving act of an audience-seeking, narcissistic, egoistic, misdirected, erratic equilibrist collecting currency, both literally and figuratively, from the chronically confused. Riding the current wave of conservatives' discontent with their candidate choices, Nightingale's latest career move allows her to kill two birds with one stone; she's definitely in front of more audiences, and gainfully employed. Nothing more perfectly "politician-like" than potentially using a campaign for "debt relief." Polling at 1% of the vote, which translates to no chance in hades, campaign contributions from her feckless followers will likely come in very handy. But, like Nightingale, so many of her supporters live in a conspiracy theory-laced alternate reality; that epiphany won't come until post election, if ever, and there's no money back guarantee. Peculiar choice her supporters have made believing a bankrupt candidate could manage, with no financial educational background or even record of success, an insolvent state. But, then again, they also believe 9/11 was an "inside job," so their own bankruptcy of logic, judgment, rationality and circumspection would, of course, prevent such informed awareness.

This entry suggests she won't even be on the November ballot. I'm sure it's probably a "conspiracy" to keep the "real patriot" out of the race. But, considering California's American Independent Party (AIP) infighting, best hang on to those campaign contributions unless, of course, you have money to burn on broke, phantom candidates. Hard to believe in this economic and political climate anyone would throw hard-earned wages away on a candidate doomed to failure. Save your money. Financing Nightingale's personal "restructuring" will not "send a message to the GOP" about disappointment over Meg Whitman's "insufficiently" conservative cred. It may, however, assist Nightingale with her camera-ready accouterments.

And, Nightingale is getting help from the likeliest of sources - Ron Paul and his brand of LiberTEArian supporters and Tea Parties, Arizona's Sheriff Joe Arpiao, the San Diego Minutemen, and fellow spoiler, Colorado's former Republican Congressman, turncoat Tom Tancredo, whose sudden defection and last-minute entry as a Colorado American Constitution Party Gubernatorial candidate has created a three-way race chalked up by the local GOP there as a lost cause for the Republicans and prompted a lawsuit against him. According to Dick Wadhams, chair of the Colorado Republican Party, "It's no secret that a three-way race for governor virtually insures the election of D-John Hickenlooper for governor. There's nothing new about that," he said. "I also know that organizations like the RGA [Republican Governor's Association] don't tend to spend money in races they don't think are winnable. That's the situation." According to Tancredo, Colorado GOP's inside baseball strategies to deal with a weak Tea party candidate, duly elected Gubernatorial nominee, Dan Maes, explains his candidacy. But, that's a whole 'nother story. Tancredo's been around long enough to know voters expect their primary choices to be respected. Their backlash shows in his numbers.

In their quest for the spotlight, third party candidates like Tancredo and Nightingale both obstinately overlook the bigger picture that includes the potential long-term impact of GOP Gubernatorial losses; 2010 redistricting. And, as noted here, governor's races or "top of the ticket often influences the results in down-ballot elections." So, a GOP loss of the governor's race in California and Colorado, for example, can undermine other Republicans on the ballot. And, whether drastic or gentle, gerrymandering will help both state's Democrats for the foreseeable future. This despite the fact "there are not only more Republicans than Democrats in Colorado; there are more independents as well." Colorado is also expected to be a 2012 battleground state. Tancredo and Nightingale make quite the "patriot" team. Their contributions to the Democrat Party, inspired by Ron Paul's example, earn them high marks and appreciation, no doubt, from their liberal counterparts.

"The Democratic Governor's Association has put Colorado on its list of states set for 'Project Extreme GOP Makeover.' The plan is to exploit rifts within the Republican party and pick up more centrist voters who think Tea Party candidates are too extreme." Candidates like Tancredo and Nightingale help them make their case, too. Tancredo can't win in Colorado; Nightingale can't win in California. So what, exactly, are they up to, besides building their base of fringe supporters, a la Ron Paul?

What and who possibly ties Tom Tancredo to fellow immigration extremist Chelene Nightingale and Ron Paul? What does a four term GOP Congressman possibly gain by endorsing a third-party, neophyte conspiracy theory nutter like Nightingale? They are simpatico on their extreme illegal immigration position, like Ron Paul, but even LiberTEArian, Dick Armey, objects to Tancredo's “harsh and uncharitable and mean-spirited” immigration positions and "wants Tancredo out of his Tea Party tent." Presumably, Nightingale and Ron Paul should pack their bags, too.

