Odonnell beats Castle in Delaware

[gonzomax]

OK. What does it mean? She is a tea bagger and outside the mainstream ,way outside.she was not backed by the party because they figured Castle could win the senate. It is highly unlikely ,according to Repubs, that she can win.

[gonzomax]

Odonnell is a bit extreme. She says masturbation is wrong. She claims porno is equivalent to cheating on your spouse. Her finances are questionable at best.

[gonzomax]

She is in a sense not a Republican. She won over a party candidate. I read that she is not getting financial aid from the Republican party in the coming election. In a way she ran against the Republican party. The party is not in control of these people . It is interesting . The Republican party was playing with fire when they helped out the Tea baggers. Now they have to pay.

[Squink]

She is in a sense not a Republican.To the contrary, Odonnell's the new true Scotsman of the Grand Old Party. Her tea party faction will begin sweeping away the old 'culture of corruption' GOP leadership after November.
I'll not be too surprised if they try to make masturbation a criminal matter within the next decade.

[Squink]

The GOP power structure finally recognizes their enemy:Party fractures on full display, Republican aides told Fox News Tuesday that O'Donnell would not be getting national fundraising support. State party leaders had warned that O'Donnell cannot compete against Democrat Chris Coons and vigorously backed Castle, a nine-term congressman and former governor. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/14/hours-polls-close-gloves-come-delaware/

[Beware of Doug]

Just saw the clip of her on the Rachel show. She's a frigid sin-obsessed little god-botherer. She probably shows up at confession and the priest tells her to go get laid already.

[boytyperanma]

The GOP power structure finally recognizes their enemy:Party fractures on full display, Republican aides told Fox News Tuesday that O'Donnell would not be getting national fundraising support. State party leaders had warned that O'Donnell cannot compete against Democrat Chris Coons and vigorously backed Castle, a nine-term congressman and former governor. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/14/hours-polls-close-gloves-come-delaware/

I really doubt they'll simply sacrifice the seat. I expect like many of their other candidates they'll start polishing and give her talking points to stick on.

The sad thing is it could work. Democrats are failing to motivate their base and come election time plenty of people will just be checking the R box not truly understanding what they'll get. The Democrats will lose if they do not fund negative ads. The Republicans need only throw some money her way to get her name out there.

[Shot Clock]

Disregarding the assumption that she is crazy, it is going to be interesting how the GOP will govern with the Tea Party folks having a significant caucus in both the House and Senate. Assuming that the Republicans do gain control of the House (a safe bet at this juncture), the real test for them will be the development of their first budget. It will be interesting to see who emerges as the leader of the House Tea Party Caucus. It sure as hell won't be Boehner, who is a golf course, Chamber of Commerce-type Republican if ever there was one. He's like Gerald Ford under the influence of a Sith Lord. Michelle Bachmann has her fan base, but she couldn't manage a meat market, much less control a caucus. Newt Gingrich kept the 1994 House Republican Freshmen under some semblance of control (at least until they ate him). Tom DeLay kept the Republicans unified during his reign as Majority Leader, but he, like Boehner, was no principled idealist-- he'd peddle his ass to anybody if the price was right. I don't see a natural leader for the Tea Partiers in the House.

I would expect that O'Donnell, if elected to the Senate along with Sharon Angle, etc., would follow the leadership of Jim DeMint at least for the time being. There may have a hard time influencing policy in the Senate, since they won't feel bound by that body's traditions and (limited) sense of decorum.

So there will be a leadership vacuum for the true Tea Party types that get elected. They aren't beholden to the "establishment", so who will be calling their tune? Their local constituents? The blogosphere? Dick Armey? Rush Limbaugh? The Koch Brothers? Satan? Such is the nature of a leaderless movement, part of the appeal of which is fact that there are no leaders. Stay tuned!

[gonzomax]

This is about Repubs against Repubs. They thought they had found a group of people they could successfully use to get power. But now they are facing a group that may not play nice with them. The Repubs have been historically a controlled party that can whip pols into line. They can make them filibuster to fight the Dems over and over. But now they have a new problem in their future. I would not be shocked if they did not financially back their new pals. I bet the Repubs are embroiled in conferences all night trying to come to grips with this turn of events.

[Sam Stone]

It's not 'Repubs against Repubs'. It's conservatives and Libertarians no longer willing to get into bed with any Republican simply for the sake of winning.

Don't forget - the Republicans are almost as unpopular as the Democrats. The Tea Party is the great mass of people to the right of center in America, who are sick of politics as usual. It used to be that these people were reliable Republican votes - even for Republicans who behaved like big-government corporate stooges. They're finding out now that all the electorate cares about is their policies. They're in no mood to elect a Republican like Castle or Cristie in Florida just because they are Republicans. If they are establishment types with mixed voting records, they're not getting the Tea Party's support.

I suspect a lot of you on the left would do the same to the Democrats if you could manage to organize a progressive movement as large as the Tea Party's. You'd probably rather vote for an 'unelectable' but principled progressive than hold your nose and vote for some blue-dog Democrat.

[Leaper]

"Right of center"? Does that mean that you think Tea Partiers are less conservative than mainstream Republicans? Or am I reading too much into that?

[Jophiel]

You'd probably rather vote for an 'unelectable' but principled progressive than hold your nose and vote for some blue-dog Democrat.
Maybe I'm not progressive enough but no. I'd rather vote for someone who actually has a chance of winning. The overall balance of power in Congress is more meaningful than any particular seat and if voting for some chucklehead I only agree with 55% of the time means that some other guy I agree with 20% of the time will lose and my party will be closer to being the majority... well, that's a no brainer to me.

[flickster]

It's not 'Repubs against Repubs'. It's conservatives and Libertarians no longer willing to get into bed with any Republican simply for the sake of winning.

Don't forget - the Republicans are almost as unpopular as the Democrats. The Tea Party is the great mass of people to the right of center in America, who are sick of politics as usual. It used to be that these people were reliable Republican votes - even for Republicans who behaved like big-government corporate stooges. They're finding out now that all the electorate cares about is their policies. They're in no mood to elect a Republican like Castle or Cristie in Florida just because they are Republicans. If they are establishment types with mixed voting records, they're not getting the Tea Party's support.

I suspect a lot of you on the left would do the same to the Democrats if you could manage to organize a progressive movement as large as the Tea Party's. You'd probably rather vote for an 'unelectable' but principled progressive than hold your nose and vote for some blue-dog Democrat.

Bingo - we have a winner

The GOP party of old is seeing the beginning of what is going to be a significant housecleaning. The conservatives are a huge voting bloc that's pissed off and motivated. Goodbye RINOs

[gonzomax]

The question is how big are they? The tea baggers have been loyal Repubs for a long time. It appears they may not go along now. John Boner can say what he wants to whip them into voting shape, but i don't think it will work.Some will owe the party nothing.
What is the tea bagger position on the expiration of the Bush tax cuts? Will they back letting it die, or take the tax benefit out for the rich?

[Leaper]

I'm not sure whether I want to look myself, but I'm wondering what the prominent conservative-type blogs think about all this - both the victory and the Fox News report.

[Captain Amazing]

What is the tea bagger position on the expiration of the Bush tax cuts? Will they back letting it die, or take the tax benefit out for the rich?

They obviously support extending them.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I suspect a lot of you on the left would do the same to the Democrats if you could manage to organize a progressive movement as large as the Tea Party's. You'd probably rather vote for an 'unelectable' but principled progressive than hold your nose and vote for some blue-dog Democrat.

Wow...where to start? (And not that I wholly disagree but that it is a complex assessment.)

Is O'Donnell principled? I guess that depends on how you define "principled". Certainly she seems to have the courage of her convictions so she is "principled" in the sense that she adheres to her ideals. On the flip side though is her ideals are hardly defensible and not ones I would call principled.

As a progressive liberal (myself) I was energized by Obama. I now feel wholly ripped off by Obama. His rhetoric is great but the guy who claimed to be willing to fight the good fight has done anything but. He had a majority in Congress and a mandate and he let Republicans run roughshod over him over and over again with nary a peep. While I am sure you (Sam) are happy he didn't get his way I'm not and that is not what I voted him in for.

So then, you might say, don't vote for him again and there is the rub for progressives (liberals). Those claiming to be liberal/progressive only need to be just better enough than the opposition to get my vote. Knowing back then (when I voted for Obama) what I know now would I change my vote? Hell no...McCain and someone else maybe (maybe) I could have voted for with hindsight but McCain/Palin? Not in a million years. I'd pen in Mickey Mouse before I cast a vote for that ticket.

Now I think Republicans are in the same boat. In the past they have been able to be monolithic. That monolith is cracking. How it will sort itself out I have no idea but I think there are a lot of people who cannot vote for O'Donnell. A primary is one thing, a general election is another and that monolithic republican vote will see some move away and make it not so monolithic.

How this will all play out in the end I have no idea. Maybe it is time to reform our voting system so third parties have a chance.

If you see O'Donnell as Libertarian and a person you would like to see win then that is scary. Not even sure how a person who tells you that you shouldn't masturbate can even be considered Libertarian in the first place. She is...I don't know what she is except a nutjob.

[BobLibDem]

Ah, great. We're trying to beat a Boehner and now we find out it's sinful. Seriously, if O'Donnell wins, we might as well have a military coup. I'd write her off, but in a small state all it takes is a frenzied minority to push someone through. One can only hope the grownups show up in November.

[jonesj2205]

Not even sure how a person who tells you that you shouldn't masturbate can even be considered Libertarian in the first place.

Suppose this is an aside, but the two aren't mutually exclusive IF the position is masturbation is wrong, but none of the government's business.

I have no idea if that's O'Donnell's position.

[BobLibDem]

Not even sure how a person who tells you that you shouldn't masturbate can even be considered Libertarian in the first place.

Suppose this is an aside, but the two aren't mutually exclusive IF the position is masturbation is wrong, but none of the government's business.

I have no idea if that's O'Donnell's position.

They'll have to pry it out of my cold, dead fingers!

[Whack-a-Mole]

Suppose this is an aside, but the two aren't mutually exclusive IF the position is masturbation is wrong, but none of the government's business.

I have no idea if that's O'Donnell's position.

Here ya go:

O'Donnell has said, for example, that masturbation is wrong, and that looking at pornography is equivalent to cheating on your spouse. She outlined her views in a November 1998 article titled "The Case for Chastity" (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=095_1283476019&comment_order=newest_first) for Cultural Dissident.

Source: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/odonnells-greatest-hits.php

[Fear Itself]

What is the tea bagger position on the expiration of the Bush tax cuts? Will they back letting it die, or take the tax benefit out for the rich?

They obviously support extending them.So the Tea Party favors increasing the deficit?

[Merijeek]

They obviously support extending them.So the Tea Party favors increasing the deficit?

Of course not! They just favor tax cuts because they fix everything. EVERYTHING. Cutting taxes will reduce the deficit.

Speeding ticket? A tax could would have meant less money for police and so you probably wouldn't have gotten pulled over.

Child killed by a speeder blowing through a school crossing? A tax cut would have caused the roads to decay so far that speeding through that intersection would have been impossible.

See? Tax cuts fix everything.

-Joe

[newcomer]

Not to appear as someone who actually knows what the wining candidate is all about but, having finances in shambles all over the country, deficits through the roof, high unemployment and still possibility of the “double-dip” economic crisis, culture in Washington still the same as it was two years ago with lobbyists and BS left an right, the most important thing right now is if the candidate would let you masturbate without feeling guilty.

That’s some high grade value system you got going.

[Merijeek]

Not to appear as someone who actually knows what the wining candidate is all about but, having finances in shambles all over the country, deficits through the roof, high unemployment and still possibility of the “double-dip” economic crisis, culture in Washington still the same as it was two years ago with lobbyists and BS left an right, the most important thing right now is if the candidate would let you masturbate without feeling guilty.

That’s some high grade value system you got going.

If it helps, I would also not likely vote for someone who insists that anyone wearing green was an evil leprechaun who should be shunned. It's not because I'm Irish, and it's not because I'm a fan of tiny gingers.

There's two reasons. One is that it raises some frightening questions about their mental state, and two because whether or not someone wears green is not their business and they god damn sure shouldn't be pushing their anti-faerie stance on the rest of us.

-Joe, couldn't be more German if his name was Klaus von Wolfgang

[Chronos]

If you see O'Donnell as Libertarian and a person you would like to see win then that is scary. Not even sure how a person who tells you that you shouldn't masturbate can even be considered Libertarian in the first place. She is...I don't know what she is except a nutjob. Amen to that. I think this should definitively lay to rest the notion that the Tea Party is a basically libertarian movement. Some of them undoubtedly are, but if that were a significant part of the movement, they'd never back someone like this. Really all they are is the extreme wing of the Republican party, and they're extreme in all sorts of different directions.

[Chefguy]

It's interesting that many see the Tea Party as some noble effort, when it seems to be attracting candidates who are bonifide loonies. These are the best they can field? Support from Beck, Bachman and other crazies equals "progressive"?

[BrainGlutton]

They obviously support extending them.So the Tea Party favors increasing the deficit?

I remember when Ross Perot was touting serious, consistent, fiscal conservatism to cut the deficit: Raise taxes and cut spending at the same time. Nobody seems to be saying that any more . . .