For both Nightingale's and Tancredo's political aspirations, the bird in the hand is the Constitution Party, extreme views on illegal immigration, Ron Paul and the "Liberty" movement, of course. Brand new to the Constitution Party, opportunist Tancredo may hope his Nightingale endorsement will up his "Liberty" cred; Nightingale's a major Ron Paul supporter who provides the impression she has Paul's support. See slideshow and click on links.

The Daily Paul, while claiming not to be officially associated with Paul's Campaign for Liberty, does not, you can be certain, post material objectionable to Paul. Their promotion of Nightingale and Tancredo can be also sampled here and here. Tancredo is brand spanking new to the Constitution Party club, and has some serious "NeoCon" credibility issues. Earning a place at the "anti-establishment" Ron Paul table needs to happen pronto; November 2nd is but 6 weeks off. Tancredo's obviously trying to play both ends against the middle, though, as he quickly assembles associations with the "Liberty" crowd while procuring GOP endorsements that "tell every Republican that it's OK to vote for Tom Tancredo, even if I'm in another party, because I would be a Republican governor," he recently said." How very "Paul-like." Here's a sample of Tancredo's Ron Paul pandering from back in 2007. Well, they do all share the same illegal immigration position.

Tancredo and Nightingale also share an endorsement from controversial immigration character Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Their association with the Constitution Party, referred to as a "paleo-conservative party" in the mold of Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, and rejecting of “neoconservatism and American internationalism as threats to the country’s independence and sovereignty,” firmly places these two cuckoo birds in the same bush. Ron (and Rand) Paul's connections to the Constitution Party can be sampled here.

So, Ron Paul,'s connection to and promotion of Constitution Party/AIP candidate, Chelene Nightingale, is not entirely surprising. He has a history with Constitution Party candidates. And, in this all important election cycle, it appears Paul has, once again, abandoned the Republican Party. Naturally, his supporters follow suit. In point of fact, though, they never really were Republicans, but rather Ron Paul style LiberTEArians using the Republican and Tea Parties to achieve "electoral success."

Evidence third party candidates can't win in our winner take all, two party system, and only serve to undermine and siphon votes from the only viable conservative candidate, is met by Nightingale's campaign and supporters with a delusional recalcitrance about her electability prospects, and a level of oppositional defiance toward the "establishment" candidate that would shame a teenager. See the comments section here.

Any scene failing to feature Nightingale as relevant, or relegating her role to nothing more than evanescent extra, is wholly rejected and dismissed with baseless predictions of entirely preposterous anomalous success. Devoting this much space to her candidacy suggests to her and her small fringe audience a measure of relevancy not based in reality. But, for 9/11 Truthers, reality is a "stretch," as thespians say. As I wrote here, my attention will be considered a badge of honor by her anti-GOP Tea Party supporters, or in Nightingale's case, a feather in her cap.

But, as much as the focus appears to be Nightingale-centric, it's Ron Paul who is at the top of the pecking order. In a state as blue as California, Nightingale's wings are categorically clipped. She has as much chance of securing the California governor's seat as she does of winning an Academy Award. Ron Paul, however, should be nominated in the category of "best Republican impersonator." HIs promotion of a candidate like Nightingale only proves to illustrate his own poor judgment and lack of Republican cred.

Nightingale presents no enduring threat to the GOP; the majority of California voters won't give her a first look, much less a second. November 3rd, 2010, she'll exit stage left flush with her fellow "patriots" campaign contributions. It should be noted, however, that Nightingale's history, positions and past make her a controversial candidate even within her own fractious American Independent Party, which is also affiliated with California Constitution Party members, but supports factions of which do and do not support her. But, that too is a whole 'nother story. An example of Libertarian objection to her candidacy can found here.

For more on Nightingale's illustrious career and capers, read here, here, here,

The real problem, though, begins at the top with Ron Paul, whose example informs the "true conservatives" efforts to infiltrate the GOP in order to get elected, then kick Republican Party candidates to the curb in favor of third party candidates who can not win and who do nothing but help elect Democrats. Tea Party activists promoting candidates like Nightingale do not represent Republicans. Many are anti-GOP. They may call themselves the "real conservatives," and would have the public believe they are the "new face of the GOP," a representation the media and Democrats have certainly eagerly capitalized on. But, make no mistake, they are so-called Ron Paul Republicans, which is to say, not Republicans at all.

Third party promotion is nothing new to Ron Paul, who nevertheless knows his only conceivable chance of "electoral success" comes from inside the GOP. Supporting candidates like Tancredo and Nightingale only illustrates that like their leader, Ron Paul, political LiberTEArian activists will abandon the Republican Party when it serves their agenda.
Slideshow: Ron Paul/Nightingale

[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.