[gonzomax]

Odonnell may be the "none of the above" candidate. She is a tea bagger, but not supported by the Repub party. She is on TV asking for party money this morning.

[BrainGlutton]

It's interesting that many see the Tea Party as some noble effort, when it seems to be attracting candidates who are bonifide loonies. These are the best they can field? Support from Beck, Bachman and other crazies equals "progressive"?

I don't think they like that word very much.

[Merijeek]

It's interesting that many see the Tea Party as some noble effort, when it seems to be attracting candidates who are bonifide loonies. These are the best they can field? Support from Beck, Bachman and other crazies equals "progressive"?

Where did you get the idea that the teabaggers are "progressive" in any way, shape, or form?

They're about as regressive as you can get.

-Joe

[Squink]

It's interesting that many see the Tea Party as some noble effort, when it seems to be attracting candidates who are bonifide loonies. These are the best they can field? Support from Beck, Bachman and other crazies equals "progressive"?It's just a reforging of the Reagan Alliance, with its ingredients adjusted for the new Millenium. St. Heinlein predicted this, don't cha know?

[Steve MB]

"Right of center"? Does that mean that you think Tea Partiers are less conservative than mainstream Republicans? Or am I reading too much into that?

Depends on which issues you're talking about. Fiscally, the Tea Party is in line with the GOP's rhetoric, which is to say well to the right of the GOP's actual policy in office. On "social issues", they're a mixed bag, but in practice most of them fall into one of the following categories: 1)small-government libertarians who actively oppose politicized social conservatism, 2)social conservatives who put those issues on the back burner because they see the fiscal mess as the immediate priority, or 3)don't give a damn.

I see the sharpening of hostility to politicized social conservatism in Group 1, and the awakening of such hostility in Group 3, as awareness spreads that the GOP has been using social-conservative talking points the way a magician uses a scantily clad assistant (i.e. as a distraction while they perform a trick).

[newcomer]

There's two reasons. One is that it raises some frightening questions about their mental state, and two because whether or not someone wears green is not their business and they god damn sure shouldn't be pushing their anti-faerie stance on the rest of us. So, you're more worried about possibility of "screw-up by association" (even though that association is only in your head; i.e. “Oh, if she thinks masturbation is wrong then she will…. she will… cut my taxe… penis!!!”) than actual direct screw up done already by someone whose mental state passed all the irrelevant questions?

Again, for me, it's a strange reasoning.

And, by the way, I read the posted link on what she said and, first of all based on what she wrote, she does not sound as a mental case (as I’m sure many people accepted “suggestion” without taking time to review it for themselves) but rather someone with conservative views on sexuality. So, what?

All I’m saying is that everyone, it seems, is making their presumptuous conclusions about this candidate based on media frenzy full of headlines and suggestions and implications on things not just secondary but totally irrelevant.

[gonzomax]

I think this race defies easy analysis. Odonnell has her loonie side. I don't even know how conservative she is because she was not taken seriously enough to be thoroughly analyzed. The Repub party today restated they will not financially back her, according to Fox. But this is actually splintering the Republican party.
She appeared a few times on Bill Maher's . He looks for conservative women to appear on his show. She is cute and will talk and talk. i am sure he will put her on soon. Her goofiness wont be a secret for long.

[Merijeek]

All I’m saying is that everyone, it seems, is making their presumptuous conclusions about this candidate based on media frenzy full of headlines and suggestions and implications on things not just secondary but totally irrelevant.

Because it's the same kind of stupid that leads her to say that there's more "evidence" for creationism than evolution?

She exhibits extremely flawed thinking. If she wants to use that thinking to run her own life, that's between her and her psychiatrist. Once she wants to use it to influence the lives of more than 300 million people it's an issue of importance.

-Joe

[Whack-a-Mole]

So, you're more worried about possibility of "screw-up by association" (even though that association is only in your head; i.e. “Oh, if she thinks masturbation is wrong then she will…. she will… cut my taxe… penis!!!”) than actual direct screw up done already by someone whose mental state passed all the irrelevant questions?

Again, for me, it's a strange reasoning.


Keep reading. How much do you need?

She founded and was the president of the Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth (SALT) in 1996, which lobbied the U.S. Congress on moral issues[5] and which focused on advocating chastity and other Christian values in the college-age generation.[7] O'Donnell also served as a spokesperson for Concerned Women for America, a Conservative Christian political action group which seeks to apply biblical principles to issues of public policy.[8]

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_O%27Donnell


Looks to me like someone who actively worked to push her moral agenda.

YMMV

[Chefguy]

It's interesting that many see the Tea Party as some noble effort, when it seems to be attracting candidates who are bonifide loonies. These are the best they can field? Support from Beck, Bachman and other crazies equals "progressive"?

Where did you get the idea that the teabaggers are "progressive" in any way, shape, or form?

They're about as regressive as you can get.

-Joe

If I had actually said that, then you would have a valid point. The Tea Party believes that they are enlightened and represent the progressive arm of the right. Your delusion may vary.

[gonzomax]

This may be a "refudiation" of both parties. Both the Repubs and Dems run strong campaigns making promises they can not keep. Obama's problem is not that he is socialist like the Repubs like to pretend, but that he did not deliver what he promised. The feeling is that in Washington it is still fat cat business as usual.
The health care bill got compromised by the Repubs and insurance companies.It did not get fixed like it should have. It may be a great political achievement, but it was terribly weakened.
We expected him to shut Gitmo. He has not. He was supposed to remove DADT. He did not.
We expected him to torch the bankers who destroyed the economy. He actually put their pissboy , Geithner, in power. Nobody went to jail. They are still looting away.
He was supposed to get out of Iraq. Leaving 50,000 troops is not getting out.
The financial bill will be watered down until it is worthless. They are fighting Warren ,who should run the consumer protection arm. The fear is she would do the job. Can't have that in America.
The disconnect between the people and the politicians is coming in focus. The Boehner type Repubs are blind about that too.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Keep reading. How much do you need?


You didn't ask but here's more anyway:

[O'Donnell] had “a series of financial problems” and may have earned only $5,800 last year; she claimed to be a university graduate, “but it turns out she actually got her degree ... last week

<snip>

Then there’s her weird obsession with shrubs—she has her team “check all the bushes” around her house to make sure she’s not being followed, and she claims her opponents enjoy “hiding in the bushes when I’m at candidate forums.”

Source: http://www.newser.com/story/100321/anti-masturbation-candidate-is-truly-strange.html


Still ok with her? If so follow the link, there's more (I just picked some of the juicier bits).

[gonzomax]

Keep reading. How much do you need?


You didn't ask but here's more anyway:

[O'Donnell] had “a series of financial problems” and may have earned only $5,800 last year; she claimed to be a university graduate, “but it turns out she actually got her degree ... last week

<snip>

Then there’s her weird obsession with shrubs—she has her team “check all the bushes” around her house to make sure she’s not being followed, and she claims her opponents enjoy “hiding in the bushes when I’m at candidate forums.”

Source: http://www.newser.com/story/100321/anti-masturbation-candidate-is-truly-strange.html


Still ok with her? If so follow the link, there's more (I just picked some of the juicier bits).

Thats not a lot for a tea bagger.

[Captain Amazing]

They obviously support extending them.So the Tea Party favors increasing the deficit?

No, but they don't support reducing the deficit by raising taxes. The tea party people want to reduce the size and power of the federal government, because they believe that an expansive, activist federal government is bad policy and even unconstitutional.

So, because of this, they support both keeping the tax cuts and reducing the deficit by large cuts in domestic social welfare spending, because they don't believe the government should get involved in social welfare.

[newcomer]

Still ok with her? If so follow the link, there's more (I just picked some of the juicier bits). Irrelevant.

For me, the fact that GOP establishment went after her and she still won the day says a lot - takes a grown person to be able to withstand that and you got to respect that no matter what. Do I think she might be a target of GOP's pressure tactics? You bet! But still, irrelevant.

Do you have anything substantial in terms of her ideas on how to run the government or you just think cutting taxes and reducing spending is not your cup of tea (no pun intended)?

[gonzomax]

So the Tea Party favors increasing the deficit?

No, but they don't support reducing the deficit by raising taxes. The tea party people want to reduce the size and power of the federal government, because they believe that an expansive, activist federal government is bad policy and even unconstitutional.

So, because of this, they support both keeping the tax cuts and reducing the deficit by large cuts in domestic social welfare spending, because they don't believe the government should get involved in social welfare.

Raising taxes is the only way the deficit can be handled. There is not enough program cutting and cutbacks to have any impact. The political reality is that most programs will be protected by those administering or receiving them. Eliminating programs like Medicare are unrealistic and a waste of time. It will not happen.

[Skammer]

they don't believe the government should get involved in social welfare. Despite the fact that it's right there in the Preamble.

Was this an open primary? Were Democrats and Independents allowed to vote? The Democratic candidate was unopposed, so I wonder if there was some crossing of lines in order to put the more beatable candidate on the ballot. That's something that always gets talked about in my state, which has open primaries.

[Captain Amazing]

No, but they don't support reducing the deficit by raising taxes. The tea party people want to reduce the size and power of the federal government, because they believe that an expansive, activist federal government is bad policy and even unconstitutional.

So, because of this, they support both keeping the tax cuts and reducing the deficit by large cuts in domestic social welfare spending, because they don't believe the government should get involved in social welfare.

Raising taxes is the only way the deficit can be handled. There is not enough program cutting and cutbacks to have any impact. The political reality is that most programs will be protected by those administering or receiving them. Eliminating programs like Medicare are unrealistic and a waste of time. It will not happen.

That's something they obviously disagree with you about, for obvious reasons.

[Captain Amazing]

they don't believe the government should get involved in social welfare. Despite the fact that it's right there in the Preamble.

No, what's in the Preamble is "General Welfare", not "social welfare". The founding fathers weren't running around proposing federal programs to help the disadvantaged or disenfranchised.

[flickster]

Odonnell may be the "none of the above" candidate. She is a tea bagger, but not supported by the Repub party. She is on TV asking for party money this morning.

The GOP now claims they will provide financial support (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/15/republican-establishment-pledges-support-odonnell-infighting/)

[BrainGlutton]

Raising taxes is the only way the deficit can be handled. There is not enough program cutting and cutbacks to have any impact. The political reality is that most programs will be protected by those administering or receiving them. Eliminating programs like Medicare are unrealistic and a waste of time. It will not happen.

That's something they obviously disagree with you about, for obvious reasons.

The obvious reasons being ill-nature and stupidity.

[gonzomax]

Raising taxes is the only way the deficit can be handled. There is not enough program cutting and cutbacks to have any impact. The political reality is that most programs will be protected by those administering or receiving them. Eliminating programs like Medicare are unrealistic and a waste of time. It will not happen.

That's something they obviously disagree with you about, for obvious reasons.

Peter Orzag was on Charlie Rose last night explaining it . Cutting spending will not work and can not be done anyway. If we did ,we would fundamentally change the nature of America.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11204 here is the interview explaining why you are dead wrong.

[Jas09]

No, but they don't support reducing the deficit by raising taxes. The tea party people want to reduce the size and power of the federal government, because they believe that an expansive, activist federal government is bad policy and even unconstitutional.

So, because of this, they support both keeping the tax cuts and reducing the deficit by large cuts in domestic social welfare spending, because they don't believe the government should get involved in social welfare.If this were true, then I could at least respect that position. But I haven't seen any Tea Party candidate call for significant cuts to SS or Medicare. Can you find me one that has that in their campaign platform? It's always nebulous calls for "smaller government" with absolutely zero in the way of what would actually be cut (of course, defense spending is always off-limits).

Even Angle walked back her previous calls for cuts to SS and Medicare once she got the nomination.

The only person in the House to propose anything like that is Paul Ryan, and even his proposals have been completely ignored by his party (and even they leave open the possibility for tax increases, because balancing the budget with cuts alone is political suicide).

[Ludovic]

Even if we cut out all spending except interest, SS, medicare, and the military we'd still have a deficit. The vast majority someone points to needed cutbacks in the name of budget balancing, it isn't in one of the above categories (although with regards to the first one, this is a good time as any to be running up a debt considering the interest rates the government needs to pay are so low!)

So unless the teabaggers propose cutting SS, medicare, or military spending, they don't believe in balancing the budget without raising taxes. If I were a candidate I'd ask them which one they want to cut.

[ReticulatingSplines]

Why are the cute ones always loons?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Irrelevant.

For me, the fact that GOP establishment went after her and she still won the day says a lot - takes a grown person to be able to withstand that and you got to respect that no matter what. Do I think she might be a target of GOP's pressure tactics? You bet! But still, irrelevant.

Do you have anything substantial in terms of her ideas on how to run the government or you just think cutting taxes and reducing spending is not your cup of tea (no pun intended)?

Irrelevant?

What is relevant to you is that she won? Nevermind the rest?

Let's see who this woman is and what she believes:

- She thinks masturbation is wrong because the bible says so and works to teach that message including lobbying government (so yeah I care).

- She lied about when she graduated (she owed money and only settled the loan 17 years later just prior to a debate with Castle this year)

- She lied about previously winning two counties in a previous run for senate (she didn't, not even one, not even close).

- She is paranoid so lives in a town home half-paid for by her campaign so no one knows where she really lives (everyone knows where Vice President Biden [formerly senator] lives) and has staff check her bushes nightly and believes people are hiding in bushes at campaign stops.

- She owes money in unpaid taxes from 2005 and the IRS filed a lien against her house.

- Her mortgage holder got a default judgment against her for over $90,000 she has not paid.

- She opposes abortion even in the case of rape.

- She wants to drill more oil and denies global warming.

- She wants to replace federal health care with the free market.

- Make English America's "official" language.

- Wants a single rate tax system.

On a ton of issues she has no stance I can find.

On the issues of taxes and finance she is pretty much empty on the details. Lowering taxes is great. Any schmo can say as much. How? On who? How will you pay for government? How will you reduce the deficit? How will you stimulate the economy?

I'd say there is abundant reason to be afraid of this woman and her getting elected merely displays the idiocy of voters and nothing else when a character like this gets put up for the senate.

[Squink]

I'd say there is abundant reason to be afraid of this woman and her getting elected merely displays the idiocy of voters and nothing else when a character like this gets put up for the senate.And here I thought that they voted for her because they thought her Republican values more closely matched their own than did the values of her opponent.

[Merijeek]

I'd say there is abundant reason to be afraid of this woman and her getting elected merely displays the idiocy of voters and nothing else when a character like this gets put up for the senate.And here I thought that they voted for her because they thought her Republican values more closely matched their own than did the values of her opponent.

Apparently crazytown feels the need to reinvent herself: http://christine2010.com/meet-christine/

-Joe

[jtgain]

It's not 'Repubs against Repubs'. It's conservatives and Libertarians no longer willing to get into bed with any Republican simply for the sake of winning.

Don't forget - the Republicans are almost as unpopular as the Democrats. The Tea Party is the great mass of people to the right of center in America, who are sick of politics as usual. It used to be that these people were reliable Republican votes - even for Republicans who behaved like big-government corporate stooges. They're finding out now that all the electorate cares about is their policies. They're in no mood to elect a Republican like Castle or Cristie in Florida just because they are Republicans. If they are establishment types with mixed voting records, they're not getting the Tea Party's support.

I suspect a lot of you on the left would do the same to the Democrats if you could manage to organize a progressive movement as large as the Tea Party's. You'd probably rather vote for an 'unelectable' but principled progressive than hold your nose and vote for some blue-dog Democrat.

I couldn't agree more. We had the White House and both Houses of Congress earlier this decade. They acted like liberal Democrats.

I'm not going to vote just so the Rs can be in power. It means nothing to me. I want some conservatives up there.

So, she believes that masturbation is wrong. If she were talking about outlawing masturbation, I would be concerned.

[Chefguy]

I'd say there is abundant reason to be afraid of this woman and her getting elected merely displays the idiocy of voters and nothing else when a character like this gets put up for the senate.And here I thought that they voted for her because they thought her Republican values more closely matched their own than did the values of her opponent.

The men voted for her because they want to sleep with her. The women voted for her because they knew she wouldn't. Reptilian brain and all that.

[Jas09]

It seems in the particular case of O'Donnell (and Angle before her), the mere fact that she wasn't the establishment candidate was the key. It's not like she has a long record of staunch conservatism. I'm not sure she's ever won even state-wide office before.

As far as I can tell she has three positions (besides the masturbation one): Outlaw all abortions, even for rape and incest, Repeal PPACA, and some nebulous claims about reducing the size of the government (which, like all Tea Party candidates, come with no plan to do so).

Staunch conservatives (social ones in particular) didn't like Castle, so they voted for the relative unknown. Hard to imagine she can win a state-wide vote in Delaware, but voters are pissed right now, and Independents have never been known for their in-depth knowledge of candidate positions and history.

In the end, even if she does somehow get elected, it's a bit for naught. She won't be re-elected in 6 years (just way to conservative for that population outside of a wave-type election), and that is the earliest health care reform can realistically be repealed anyways (need a GOP president, or a filibuster-proof GOP Senate).

[elucidator]

Or, alternatively, the Tea Party is the inchoate mass of disgruntled, knuckle-walking Trogs that the Republicans exploited and manipulated for years and years. Just one more election, they'd say, and we'll push through your agenda. For years now, people had been warning that sooner or later, even the dimmest of bulbs begins to burn. It took this most recent disaster at the polls for the Trogs to bolt, and bolt they have.

And now, they own the Republican Party. Conservatives of principle don't even recognize their party, cannot fathom how the party of Goldwater, Buckley and Rockefeller turned into this seething mass of ignorance. They cannot win without the Tea Party energy, so they have to sell themselves if they are going to retain power. And some of them simply cannot swallow that, they retire, they retreat, they throw up their hands and say "No mas, no mas!"

The telling moment for me was reading that the Tea Party had come out on the side of Verizon and Comcast in the whole "net neutrality" question. Oh, rilly? Tea Partiers are passionate about the whole issue of "net neutrality", are they? Seems unlikely. Seems more likely that the very same people who successfully manipulated them before are up to their usual tricks, trying to sneak a few items onto the agenda without anybody noticing.

The problem boils down to energy. The Tea Partiers smell blood and victory, and they are excited, everything the see plays into their favorite fantasies: that they represent the "real" majority of Americans, that they can throw off the Republican Party pros and do it on their own. But the vast majority of Americans are pretty much moderate, luke-warm, and not committed to much of anything, politically. If we could force them to go to the polls and choose, the TP wouldn't have a prayer.

But prying them off of their collective asses to the polls is going to be a huge challenge. They are far more likely to cringe in disgust and refuse to choose. And when they wake up the next morning to an America they don't recognize, they will blame everybody but themselves.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I'd say there is abundant reason to be afraid of this woman and her getting elected merely displays the idiocy of voters and nothing else when a character like this gets put up for the senate.And here I thought that they voted for her because they thought her Republican values more closely matched their own than did the values of her opponent.

Sure...just they are all delusional.

These are the same folk who think Obama is a Kenyan Marxist Fascist Manchurian Candidate who wants death panels for grandma.

[Fear Itself]

And now, they own the Republican Party. Conservatives of principle don't even recognize their party, cannot fathom how the party of Goldwater, Buckley and Rockefeller turned into this seething mass of ignorance. They cannot win without the Tea Party energy, so they have to sell themselves if they are going to retain power. Sounds exactly like the pickle they got into pandering to the religious right.

[Sampiro]

- She thinks masturbation is wrong because the bible says so and works to teach that message including lobbying government (so yeah I care).

- She lied about when she graduated (she owed money and only settled the loan 17 years later just prior to a debate with Castle this year)

- She lied about previously winning two counties in a previous run for senate (she didn't, not even one, not even close).

- She is paranoid so lives in a town home half-paid for by her campaign so no one knows where she really lives (everyone knows where Vice President Biden [formerly senator] lives) and has staff check her bushes nightly and believes people are hiding in bushes at campaign stops.

- She owes money in unpaid taxes from 2005 and the IRS filed a lien against her house.

- Her mortgage holder got a default judgment against her for over $90,000 she has not paid.

- She opposes abortion even in the case of rape.

- She wants to drill more oil and denies global warming.

- She wants to replace federal health care with the free market.

- Make English America's "official" language.

- Wants a single rate tax system.

On a ton of issues she has no stance I can find.

On the issues of taxes and finance she is pretty much empty on the details. Lowering taxes is great. Any schmo can say as much. How? On who? How will you pay for government? How will you reduce the deficit? How will you stimulate the economy?

I'd say there is abundant reason to be afraid of this woman and her getting elected merely displays the idiocy of voters and nothing else when a character like this gets put up for the senate.


Add to these

- Refused to file campaign contribution reports at all until threatened with legal action; completely ignored the first 7 requests to do so

- Used campaign contributions to pay her own living expenses (not just the townhome but clothing, utilities, various loans, etc.) while routinely letting staff members go completely unpaid or reimbursed even when she knew it was a financial hardship for them and they were working for a salary

- Her own former campaign manager actively denounced her as a greedy on-the-make-charlatan

- Made public insinuations about her opponent's sexual orientation after calling on people not to privately make insinuations about her opponent's sexual orientation

But she doesn't believe in whacking off so she's moral. This sickeningly common form of Fundie morality is turning more people away from Christian churches than any Muslim who ever lived.

If she's elected you can imagine the field day the lobbyists are going to have with her. "$60,000 donation [wink-wink] from the Hezbollah? Why of course I'll cash it! I think Islamadans are just as good a Christians as anyone else!"

[John Mace]

Did anyone see this political cartoon the other day:

There is a road with a fork. The main road is labeled "right" and the fork is labeled "far right". To the right of the fork are tire tracks leading to a car, driven by an elephant, crashed into a tree. The subtext says: TeaTotaled.

[Unix Geek]

Conservatives of principle don't even recognize their party, cannot fathom how the party of Goldwater, Buckley and Rockefeller turned into this seething mass of ignorance.

Amen Brother AMEN!

[Starving Artist]

Irrelevant.

For me, the fact that GOP establishment went after her and she still won the day says a lot - takes a grown person to be able to withstand that and you got to respect that no matter what. Do I think she might be a target of GOP's pressure tactics? You bet! But still, irrelevant.

Do you have anything substantial in terms of her ideas on how to run the government or you just think cutting taxes and reducing spending is not your cup of tea (no pun intended)?

Irrelevant?

What is relevant to you is that she won? Nevermind the rest?

Let's see who this woman is and what she believes:

- She thinks masturbation is wrong because the bible says so and works to teach that message including lobbying government (so yeah I care).

- She lied about when she graduated (she owed money and only settled the loan 17 years later just prior to a debate with Castle this year)

- She lied about previously winning two counties in a previous run for senate (she didn't, not even one, not even close).

- She is paranoid so lives in a town home half-paid for by her campaign so no one knows where she really lives (everyone knows where Vice President Biden [formerly senator] lives) and has staff check her bushes nightly and believes people are hiding in bushes at campaign stops.

- She owes money in unpaid taxes from 2005 and the IRS filed a lien against her house.

- Her mortgage holder got a default judgment against her for over $90,000 she has not paid.

- She opposes abortion even in the case of rape.

- She wants to drill more oil and denies global warming.

- She wants to replace federal health care with the free market.

- Make English America's "official" language.

- Wants a single rate tax system.

On a ton of issues she has no stance I can find.

On the issues of taxes and finance she is pretty much empty on the details. Lowering taxes is great. Any schmo can say as much. How? On who? How will you pay for government? How will you reduce the deficit? How will you stimulate the economy?

I'd say there is abundant reason to be afraid of this woman and her getting elected merely displays the idiocy of voters and nothing else when a character like this gets put up for the senate.I assume you can furnish credible cites for all this. In this clip (http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/09/christine-odonnell-on-roves-un-factual-remarks-and-republican-cannibalism.html) (scroll down), from an interview with George Stephanopolis this morning, she denies the school loan and IRS allegations.

I thought that for a novice at odds with the big boys she handled herself pretty well.

[Squink]

I thought that for a novice at odds with the big boys she handled herself pretty well.Palinesque?

[Whack-a-Mole]

I assume you can furnish credible cites for all this.

Of course.

- http://www.whorunsgov.com/index.php?title=Profiles/Christine_O%27Donnell (click on the various tabs, particularly the Issues tab.) Note that site is run by the Washington Post.

- http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Christine_O%60Donnell.htm

[BrainGlutton]

FTR, Coons is beating O'Donnell in nearly all the polls. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Delaware,_2010#Predictions) No post-primary polls yet available. But I'm pretty sure this is one Senate seat the GOP won't be picking up this year. And so is Karl Rove. (http://www.thenation.com/blog/154731/can-grand-old-tea-party-win-november)

"We were looking at eight to nine seats in the Senate. We're now looking at seven to eight in my opinion," Rove said Tuesday night. "This is not a race we are going to be able to win."

[waterj2]

Add to these

- Refused to file campaign contribution reports at all until threatened with legal action; completely ignored the first 7 requests to do so

- Used campaign contributions to pay her own living expenses (not just the townhome but clothing, utilities, various loans, etc.) while routinely letting staff members go completely unpaid or reimbursed even when she knew it was a financial hardship for them and they were working for a salary

- Her own former campaign manager actively denounced her as a greedy on-the-make-charlatan

- Made public insinuations about her opponent's sexual orientation after calling on people not to privately make insinuations about her opponent's sexual orientation

But she doesn't believe in whacking off so she's moral. This sickeningly common form of Fundie morality is turning more people away from Christian churches than any Muslim who ever lived.

If she's elected you can imagine the field day the lobbyists are going to have with her. "$60,000 donation [wink-wink] from the Hezbollah? Why of course I'll cash it! I think Islamadans are just as good a Christians as anyone else!"We can also add that on evolution, she believes (http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/77707/odonnell-carbon-dating-bogus):Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that.
Nutjob.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

[

- She opposes abortion even in the case of rape.

- She wants to drill more oil and denies global warming.


- Make English America's "official" language.




Those are positions I don't have particular problem with although I prefer nuclear energy over risky oil drilling.

[Sampiro]

[

- She opposes abortion even in the case of rape.

- She wants to drill more oil and denies global warming.


- Make English America's "official" language.




Those are positions I don't have particular problem with although I prefer nuclear energy over risky oil drilling.

And?

[foolsguinea]

I see the sharpening of hostility to politicized social conservatism in Group 1, and the awakening of such hostility in Group 3, as awareness spreads that the GOP has been using social-conservative talking points the way a magician uses a scantily clad assistant (i.e. as a distraction while they perform a trick).Well, that's how I feel, but I consider the low-tax low-service régime the Tea Party advocates to be the trick. A nasty nasty trick. (I'm from poor, central US, evangelical white stock. My people are being led to ruin by this crap.)It's interesting that many see the Tea Party as some noble effort, when it seems to be attracting candidates who are bonifide loonies. These are the best they can field? Support from Beck, Bachman and other crazies equals "progressive"?The Tea Party believes that they are enlightened and represent the progressive arm of the right. Your delusion may vary.I take your meaning. They do seem to think they are the real force for good change, which we would associate with "progress." But Beck has actually said he sees "Progressives" as a disease (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvMqHiiL1lI).

So "revolting" might be more the word they'd like.We expected him to torch the bankers who destroyed the economy. He actually put their pissboy, Geithner, in power. Nobody went to jail. They are still looting away.Tim Geithner is not the bankers' pissboy. Gah! Now back to your rant.So, because of this, they support both keeping the tax cuts and reducing the deficit by large cuts in domestic social welfare spending, because they don't believe the government should get involved in social welfare.Do their constituents know this? That's not going to go over well with last year's town hellers, is it? Any of these teabags get in office, they're going to find out what the conservatives in office know from long bitter experience. Pensioners vote, & they will call you up & harass you about anything they don't like--they have time on their hands.No, what's in the Preamble is "General Welfare", not "social welfare." The founding fathers weren't running around proposing federal programs to help the disadvantaged or disenfranchised.So what? The War for American Independence was fought so that the people would have trans-Appalachia to expand into. They had a whole continent to exploit. That source of "opportunity for the little guy" is gone, as is the land-owning agrarian economic base of their day. It's daft for modern right-wing believers in individual rights to appeal to the supposed social morality of a generation so devoid of social morality that they practiced chattel slavery, had no guarantee of individual rights against the state (the Bill of Rights was purely a restriction on federal power until the 14th Amendment), had debtor's prisons (until 1833), & had no laws restricting abortion.

[foolsguinea]

Peter Orzag was on Charlie Rose last night explaining it . Cutting spending will not work and can not be done anyway. If we did ,we would fundamentally change the nature of America.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11204 here is the interview explaining why you are dead wrong.Oh good lord thanks for this. That was amazing. I often lose patience with Charlie Rose, but Orszag was definitely worth listening to. I think the last several minutes should be heard by most Americans.

[gonzomax]

What is sad is the message that you can not cut programs to take care of the debt, will not get traction. People want to believe it is that simple. But the cold hard fact is ,it is politically impossible to chop up the programs that people somehow vaguely believe are the root of deficits. It seems logical and simple. But is insufficient .
We have to get more revenue. Closing tax loopholes would help. Ending the Bush tax cuts would reduce the deficit by about 25 percent. That is a lot. But the rich and powerful have such great access to politicians and the media, that it wont happen.

[MovieMogul]

And here I thought that they voted for her because they thought her Republican values more closely matched their own than did the values of her opponent.

Apparently crazytown feels the need to reinvent herself: http://christine2010.com/meet-christine/In fact, the only part of her website that is currently operating is the interface where she processes your $$$ contribution. Policies? Platform? History & Experience? Zilchola.

[Jas09]

In fact, the only part of her website that is currently operating is the interface where she processes your $$$ contribution. Policies? Platform? History & Experience? Zilchola.That's really what this has come to, though. When your entire stance is being an outsider, free from the taint of the political or media process, policies, experience, and media access are detrimental to a winning campaign. Character and attitude are all that matter. It's political nihilism. Ability to govern effectively is a liability, because government is by definition bad.

[Bricker]

- She thinks masturbation is wrong because the bible says so and works to teach that message including lobbying government (so yeah I care).


Or did she think that years ago and has since modified her position?

- She lied about when she graduated (she owed money and only settled the loan 17 years later just prior to a debate with Castle this year)


As lies go, I can't get too worked up about this one. If her only missing piece was paying, and she completed all her coursework with satisfactory grades, then this lie is not a serious one.


- She lied about previously winning two counties in a previous run for senate (she didn't, not even one, not even close).


Didn't know this -- more details?

- She is paranoid so lives in a town home half-paid for by her campaign so no one knows where she really lives (everyone knows where Vice President Biden [formerly senator] lives) and has staff check her bushes nightly and believes people are hiding in bushes at campaign stops.


And?

- She owes money in unpaid taxes from 2005 and the IRS filed a lien against her house.

- Her mortgage holder got a default judgment against her for over $90,000 she has not paid.

These charges were refusted on her website:

During my previous campaign against then Sen. Joe Biden, I was audited by the IRS – so were some of my family members and a campaign worker. (Let’s chalk that up to a coincidence.) After a long appeals process, this was supposed to have been wrapped up this past spring.

Yet, in March, rather than a letter finalizing the appeals process, I received an erroneous tax lien claiming I had not responded to their previous correspondence. The IRS admitted the letter was a mistake, issued a Certificate of Release of Federal Tax Lien on May 19, 2010 and chalked it up to a “computer error.” The remaining balance was paid in full on May 16, 2010, clearly proving yet again that my political opponent is desperate and because of which he is ignoring the facts and circulating copies of the erroneous lien to reporters and bloggers.

She then posts a scanned copy of the supporting documents.

I sold my home in 2008. My opponent claims I lost it in foreclosure.

Please find below, the letter from Citimortgage proving my home was privately sold in 2008 through a realtor and private mortgage company, not a public foreclosure. Yet, my opponent is circulating a supposed foreclosure notice.

Again, she posts the letter from Citibank indicating her loan was paid.


- She opposes abortion even in the case of rape.


OK. I'm sure that's true. For some people, of course, that may be a plus.

- She wants to drill more oil and denies global warming.

Me, too, as to drilling.

- She wants to replace federal health care with the free market.


Me, too.

- Make English America's "official" language.


Me, too.

- Wants a single rate tax system.


Me, too.

[Jas09]

Well there ya go then. Count Bricker in the O'Donnell camp.

As someone who for quite some time was a moderate NE-style Republican, this year is making me very sad.

[Squink]

masturbation

Or did she think that years ago and has since modified her position?Don't know, but I do know that we know even less about this woman than we do about Barack Obama, our least known president ever.
How can conservatives, in good conscience, vote for such an utterly unknown quantity?

Will you go along when she introduces legislation to make masturbation a stoning offense, or do you just hope that never happens?

[Jas09]

She also figured that Bill Clinton should be investigated for the "murder" of Vince Foster: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/odonnell-in-1996-investigate-bill-clinton-for-murder-of-vince-foster.php?ref=fpb

[Whack-a-Mole]

- She thinks masturbation is wrong because the bible says so and works to teach that message including lobbying government (so yeah I care).


Or did she think that years ago and has since modified her position?

Last I saw she was asked directly about this issue of hers and she ducked it so has she changed her position?

More though is it is one thing to hold an odd position and another to form a non-profit dedicated to pushing that agenda. Seems she was pretty committed to it to me.


As lies go, I can't get too worked up about this one. If her only missing piece was paying, and she completed all her coursework with satisfactory grades, then this lie is not a serious one.

Which of course neatly ducks the point that she did not pay for her education.

If I made use of your services and didn't pay you for 17 years that wouldn't bother you overly much?


Didn't know this -- more details?

Sure:

[A] conservative radio host was compelled to correct her when she claimed that she had won two counties in a 2008 race against Senator Joe Biden. That would have been quite a trick, given that Delaware has only three counties and she lost the election by 65 percent to 35 percent.

“I meant tied,” she said, forcing the host to point out: “You didn’t tie him either.”
(cite (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/opinion/11collins.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1284206020-YBB6YNIEHHQkx0dzXblvgw))


And?

And it points out a scary level of paranoia. Biden was a Senator from Delaware for over 30 years. He took the train home with everyone else. Where he lived was no secret to anyone and he never (to my knowledge) had staffers checking his bushes every night.

If you are ok with a paranoid Senator that is your lookout. To me it goes to state of mind and it is not a good state. YMMV.


These charges were refusted on her website:

She then posts a scanned copy of the supporting documents.

Again, she posts the letter from Citibank indicating her loan was paid.

We are certainly seeing a trend here. Her campaign paying some of her apartment costs. Her not paying her tuition. Was woefully behind on her mortgage payments. Conveniently sold her house to a staffer. Not paying her staff and so on.

That she spruced some of these things up at the 11th hour conveniently in time for an election does not take away from her repeatedly not paying in the first place.


OK. I'm sure that's true. For some people, of course, that may be a plus.

No doubt. I wonder though how these conservative people would feel about having to pay for their daughter (or wife's) pregnancy because she was raped. Or will the government foot the bill in that case? Oh wait! :rolleyes:

It is a horrendous prospect to foist on women and displays a lack of thought and compassion that is so shocking that by itself it should disqualify her.


Me, too, as to drilling.

Me, too.

Me, too.

Me, too.

Of course here she is woefully thin on details. Want a flat tax? Tell me how that will work (a flat tax would amount to a tax increase for all but the wealthy and a substantial one at that...if not how will she pay the bills the government has [as if she knows how to pay a debt]). America's "official" language? What does that mean exactly beyond pablum for conservatives? Health care run by the free market? We've seen that, it's been a disaster...does she mean to just let it continue as it was?

Those are important questions and all her positions are devoid of reason and just "feel good" to a segment of the population who can't or won't think about the implications.


I'll leave you with a quote from Bill Clinton that I think neatly covers all this pretty well (he was talking about Michele Bachmann but works here too):

"I respect people with a conservative philosophy," he continued. "This country has been well-served by having two broad traditions within which people can operate. If you have a philosophy, it means you’re generally inclined one way or the other but you’re open to evidence. If you have an ideology, it means everything is determined by dogma and you’re impervious to evidence. Evidence is irrelevant.

"That’s how I see Rep. Bachmann. She’s very attractive in saying all these things she says, but it’s pretty stupid." (cite (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/09/15/clintontea))

[Robot Arm]

During my previous campaign against then Sen. Joe Biden, I was audited by the IRS – so were some of my family members and a campaign worker. (Let’s chalk that up to a coincidence.) After a long appeals process, this was supposed to have been wrapped up this past spring.

Yet, in March, rather than a letter finalizing the appeals process, I received an erroneous tax lien claiming I had not responded to their previous correspondence. The IRS admitted the letter was a mistake, issued a Certificate of Release of Federal Tax Lien on May 19, 2010 and chalked it up to a “computer error.” The remaining balance was paid in full on May 16, 2010, clearly proving yet again that my political opponent is desperate and because of which he is ignoring the facts and circulating copies of the erroneous lien to reporters and bloggers.If everything was supposed to be wrapped up in March, why was there still a balance to be paid in May?

[gonzomax]

O'Donnell picked up a million dollars in campaign donations overnight. I wonder how much of it will be used on the actual campaign?

[gonzomax]

- She thinks masturbation is wrong because the bible says so and works to teach that message including lobbying government (so yeah I care).


Or did she think that years ago and has since modified her position?



As lies go, I can't get too worked up about this one. If her only missing piece was paying, and she completed all her coursework with satisfactory grades, then this lie is not a serious one.



Didn't know this -- more details?



And?



These charges were refusted on her website:



She then posts a scanned copy of the supporting documents.



Again, she posts the letter from Citibank indicating her loan was paid.



OK. I'm sure that's true. For some people, of course, that may be a plus.



Me, too, as to drilling.


Me, too.



Me, too.

- Wants a single rate tax system.


Me, too.
Proving she is not the only one to hold crazy views, not that the views aren't nuts.

[Bricker]

Or did she think that years ago and has since modified her position?

Last I saw she was asked directly about this issue of hers and she ducked it so has she changed her position?


I saw her on the Today show (?) being shown an old clip of hers, and saying in response, "That was a long time ago, and many of my positions have matured since then, as well as how I communicate them."


More though is it is one thing to hold an odd position and another to form a non-profit dedicated to pushing that agenda. Seems she was pretty committed to it to me.


Maybe. I don't see any specific disavowel of her position, but neither do I see her actively pushing it.


Which of course neatly ducks the point that she did not pay for her education.

If I made use of your services and didn't pay you for 17 years that wouldn't bother you overly much?


Sure. You framed the issue as a lie, so I responded to the accusation of a lie. Now you mention the non-payment, and I don't know if it's serious or not.

I didn't get my own undergraduate degree for nearly a year following my "graduation." The hold-up? A library book, with supposed replacement value of $30. Problem is, I had returned it. I refused to pay, they refused to issue the transcript. Eventually I have up, because I couldn't get into law school otherwise.

Was her situation similar, or did she owe tens of thousands of dollars? My view of the seriousness of her non-payment rests on that answer.
Sure:

[A] conservative radio host was compelled to correct her when she claimed that she had won two counties in a 2008 race against Senator Joe Biden. That would have been quite a trick, given that Delaware has only three counties and she lost the election by 65 percent to 35 percent.

“I meant tied,” she said, forcing the host to point out: “You didn’t tie him either.”
(cite (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/opinion/11collins.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1284206020-YBB6YNIEHHQkx0dzXblvgw))


Unfortunately, I can't research this any further than your initial claim. The author does not identify the radio host, the exact time, or anything that would help me track it down.


And it points out a scary level of paranoia. Biden was a Senator from Delaware for over 30 years. He took the train home with everyone else. Where he lived was no secret to anyone and he never (to my knowledge) had staffers checking his bushes every night.

True. But even you must admit that this was unusual to the other extreme.
That she spruced some of these things up at the 11th hour conveniently in time for an election does not take away from her repeatedly not paying in the first place.


Agreed. She seems to have a very shaky financial grasp.

It is a horrendous prospect to foist on women and displays a lack of thought and compassion that is so shocking that by itself it should disqualify her.


Not everyone agrees with you.

See, this it what I find amazing. You can't just say you disagree. No,no - it has to be that her position is so bad it disqualifies her.


Of course here she is woefully thin on details. Want a flat tax? Tell me how that will work (a flat tax would amount to a tax increase for all but the wealthy and a substantial one at that...if not how will she pay the bills the government has [as if she knows how to pay a debt]). America's "official" language? What does that mean exactly beyond pablum for conservatives? Health care run by the free market? We've seen that, it's been a disaster...does she mean to just let it continue as it was?



I agree this needs to be answered in detail.

[gonzomax]

She is using campaign funds to pay for half her rent. Her claim is that she is also using it as a campaign office. If you have ever tried to claim a home office deduction on your taxes, you know what a difficult task it is. I wonder if that deduction has been audited by the IRS.

[Jas09]

Here's another good one:

They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains.

Cite: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311946,00.html

[Robot Arm]

They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains.No, that one is true (http://www.toplessrobot.com/pinky_brain.gif).

[Ludovic]

Here's another good one:

They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains.

Cite: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311946,00.htmlOkay, I think this in the bag for the Democrats. It went full circle from wacky enough to be a beloved eightball into crazy in the coconut plumb loco. Sort of like certain movies go beyond "so bad it's good" right back into being horrible again.

[asterion]

On The Economist's website, one of the writers for their Democracy in America blog asks Why has Christine O'Donnell's frank defence of Catholic doctrine made her the butt of jokes? (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/09/odonnells_religion) I don't have an answer for that myself, though personally I think the argument the writer makes is pretty weak.

Frankly, I hope she gets bands of people singing Every Sperm is Sacred at her campaign stops.

[BrainGlutton]

On The Economist's website, one of the writers for their Democracy in America blog asks Why has Christine O'Donnell's frank defence of Catholic doctrine made her the butt of jokes? (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/09/odonnells_religion) I don't have an answer for that myself, though personally I think the argument the writer makes is pretty weak.

Frankly, I hope she gets bands of people singing Every Sperm is Sacred at her campaign stops.

There, you have answered the question: Because the Catholic doctrine in question is laughable.

[gonzomax]

O'Donnell wrote checks for personal bills using her campaign money long after the campaign was over. That is illegal. She wrote checks for from rent to bowling allies.
Palin gave her advice today to only speak to Fox news. She said that is the way to get the truth out.
She got fired from a job and sued them for 6.9 million dollars for sexual discrimination.
She is a fine conservative tea bagger.

[Sampiro]

Frankly, I hope she gets bands of people singing Every Sperm is Sacred at her campaign stops.

Preferably from the bushes.

Because the Catholic doctrine in question is laughable.

Exactly. If she had grown up in a UFO cult and championed their beliefs nobody would write an article defending her save another member of the UFO cult.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Last I saw she was asked directly about this issue of hers and she ducked it so has she changed her position?


I saw her on the Today show (?) being shown an old clip of hers, and saying in response, "That was a long time ago, and many of my positions have matured since then, as well as how I communicate them."

Dodge.

It is not hard to be clear on this. She isn't.


Maybe. I don't see any specific disavowel of her position, but neither do I see her actively pushing it.

Actively pushing it today? No, of course not. It is a crazy position and not one that would endear her even to other Tea Baggers as I am willing to bet a lot of them jerk off (most adults masturbate).


Sure. You framed the issue as a lie, so I responded to the accusation of a lie. Now you mention the non-payment, and I don't know if it's serious or not.

I didn't get my own undergraduate degree for nearly a year following my "graduation." The hold-up? A library book, with supposed replacement value of $30. Problem is, I had returned it. I refused to pay, they refused to issue the transcript. Eventually I have up, because I couldn't get into law school otherwise.

Was her situation similar, or did she owe tens of thousands of dollars? My view of the seriousness of her non-payment rests on that answer.

If it was just this one thing I wouldn't fuss too much if at all (although 17 years to repay the debt and then magically coming up with the money one week before a primary debate is suspicious).

I agree by itself as lies go it is not huge. However, as an attorney I bet you are happy to show a pattern of behavior and I think this plugs into that. Take this with all the rest and a picture starts to form and it is not a pleasant one.


Unfortunately, I can't research this any further than your initial claim. The author does not identify the radio host, the exact time, or anything that would help me track it down.

Here ya go (well, the link in the article to the actual interview seems broken but the detail you want is here).

"The Mike Castle Death Star -- please hit me up if you have a better name -- zooms on as everyone in Washington is mysteriously tipped off to a bristling interview between Delaware U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell and Newsradio WGMD host Dan Gaffney. O'Donnell, expecting softer treatment from a host who endorsed her long-shot 2006 bid for Senate (she lost in the GOP primary), is taken aback when Gaffney uses oppo against her.

First up -- a tape of O'Donnell telling an audience that she "won two counties" in her 2008 sacrificial lamb bid against Joe Biden." (cite (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/09/02/christine-o-donnell-versus-christine-o-donnell.aspx))


True. But even you must admit that this was unusual to the other extreme.

Biden was unusual in taking the train home but IIRC he is the poorest or second poorest senator and has always been a "regular guy"...at least as far as that means anything among senators. Nevertheless I do not think he had his bushes checked in 30 years and it is relevant because he too is from Delaware so not like we are comparing Chicago cement shoe politics to someone else.


Not everyone agrees with you.

See, this it what I find amazing. You can't just say you disagree. No,no - it has to be that her position is so bad it disqualifies her.

I know not everyone agrees with me.

I would like to see Tea Baggers actually defend the position though to show they thought it through.

Their wife/sister/daughter is violently raped and impregnated by her attacker. The government now tell her she MUST have the baby. How does the government enforce that? Tie her down? I thought the government is supposed to be out of people's business? Who pays for her medical bills? The Tea Bagger husband/brother/father? Sure as shit in Tea Baggerville ain't gonna be me...not my problem. Tell me how, in the free market health care they want, how happy they will be spending thousands of dollars of their own money to see a rapist's baby born.

Get all those sign waving tea baggers to reconcile that for me then we can talk more.

[Bricker]

I saw her on the Today show (?) being shown an old clip of hers, and saying in response, "That was a long time ago, and many of my positions have matured since then, as well as how I communicate them."

Dodge.

It is not hard to be clear on this. She isn't.


Breaking news: just saw a clip of an event that happened yesterday, with O'Donnell at a Q&A. Question: "In the past, you have advocated a number of positions that impinge on people's private lives. Where do you stand government interference in private matters now?"

Answer: "That's personal. When I go to Washington, it won't be personal things I'm concerned with. I will be guided by the Constitution only."

"The Mike Castle Death Star -- please hit me up if you have a better name -- zooms on as everyone in Washington is mysteriously tipped off to a bristling interview between Delaware U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell and Newsradio WGMD host Dan Gaffney. O'Donnell, expecting softer treatment from a host who endorsed her long-shot 2006 bid for Senate (she lost in the GOP primary), is taken aback when Gaffney uses oppo against her.

First up -- a tape of O'Donnell telling an audience that she "won two counties" in her 2008 sacrificial lamb bid against Joe Biden." (cite (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/09/02/christine-o-donnell-versus-christine-o-donnell.aspx))


Thanks for tracking that down. I didn't mean to be the "Prove It," guy, and I know (from personal experience!) that it takes three seconds to type "Cite?" and twenty minutes to hunt something down, so it can be a crappy debate technique if done in poor faith. Please trust me -- it wasn't. And I appreciate your taking the time to provide this detail.


Biden was unusual in taking the train home but IIRC he is the poorest or second poorest senator and has always been a "regular guy"...at least as far as that means anything among senators. Nevertheless I do not think he had his bushes checked in 30 years and it is relevant because he too is from Delaware so not like we are comparing Chicago cement shoe politics to someone else.


True enough.


Not everyone agrees with you.

See, this it what I find amazing. You can't just say you disagree. No,no - it has to be that her position is so bad it disqualifies her.

I know not everyone agrees with me.

I would like to see Tea Baggers actually defend the position though to show they thought it through.

Their wife/sister/daughter is violently raped and impregnated by her attacker. The government now tell her she MUST have the baby. How does the government enforce that? Tie her down? I thought the government is supposed to be out of people's business? Who pays for her medical bills? The Tea Bagger husband/brother/father? Sure as shit in Tea Baggerville ain't gonna be me...not my problem. Tell me how, in the free market health care they want, how happy they will be spending thousands of dollars of their own money to see a rapist's baby born.

Get all those sign waving tea baggers to reconcile that for me then we can talk more.

My own position is a practical one: the number of abortions due to rape or incest is vanishingly small. If we were able to stop all abortions except those due to rape or incest, I would happily accept it as a huge victory. But since the objection to abortion is that the unborn child is a human life, he becomes an innocent victim even if he was conceived by rape. So my approach would be a practical one, not an ideological one.

Some others can't get rid of the ideology. But if you disagree, that makes it an issue of disagreement, not a disqualification. (I mean obviously they are disqualified to eanr YOUR vote, but they are not objectively disqualified.)

[gonzomax]

O'Donnell's use of campaign funds ,long after the campaign was over keep surfacing. This million dollars overnight will put her on easy street.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Dodge.

It is not hard to be clear on this. She isn't.


Breaking news: just saw a clip of an event that happened yesterday, with O'Donnell at a Q&A. Question: "In the past, you have advocated a number of positions that impinge on people's private lives. Where do you stand government interference in private matters now?"

Answer: "That's personal. When I go to Washington, it won't be personal things I'm concerned with. I will be guided by the Constitution only."

So does that mean she will support abortion rights since that is constitutional?

I'm guessing no so you'll have to forgive me if I do not find her statement compelling or persuasive on how she will comport herself. Her answer merely displays some media savvy...doubtless she is coached on this stuff (as are most if not all politicians).

Near as I can tell she is still listed as the head of SALT.


My own position is a practical one: the number of abortions due to rape or incest is vanishingly small. If we were able to stop all abortions except those due to rape or incest, I would happily accept it as a huge victory. But since the objection to abortion is that the unborn child is a human life, he becomes an innocent victim even if he was conceived by rape. So my approach would be a practical one, not an ideological one.

Some others can't get rid of the ideology. But if you disagree, that makes it an issue of disagreement, not a disqualification. (I mean obviously they are disqualified to eanr YOUR vote, but they are not objectively disqualified.)

I think it objectively disqualifies her because she would push her ideological dogma on the country. Or FFs did not want to roll that way. If they did then where does ideology stop? Don't like Muslims? Let's get an amendment to ban that religion (you'd need an amendment currently to ban abortions so the comparison could be made).

Some may believe that life begins at conception but the science is far less clear on that. A stalk of celery has more "life" in it than a zygote does. Belief and ideology trump facts in your world? Your belief and ideology trump my beliefs? Seems to me the FFs setup a country specifically to be tolerant of differeing beliefs and not let one overwhelm the other.

Then add where do the rights of the woman figure in?

Checking around a commonly cited figure is 1% of all abortions are performed due to rape (I am not here to nitpick numbers, just get a ballpark feel for what we are talking about). There are roughly 1.2 million abortions performed annually in the US. So that would mean 12,000 abortions are performed because of rape. Is that a vanishingly small number to you? Remember this number is cumulative too. In ten years that would be 120,000 women with pregnancies due to being raped.

Now let's take a stroll through O'Donnell-Land if she had her way.

Your 14 year old daughter is violently raped (pretend you have one if you don't).

Let's also pretend you are a janitor with no employer provided health care and you make $25,000 per year. Health care has been privatized and there is no state help...not even state hospitals. The average cost of a vaginal delivery with no complications is $7,700 (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/623715/estimating_the_cost_of_pregnancy_.html?cat=52) and prices go north from there (that does not count prenatal care...just delivery so you are almost certainly on the hook for more money). At the least Dad is on the hook for near a third of his yearly gross (not net) pay to deliver the rapist's baby.

Now, in O'Donnell-land abortion is illegal. Thus a woman who gets an abortion is a criminal...a murderer no less...premeditated murder at that. So, the police will be by every week to check that your distraught daughter is still pregnant. If she is beside herself with grief and shame and self-aborts in some fashion the police will prosecute your daughter for murder.

Note even if your wife gets pregnant and does so on purpose with you and wants the baby the state will still keep on eye on her. If she miscarries there will be an investigation (after all a human just died...the state looks into those things).


So yeah...I'd say O'Donnell's vision is as anathema to US ideals and as Gestapo as can be thus objectively disqualifying her from office. Or it should anyway.

[Peremensoe]

Frankly, I hope she gets bands of people singing Every Sperm is Sacred at her campaign stops.

Contraception is of the Devil.

[Bricker]

So does that mean she will support abortion rights since that is constitutional?

I'm guessing no so you'll have to forgive me if I do not find her statement compelling or persuasive on how she will comport herself. Her answer merely displays some media savvy...doubtless she is coached on this stuff (as are most if not all politicians).


But the Constitution also provides a method to amend itself.

If she were contending for an executive office, your objection might have more weight. She would indeed be "following the Constitution," if she sought an amendment to ban abortion. She would NOT be following the Constitution if she supported a law that flew in the face of current Supreme Court rulings regarding abortion.

My own position is a practical one: the number of abortions due to rape or incest is vanishingly small. If we were able to stop all abortions except those due to rape or incest, I would happily accept it as a huge victory. But since the objection to abortion is that the unborn child is a human life, he becomes an innocent victim even if he was conceived by rape. So my approach would be a practical one, not an ideological one.


I think it objectively disqualifies her because she would push her ideological dogma on the country. Or FFs did not want to roll that way. If they did then where does ideology stop? Don't like Muslims? Let's get an amendment to ban that religion (you'd need an amendment currently to ban abortions so the comparison could be made).

So, in your view, abortion's legality is simply a settled issue, and a politician that advocates for abortion to be made illegal is not just wrong, and someone who should be voted against, but OBJECTIVELY wrong, literally disqualified for office based on that position.

Wow.

Tell me: would you support an amendment to the Constitution that said, "Any person supporting the criminalization of abortion shall be disqualified for any office of the United States or any state?"

[Bricker]

Inviting you to continue this discussion here. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=578618)

[Bricker]

Well there ya go then. Count Bricker in the O'Donnell camp.

As someone who for quite some time was a moderate NE-style Republican, this year is making me very sad.

Actually, no. Count Bricker in the "defending against incorrect statements" camp.

I'm not at all impressed with her.

[Whack-a-Mole]

So, in your view, abortion's legality is simply a settled issue, and a politician that advocates for abortion to be made illegal is not just wrong, and someone who should be voted against, but OBJECTIVELY wrong, literally disqualified for office based on that position.

Wow.

Tell me: would you support an amendment to the Constitution that said, "Any person supporting the criminalization of abortion shall be disqualified for any office of the United States or any state?"

Well, would you then maintain there is no objective criteria to be had? Want to argue that you can't prove you actually exist? I mean, if you want to be hyper stringent about it there is nothing wrong with someone seeking an amendment to legalize pedophilia (or pretty much anything really...want to bring slavery back all we need is a new amendment). Afterall that would be working within the system right and if passed that is what the majority wants so we get it.

I spelled out some of the horrors that would follow in O'Donnell-land and I find her notions anathema to what this country is about (freedom, liberty, yadda yadda yadda). O'Donnell-land would be a freak show and very unlike this country. I think that objectively makes her a frightening prospect for office and should (I know it doesn't) disqualify her. People can disagree but some are so far off the reservation as to be beyond compromise with. O'Donnell is one such (there are others to be sure, she's not alone).

[Jas09]

Well there ya go then. Count Bricker in the O'Donnell camp.

As someone who for quite some time was a moderate NE-style Republican, this year is making me very sad.

Actually, no. Count Bricker in the "defending against incorrect statements" camp.

I'm not at all impressed with her.Acknowledged. But why? On every positional issue (save the abortion one, perhaps) you claimed to agree with her. For basically every personal integrity allegation you mounted a defense.

If she has no personal integrity issues, and you prefer her stance on policy, why not support her campaign?

[New Deal Democrat]

Just saw the clip of her on the Rachel show. She's a frigid sin-obsessed little god-botherer. She probably shows up at confession and the priest tells her to go get laid already.

By her own confession she drank and fornicated her way through college. Now she wants to tell the rest of us how to live.

[Bricker]

Actually, no. Count Bricker in the "defending against incorrect statements" camp.

I'm not at all impressed with her.Acknowledged. But why? On every positional issue (save the abortion one, perhaps) you claimed to agree with her. For basically every personal integrity allegation you mounted a defense.

If she has no personal integrity issues, and you prefer her stance on policy, why not support her campaign?

I mounted an initial defense of every personal integrity issue. But Whack-a-Mole provided enough additional detail on the lies on the radio that I concede the point. In fact, the transcript he provided was more damning than his summary of the event, with O'Donnell's reaction on being called out on her misstatement the kicker: she accuses the interviewer of being paid by her opponent.

In a state with three counties, I can't imagine a candidate doesn't remember whether he or she won or lost which county. I can remember how poorly or well I did on each of the last 18 holes of golf I played.

And while the specifics of the foreclosure accusation were wrong, the fact remains that her general financial shakiness is beyond dispute.

[BrainGlutton]

Just saw the clip of her on the Rachel show. She's a frigid sin-obsessed little god-botherer. She probably shows up at confession and the priest tells her to go get laid already.

By her own confession she drank and fornicated her way through college. Now she wants to tell the rest of us how to live.

Sounds like she's qualified to! :D

[New Deal Democrat]

Why are the cute ones always loons?

They flirt their way to the top. The only thing they've got going for them is looks. If they looked plain, they would be nowhere.

[Bricker]

Just saw the clip of her on the Rachel show. She's a frigid sin-obsessed little god-botherer. She probably shows up at confession and the priest tells her to go get laid already.

By her own confession she drank and fornicated her way through college. Now she wants to tell the rest of us how to live.

And?

Let's imagine a woman who is a heroin addict through her college years, supporting herself by prostitution.

Then she kicks her drug habit and works with a rehab facility, and goes on speaking tours warning people of the dangers of heroin and prostitution.

I don't imagine you would say of this woman, "By her own confession she shot horse and prostituted her way through college. Now she wants to tell the rest of us how to live," would you?

[New Deal Democrat]

Even if we cut out all spending except interest, SS, medicare, and the military we'd still have a deficit. The vast majority someone points to needed cutbacks in the name of budget balancing, it isn't in one of the above categories (although with regards to the first one, this is a good time as any to be running up a debt considering the interest rates the government needs to pay are so low!)

So unless the teabaggers propose cutting SS, medicare, or military spending, they don't believe in balancing the budget without raising taxes. If I were a candidate I'd ask them which one they want to cut.

Cutting taxes, and balancing the budget while maintain "a strong national defense" is a fantasy that has obsessed the Republican Party since 1980. It is the reason we are so badly in debt, and the reason Obama has few options in this economic downturn.

[Jas09]

And while the specifics of the foreclosure accusation were wrong, the fact remains that her general financial shakiness is beyond dispute.Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

[New Deal Democrat]

By her own confession she drank and fornicated her way through college. Now she wants to tell the rest of us how to live.

And?

Let's imagine a woman who is a heroin addict through her college years, supporting herself by prostitution.

Then she kicks her drug habit and works with a rehab facility, and goes on speaking tours warning people of the dangers of heroin and prostitution.

I don't imagine you would say of this woman, "By her own confession she shot horse and prostituted her way through college. Now she wants to tell the rest of us how to live," would you?

Even you would probably agree that masturbation, and looking at photos of naked ladies are less serious offenses than taking heroin and prostitution. If someone tells me that masturbating and enjoying tasteful photographs of beautiful nudes is morally wrong, that person had better have a clean record.

Christine O'Donnell does not strike me as a reformed alcoholic speaking in front of an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. She seems to be a sanctimonious and hypocritical joke.

[Bricker]

Christine O'Donnell does not strike me as a reformed alcoholic speaking in front of an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. She seems to be a sanctimonious and hypocritical joke.

Look up the word hypocritical.

"Sanctimonious," I agree is a fair description.

Even you would probably agree that masturbation, and looking at photos of naked ladies are less serious offenses than taking heroin and prostitution.

So how serious do the offenses have to be before someone can condemn them?

[elucidator]

At a certain point, habits that lead to vision impairment become a public health issue. We should consider witholding optometric treatment for chronic offenders.

[Strassia]

Christine O'Donnell does not strike me as a reformed alcoholic speaking in front of an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. She seems to be a sanctimonious and hypocritical joke.

Look up the word hypocritical.

"Sanctimonious," I agree is a fair description.

Even you would probably agree that masturbation, and looking at photos of naked ladies are less serious offenses than taking heroin and prostitution.

So how serious do the offenses have to be before someone can condemn them?

I would endorse the hypocritical label if I could find a real cite to her living with her boyfriend during her war on wacking period. All I can find are speculations and comments without any hard facts. Does anyone know anything about that?

[Sampiro]

oops

[Sampiro]

I'm still trying to process that a woman who believes that there are 'mice with human brains' actually got elected in a primary for a major seat. That alone, without anything else, without any personal scandals or paranoia or comments on masturbation or the scary people in the bushes or anything else, is enough to make you beg Ashton Kutcher to come out already and tell Castle "You've been PUNK'D!" Holy Christmas crackers.

[Sampiro]

Oh, and it's immoral to lie to Hitler.

O'DONNELL: A lie, whether it be a lie or an exaggeration, is disrespect to whoever you're exaggerating or lying to, because it's not respecting reality.

MAHER: Quite the opposite, it can be respect.

COMEDIAN EDDIE IZZARD: What if someone comes to you in the middle of the Second World War and says, 'do you have any Jewish people in your house?' and you do have them. That would be a lie. That would be disrespectful to Hitler....

O'DONNELL: I believe if I were in that situation, God would provide a way to do the right thing righteously. I believe that!

MAHER: God is not there. Hitler's there and you're there.

O'DONNELL: You never have to practice deception. God always provides a way out.

True. God always answers our prayers, it's just that sometimes his answer is "No" and sometimes it's wildly psychotic. He provided a way out for all the people in that scenario, it's just that for many the way out was through the smokestacks at the death camps. He works in mysterious ways. (Case in point: a woman who believes there are mouse people but they shouldn't lie to Hitler got elected in a senate primary.)

[Bricker]

I'm still trying to process that a woman who believes that there are 'mice with human brains' actually got elected in a primary for a major seat.


Alvin Greene for Senate. (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/13/alvin-greene-south-carolina-senate-candidate-indicted-on-obsce/)

[Raygun99]

No, that's a human with a mouse brain.

[Sampiro]

I'm still trying to process that a woman who believes that there are 'mice with human brains' actually got elected in a primary for a major seat.


Alvin Greene for Senate. (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/13/alvin-greene-south-carolina-senate-candidate-indicted-on-obsce/)

That links to an idiot who thinks with his dick. Nothing the least bit new about that; Gilgamesh is the oldest surviving written narrative and has at it's center a guy who thinks with his dick. The Old Testament- as full of dick thinkers as a Best of Real World video. There are some absolutely brilliant men who think with their dick sometimes, and a lot of real idiots as well, and most men being in between most dick thinkers are also in between.

This woman thinks there are mice with human brains. That is unique. There aren't a lot of people who not only are capable of thinking that but are willing to be filmed admitting to it.

Suppose you had a truth machine that made people you spoke to incapable of lying. If you were to go to a home for centenarian men, with your truth machine, and ask 10 men who are over 100 years of age "How many of you have done something really fucking stupid in your life because your dick told you to?", 8 out of 10 would say yes and closer examination would probably reveal the 9th and 10th had just had strokes. Ask a group of 100 men selected randomly from any Tudor-Stuart era Parliament, Simon Bolivar's bastard sons, Mussolini's Olympic athletes, from the audience of a 1960s Moody Blues concert or 100 men from a Larry the Cable Guy Audience "how many of you have done something really stupid because your dick told you to?", the majority are going to say yes. Granted it might not be Alvin Green stupid, but it's an occupational hazard of having testosterone.

On the other hand if you asked the exact same groups of men AND their wives "How many of you truly believe there are mice with fully functioning human brains?" I'd be astonished if you found even 1. If you went to a rave and asked a random sample of absolutely positively stoned off their ass high school kids "How many believe there are mice with fully functioning human brains?" I guarantee you that if any did, they'd still have sense enough to lie about it. If you asked a Sunday school class filled with Rhodes scholars the same question, they'd look at you like you'd just asked if they've ever stuck their finger up a dachshund's ass.

Christine O'Donnell's abilities at critical thinking or informed reasoning is unique in its minisculity. Set her at a chess board and she'd ultimately choke on two or more of the pieces. As evidenced by the fact that she believes there are mice with people brains, and that lying to Hitler is wrong, creationism is real, that masturbation should or could be discouraged and that there are mice with people brains (it bore repeating). Alvin Greene is just sleazy- you can find that on any street in America whether it's in Beverly Hills or the abandoned areas of Gary, Indiana, but you can't find a Christine O'Donnell except in Delaware and possibly in 2011 somewhere in D.C. shopping for an apartment without bushes.

[Beware of Doug]

They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains.No, that one is true (http://www.toplessrobot.com/pinky_brain.gif).And...much as The Fly took over a human form and left a human-headed fly behind...somewhere there must be a human with the brain of a mouse.

I wonnnnnnnder who it might be. :eek:

[BrainGlutton]

(Case in point: a woman who believes there are mouse people but they shouldn't lie to Hitler . . ..)

You mean the Maus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maus) people? I guess they'd lie to Hitler . . .

[sinjin]

Christine O'Donnell does not strike me as a reformed alcoholic speaking in front of an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. She seems to be a sanctimonious and hypocritical joke.

Look up the word hypocritical.

"Sanctimonious," I agree is a fair description.

Even you would probably agree that masturbation, and looking at photos of naked ladies are less serious offenses than taking heroin and prostitution.

So how serious do the offenses have to be before someone can condemn them?

Ummmm, since when is masturbation an offense? Same question about looking at pictures of naked ladies, assuming they are actual ladies of age? Do you condemn masturbation and looking at naked ladies? Should these acts be against the law, IYHO?

[elucidator]

And this just in....

A rumor your correspondent takes no responsibility for, and freely admits it may be just too juicy to be true, but he rushes in gleeful abandon to share, andif it turns out to be horseshit, well, I suck, too bad, sue me....

Chrsitine O'Donnell in 1999: "I Dabbled Into Witchcraft"

I swear, I am not making this up.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/18/christine-odonnell-witchcraft/

(Warning: luke-warm lefty site, you know the drill.)

[Chronos]

The other difference between O'Donnell and Greene is that Democrats everywhere have the sense to be embarrassed by Green, but there's a nationwide movement that's gleefully sending O'Donnell millions of dollars. What's scary about her isn't that she's an anomaly: What's scary is that apparently, she isn't.

[crowmanyclouds]

Oh, and it's immoral to lie to Hitler. ...The stupidity, in two (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFisw16di3w&feature=related) parts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTYtu4lSqfU&feature=related). :(

CMC fnord!

[gonzomax]

The other difference between O'Donnell and Greene is that Democrats everywhere have the sense to be embarrassed by Green, but there's a nationwide movement that's gleefully sending O'Donnell millions of dollars. What's scary about her isn't that she's an anomaly: What's scary is that apparently, she isn't.

The Dems did not want Greene. They have done nothing for him because they know he is an unqualified nut. The Repubs are starting to support their nut. They are backing her on news show too. Palin is pushing for her election too. Palin is the most important Repub in the country now. She has become the face of the party.

[Ca3799]

Crooks and Liars is asking if O'Donnell sold her soul to the devil when she was hanging out with witches and went on that date to the Satanic alter, as having sold her soul for political gain would explain her meteoric rise in politics. I think it's a good question....

[gonzomax]

She was slammed today for blowing off 2 Sunday morning talk shows , that she said she would attend. Even Fox was pissed because she chickened out.
Speculation is she has no answers for her witchcraft statements and is not ready for prime time. I would love to see her defend her weird statements of the past as well as her strange positions of today. I suppose Palin is teaching her how to handle the press. Palin already advised her to only speak to Fox. Can't risk going on a news show that might ask her questions.

[elucidator]

She has, apparently, sort of answered by wondering aloud if any of us didn't hang out with strange and unusual people in high school. Well, yes, of course.

[Chronos]

And now that I think about it, each and every one of my friends hung out with at least one strange and unusual person. Hmm....

[theR]

Oh, and it's immoral to lie to Hitler.

O'DONNELL: A lie, whether it be a lie or an exaggeration, is disrespect to whoever you're exaggerating or lying to, because it's not respecting reality.

MAHER: Quite the opposite, it can be respect.

COMEDIAN EDDIE IZZARD: What if someone comes to you in the middle of the Second World War and says, 'do you have any Jewish people in your house?' and you do have them. That would be a lie. That would be disrespectful to Hitler....

O'DONNELL: I believe if I were in that situation, God would provide a way to do the right thing righteously. I believe that!

MAHER: God is not there. Hitler's there and you're there.

O'DONNELL: You never have to practice deception. God always provides a way out.

True. God always answers our prayers, it's just that sometimes his answer is "No" and sometimes it's wildly psychotic. He provided a way out for all the people in that scenario, it's just that for many the way out was through the smokestacks at the death camps. He works in mysterious ways. (Case in point: a woman who believes there are mouse people but they shouldn't lie to Hitler got elected in a senate primary.)

That's an odd thing to say considering she has been lying about having a college degree for years. Her web site also says the delay in earning her degree was because of unpaid tuition but the university said her coursework wasn't completed until this year.

I wonder if, like her views on sex, she would say her views about lying have matured since she made those statement?

O'Donnell had long said she was a graduate of Fairleigh Dickinson, but she did not receive her degree until this month. While she says on her Web site that the delay was a result of the unpaid tuition, a campaign official told Politico earlier this month that she did not complete her coursework until this summer.

She seems to have some other troubles with ethics and the truth, so maybe she'll fit right in with the Senate if she wins.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/18/AR2010091803585_pf.html

[MPB in Salt Lake]

She seems to have some other troubles with ethics and the truth, so maybe she'll fit right in with the Senate if she wins.

:D

[Chronos]

Well, see, the Nazis never asked her about her degree, so she didn't have to tell the truth. She only tells the truth to Nazis because she respects them.

[Sam Stone]

Has it occured to any of you that O'Donnell may be part of a plot to make Sarah Palin look smart by comparison?

[Fear Itself]

Has it occured to any of you that O'Donnell may be part of a plot to make Sarah Palin look smart by comparison?Then they will find an even ditzier candidate to make O'Donnell look smart; pretty soon, the GOP will be Barbies all the way down.

[ShibbOleth]

Has it occured to any of you that O'Donnell may be part of a plot to make Sarah Palin look smart by comparison?

O'Donnell seems like she'd be more fun to drink a keg with. Maybe she'd forget that oral isn't procreational. From the clips I've seen of her old appearances, she seems like she may have been a lot of fun once upon a time. Palin is a bit too angular and uptight for my tastes.

[Starving Artist]

Same here. O'Donnell was a real cutie with a fun personality. Palin on the other hand is what I'd call a "handsome" woman: good features but little to no sex appeal. Angular and uptight is a good description.

[foolsguinea]

Has it occured to any of you that O'Donnell may be part of a plot to make Sarah Palin look smart by comparison?Then they will find an even ditzier candidate to make O'Donnell look smart; pretty soon, the GOP will be Barbies all the way down.This process has its roots in the 2000 nomination of George W. Bush. Not only have voters who prize intellect been statistically more likely to give up on the party since that point, but the party was already tilting toward empty flash.

[Starving Artist]

If you think that people base their votes for president on the perceived intellect of the candidates, you are waaay off base. If you're pro-union, pro-welfare, pro-big government and pro-"tax the (increasingly lower-defined) rich", you're going to vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever that is. You're not going to vote for a Republican simply because you think he is more intelligent. And the same works in reverse: if you're strong on individual responsiblity, a life lived free of government interference and think we already pay way too much in taxes, you're not going to vote for the Democratic candidate simply because you think he's more intelligent.

This is why political parties have platforms. You vote for whoever you think will try to accomplish what you want to see accomplished, and not someone who will do the exact opposite but with greater mental alacrity.

And besides, Bush isn't stupid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECI4QK_mXA&feature=related). [Point made at 0:45] :cool:

[DoctorJ]

I'm still trying to process that a woman who believes that there are 'mice with human brains' actually got elected in a primary for a major seat.


Alvin Greene for Senate. (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/13/alvin-greene-south-carolina-senate-candidate-indicted-on-obsce/)
In addition to what everyone else has said, the other big difference between Greene and O'Donnell is that Greene is cannon fodder. The most electable Dem in SC would have had his balls handed to him by DeMint, so it may as well have been someone like Green.

Similarly, it doesn't surprise me that O'Donnell ran against Joe Biden in his previous election, because no Republican really had a chance in that one, and they might as well put up a nutjob. But this time they had a chance--in fact, an almost sure chance if Castle had made it through the primary--and they still put O'D out there.

[Sam Stone]

When I saw that old picture of O'Donnell on Politically Incorrect I recognized her immediately. I used to watch that show faithfully, so I probably saw all 22 times she was on.

She struck me then as a complete airhead. The stuff that would come out of her mouth was just idiotic. She may have been 'fun', and I suppose she was cute, but as someone roughly on the same side of the fence as her, she used to just make me cringe whenever she opened her mouth.

Of course, she was quite young then - just out of college, I believe. So you can kind of forgive a certain amount of stupidity at that point in someone's life. But I wasn't much older at the time, and she still came across as a mediocre intellect at best.

I haven't followed the race in Delaware, and haven't heard her speak since then, but man... if she's still like that she's not exactly an asset to the tea party or to the Republicans.

Since I haven't heard her for 15 years or so I'll give her a chance, but if she's anything like she used to be, I won't be a fan.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

When I saw that old picture of O'Donnell on Politically Incorrect I recognized her immediately. I used to watch that show faithfully, so I probably saw all 22 times she was on....Since I haven't heard her for 15 years or so I'll give her a chance, but if she's anything like she used to be, I won't be a fan.

Politically Incorrect hasn't been on the air for 15 years? No, I think you've heard her speak more recently than that. And I hope you're not making excuses ("I'll give her a chance") to set up a change of heart ("She's a new woman! She usedta be dumb but now she's a super-genius!") because otherwise you sound refreshingly honest, Sam.

[Sam Stone]

It was that long ago. The clip where she said she dabbled in witchcraft was from 1997.

And no, I'm not trying to set up some kind of, "She's a changed woman!" angle. I'm just being fair. I haven't heard a word she's said in more than a decade, so I'll give her a chance - but I'm not expecting anything different.

[theR]

When I saw that old picture of O'Donnell on Politically Incorrect I recognized her immediately. I used to watch that show faithfully, so I probably saw all 22 times she was on....Since I haven't heard her for 15 years or so I'll give her a chance, but if she's anything like she used to be, I won't be a fan.

Politically Incorrect hasn't been on the air for 15 years? No, I think you've heard her speak more recently than that. And I hope you're not making excuses ("I'll give her a chance") to set up a change of heart ("She's a new woman! She usedta be dumb but now she's a super-genius!") because otherwise you sound refreshingly honest, Sam.

It aired from 1993 or 1994 (depending whether you believe Wikipedia or IMDB more) until 2002. His show now is called Real Time but is fairly similar in format.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

That was my point--that if Sam has seen all 22 appearances of C. O'D. on PI, and PI last aired in 2002 (and she'd been a regular guest, so I'd imagine she last appeared in 2002 or maybe 2001) it hasn't been 15 years since Sam last saw her--all I was suggestng that being close to 100% off on the last time he'd seen her sounded like he was setting up a "Ok, she USED to be crazy a long long time ago, but now she's a mainstream Pubbie and I support the New Christine 100%" type argument.

[BrainGlutton]

I think we can all agree, at this point, that Delaware is one Senate seat the GOP won't be picking up this midterm?

[Captain Amazing]

I think we can agree it's highly unlikely, while if Castle had won, a Republican pickup of the seat would have been highly likely.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'm still trying to process that a woman who believes that there are 'mice with human brains' actually got elected in a primary for a major seat.


Alvin Greene for Senate. (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/13/alvin-greene-south-carolina-senate-candidate-indicted-on-obsce/)
We have been desperately trying to explain away Alvin Greene via some kind of voter fraud.

I don't see anyone desperately trying to explain away Castle.

[BobLibDem]

That was my point--that if Sam has seen all 22 appearances of C. O'D. on PI, and PI last aired in 2002 (and she'd been a regular guest, so I'd imagine she last appeared in 2002 or maybe 2001) it hasn't been 15 years since Sam last saw her--all I was suggestng that being close to 100% off on the last time he'd seen her sounded like he was setting up a "Ok, she USED to be crazy a long long time ago, but now she's a mainstream Pubbie and I support the New Christine 100%" type argument.

If I understand the right wing logic, what Whacky Christine said herself in her youth is completely irrelevant. But Obama is responsible for "palling around with terrorists" based on what a peripheral acquaintance did when he was 8 years old.

[Sam Stone]

That was my point--that if Sam has seen all 22 appearances of C. O'D. on PI, and PI last aired in 2002 (and she'd been a regular guest, so I'd imagine she last appeared in 2002 or maybe 2001) it hasn't been 15 years since Sam last saw her--all I was suggestng that being close to 100% off on the last time he'd seen her sounded like he was setting up a "Ok, she USED to be crazy a long long time ago, but now she's a mainstream Pubbie and I support the New Christine 100%" type argument.

Oh, come on. I just picked that number out of the air. I figured it was that long ago based on where I used to live when I remembered watching her. Hey, if the last time she was on was ten years ago and not fifteen, mea culpa, I guess. If you think it's important to you.

Either way, I'll judge her based on what she says now. From what little I've heard in the last couple of days, it doesn't sound like much has changed. She's probably got some political experience and maybe knows to use her inside voice when uttering batshit looniness, but I don't think ten years can magically make you smart.

What I find more troubling, in fact, is that I've heard that she has a pattern of not paying her staff. That would elevate her from stupid to unethical. But I haven't got all the details on this yet.

By the way, if I was looking for some kind of 'out' to forgive her and start supporting her, why would I have posted these messages in the first place? Why would I volunteer that I found her to be excruciatingly stupid fifteen years ago? Have you mapped out some Machiavellian plot that you think I've got going on or something?

Rest assured, if I start supporting her for any reason, it will be because of an honest change in assessment, not because I was playing some game with you.

[gonzomax]

I don't even think a dead head righty like you can make that leap. She needs to be ignored.
She filters off campaign finances for personal use. So we don't have to worry about her going broke.
Even Fox turned on her a bit for a Sunday no show. She stood them and a news program up. I suppose she was provided with a campaign manager who stopped her before she could make a bigger fool of herself. Perhaps Palins old coach is available. He did not get much done with her though.

[Merijeek]

That was my point--that if Sam has seen all 22 appearances of C. O'D. on PI, and PI last aired in 2002 (and she'd been a regular guest, so I'd imagine she last appeared in 2002 or maybe 2001) it hasn't been 15 years since Sam last saw her--all I was suggestng that being close to 100% off on the last time he'd seen her sounded like he was setting up a "Ok, she USED to be crazy a long long time ago, but now she's a mainstream Pubbie and I support the New Christine 100%" type argument.

If I understand the right wing logic, what Whacky Christine said herself in her youth is completely irrelevant. But Obama is responsible for "palling around with terrorists" based on what a peripheral acquaintance did when he was 8 years old.

IOKIYAAR. Pretty sure it's engraved on the elephant somewhere.

-Joe

[gonzomax]

Alvin Greene for Senate. (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/13/alvin-greene-south-carolina-senate-candidate-indicted-on-obsce/)
We have been desperately trying to explain away Alvin Greene via some kind of voter fraud.

I don't see anyone desperately trying to explain away Castle.

Like STONE will demonstrate in this thread, they will try to minimize her statements as youthful errors. They will pretend she has grown past that and has become a reasonable candidate. That will be a hard sell. (maybe soft sell since she is against masturbation).

[newcomer]

It’s always interesting how easily discussion about politics that should be all about economics gets all steamrolled by politics of emotion – masturbation, abortion, witchcraft.

Did she really run on this platform?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Who cares what platform she ran on? The voting public cares about such laughably unimportant issues as whether a candidate wears an American flag lapel pin at all times. Do you really think they're uninterested in whether a candidate is a total loon?

[MPB in Salt Lake]

Politics of emotion – masturbation, abortion, witchcraft.

This would be a great name for Andy Dick's autobiography.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

if the last time she was on was ten years ago and not fifteen, mea culpa, I guess. If you think it's important to you....


Rest assured, if I start supporting her for any reason, it will be because of an honest change in assessment, not because I was playing some game with you.

Well, actually, 8 or 9 years ago, but who's counting? It was a small point, but it stuck out because you were specifying a time frame that (in the same post) you were contradicting, and I was wondering if there were any larger significance. If you say there's not, then I'll take your word for it. I saw most of her appearances on Maher's show, too (and I would have to guess that I last saw her more recently than 2002, so I would have made a bigger error than you in the opposite direction) and she emerged as a loony figure of fun for Mahar to mock and deride. I'd have placed her decades if not lifetimes away from being a serious candidate for a major public office, an airhead, a ninny, a silly babbling incoherent nutbag.

[Chronos]

It’s always interesting how easily discussion about politics that should be all about economics gets all steamrolled by politics of emotion – masturbation, abortion, witchcraft.

Did she really run on this platform? No, the platform she's running on is "Send me money!".

[newcomer]

Who cares what platform she ran on? The voting public cares about such laughably unimportant issues as whether a candidate wears an American flag lapel pin at all times. Do you really think they're uninterested in whether a candidate is a total loon? Do you think that media can portrait anyone as a loon? And I mean, anyone.

Example? Ron Paul.

[BrainGlutton]

It’s always interesting how easily discussion about politics that should be all about economics gets all steamrolled by politics of emotion – masturbation, abortion, witchcraft.

Did she really run on this platform?

I dunno, but it sounds like a winner! :)

[BrainGlutton]

Who cares what platform she ran on? The voting public cares about such laughably unimportant issues as whether a candidate wears an American flag lapel pin at all times. Do you really think they're uninterested in whether a candidate is a total loon? Do you think that media can portrait anyone as a loon? And I mean, anyone.

Example? Ron Paul.

Yes, he's a pretty good example of a loon -- but not a patch on O'Donnell.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Who cares what platform she ran on? The voting public cares about such laughably unimportant issues as whether a candidate wears an American flag lapel pin at all times. Do you really think they're uninterested in whether a candidate is a total loon? Do you think that media can portrait anyone as a loon? And I mean, anyone.

Example? Ron Paul.
You mean the Ron Paul who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, start issuing letters of marque, and thinks the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional?

[newcomer]

It’s always interesting how easily discussion about politics that should be all about economics gets all steamrolled by politics of emotion – masturbation, abortion, witchcraft.

Did she really run on this platform?

I dunno, but it sounds like a winner! :) But, seriously, every time someone appears on the scene you can be sure that everything from their past and their shoes will be turned and tumbled in the best journalistic tradition of Enquirer. And, worse than that, people will drink it and swallow it to fulfill the individual need of feeling better for another day. All the while, all those who are FOR masturbation and FOR abortion and FOR ________ (fill-in at your pleasure), exactly those who play up your individual dignities are taking your every dime and then some and drop it on you.

Yes, some are “tea-bagging”, but vast majority of people are getting the “golden shower” and love it.

[gonzomax]

O'Donnell went on Fox last night and announced she would not do any national news shows. She will attend town meetings and go to every church picnic she can.
Gee , i wonder why she wants to avoid the news shows. Couldn't be because Palin failed so miserably , could it? Or could it be because she does not have a clue?
This morn her people announced that the fact that she used campaign money for her personal use is fine because she intended to run a couple years later. And the accusations are being made by leftys so it can not possibly be true.
I don't think she will go back on Maher.

[rivulus]

So how about the whole "bearded Marxist (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36726.html)" flap for Coons? Does O'Donnell have a chance now that the American public knows Coons once self-labeled (albeit firmly tongue in cheek) as a Marxist?

[DigitalC]

No, she's about 16 points behind according to recent polls.

[gonzomax]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/30/christine-odonnell-on-god_n_744658.html It is over. O'Donnell can not lose. God, who you might think is pretty busy, is actually guiding the trajectory of her campaign. How can she lose? The 16 point gap is man's analysis, not gods.

[BobLibDem]

I still think it will take an extraordinary effort to beat her. Lord knows, she isn't going to beat herself.

[kaylasdad99]

Nice.

[Wheelz]

O'Donnell went on Fox last night and announced she would not do any national news shows. To be fair, though, why should she? This is a state election, not a national one.

[Really Not All That Bright]

It's a national office.

[gonzomax]

I love her last ad explaining she is not a witch. Also that she is not a politician. Of course she ran for senate twice. She was a media consultant in 2003-4. She was a press secretary for a Concerned Citizen right wing group. She was a consultant for Women for America and a consultant for The Rep. National Comm. Nope she is not a politician. She is you. She has no understanding of the truth.

[Chronos]

Wait, she actually ran an ad saying that she's not a witch? Anyone have a link? Because that just may possibly be the most politically inept thing I've ever heard of. The only effect that's going to have is to associate "Christine O'Donnell" with "witchcraft" in the minds of her supporters (you know, the folks for whom that would be a Very Big Deal).

[Kolga]

Knock yourself out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxJyPsmEask). It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Well, maybe not, but it's still pretty dumb.

[Wheelz]

I'm not a witch.Okay, whatever. I believe you.

I'm you.Oh, HELL no!! Now I'm offended!

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Wait, she actually ran an ad saying that she's not a witch? Anyone have a link? Because that just may possibly be the most politically inept thing I've ever heard of.

I loved Eugene Robinson's take on it. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43137.html

She looks like she might be a witch. And anytime you have to start a new ad and say, ‘I’m not a witch,’ that is not a good day.

For anyone who hasn't watched the ad, she's wearing very dark colored clothing, looks extremely pale, and is standing in front of a black backdrop with what appears might be a bubbling cauldron behind her. So he's not just being mean to her, she does look like she might be a witch in the ad.

[Fear Itself]

30 odd years ago, Richard Nixon felt compelled to explain, "I am not a crook". Now candidates have to say, "I am not a witch." We are truly slouching toward Idiocracy.

[Kolga]

Personally, I like this take on it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjn6RoJBkmQ&feature=player_embedded)

[BrainGlutton]

It just gets better: (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkpoint-washington/2010/10/does_christine_odonnell_know_s.html)

In a 2006 debate, Christine O'Donnell, the Republican Senate nominee from Delaware, claimed that she had classified information about China's plans to take over America.

The remarks sound like they're straight out of "Red Dawn," the upcoming movie about China's takeover of the United States. Only O'Donnell wasn't just saying her lines.

According to an Associated Press report on Monday, the candidate, who lost in her 2006 primary bid for the Senate, said China had a "carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America." Responding to an opponent who said that working with China was in U.S. interests, O'Donnell countered: "That doesn't work," she said. "There's much I want to say. I wish I wasn't privy to some of the classified information that I am privy to."

She then goes on to cast various slurs on China, most of them provably false. But, as O'Donnell has never yet held any public office (despite several campaigns), where does she get classified information?

Christine, if you don't want people thinking you're a witch, this is not the way to go about it.

[Leaper]

And the guy she was debating was of Chinese ancestry!

[Chefguy]

She's debating Coons this evening, which ought to be good for a laugh. She's already been discredited, but I hope he delivers the coup de grace.

[BrainGlutton]

I dunno, but it sounds like a winner! :) But, seriously, every time someone appears on the scene you can be sure that everything from their past and their shoes will be turned and tumbled in the best journalistic tradition of Enquirer. And, worse than that, people will drink it and swallow it to fulfill the individual need of feeling better for another day. All the while, all those who are FOR masturbation and FOR abortion and FOR ________ (fill-in at your pleasure), exactly those who play up your individual dignities are taking your every dime and then some and drop it on you.

Yes, some are “tea-bagging”, but vast majority of people are getting the “golden shower” and love it.

Did this make sense in your head, before you posted it?

[Chefguy]

Wow. That was a revelation. The woman is a scatterbrain and a true Palin clone. Coons is well-spoken and stuck to the topic at hand. O'Donnell was all over the place. I had to laugh at "lock step and barrel", though.

[Peremensoe]

For anyone who hasn't watched the ad, she's wearing very dark colored clothing, looks extremely pale, and is standing in front of a black backdrop with what appears might be a bubbling cauldron behind her. So he's not just being mean to her, she does look like she might be a witch in the ad.

Here's the other version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mUn2c_PKho). Too much?

[Snowboarder Bo]

If someone posts the debate online, I hope a Doper will link it. I really wanted to see this one, but I was at work on the west coast when it happened.

[Peremensoe]

Delaware Senate Debate 10/13/10 Part 1 - Christine O'Donnell & Chris Coons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKdJi5G-vEA)
Delaware Senate Debate 10/13/10 Part 2 - Christine O'Donnell & Chris Coons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__iAZtnM_gY)

[BrainGlutton]

For anyone who hasn't watched the ad, she's wearing very dark colored clothing, looks extremely pale, and is standing in front of a black backdrop with what appears might be a bubbling cauldron behind her. So he's not just being mean to her, she does look like she might be a witch in the ad.

Is that her nose, or a false one?

[Snowboarder Bo]

thanks spark240

[Snowboarder Bo]

I liked how she referred to "letting the tax cuts expire on the so-called rich".

Honey, anyone with that kind of money isn't so-called rich. They are rich.

[Merijeek]

I liked how she referred to "letting the tax cuts expire on the so-called rich".

Honey, anyone with that kind of money isn't so-called rich. They are rich.

Not compared to the super rich! Hah!

-Joe

[Starving Artist]

Wow. That was a revelation. The woman is a scatterbrain and a true Palin clone. Coons is well-spoken and stuck to the topic at hand. O'Donnell was all over the place. I had to laugh at "lock step and barrel", though.Surprisingly, it appears that this idiom has been around for a while. Cite (http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=208)

Note that several times the term is used to disparage conservatives:

"Like their conservative counterparts they expect all Democrats to follow the liberal line, lock, step, and barrel."

"The Bush administration is in lock-step-and barrel with the oil industry."

"That is interesting and it points to how many of the congregants of these
megachurches aren’t always lock, step and barrel behind their “spiritual leaders."

:D

So in that context it isn't surprising that that little hott...uh, I mean it isn't surprising that O'Donnell picked it up somewhere along the way.

[Snowboarder Bo]

She made 2 claims that I'd like checked for fact. I did a little googling, but it's possible I missed something, since this isn't a race that I've been researching extensively for weeks like the Nevada senate race.

1) She said that unemployment doubled in 2 years under Coons, and when challenged, said she got the stats from the US Dept. of Labor and that they would be up on her website by tomorrow (14 Oct).

2) She said that the $11,000 tax lien from the IRS was gone and that the IRS admitted it was a computer error. I cannot find any evidence online that the IRS made this admission.

[Starving Artist]

2) She said that the $11,000 tax lien from the IRS was gone and that the IRS admitted it was a computer error. I cannot find any evidence online that the IRS made this admission.Why would it? When's the last time you've seen an internet posting by the IRS saying that it had screwed up on some taxpayer's taxes and that they didn't owe money after all?

[Snowboarder Bo]

We fought the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s and 1990s? We did? :smack: How did I miss that?

[Snowboarder Bo]

2) She said that the $11,000 tax lien from the IRS was gone and that the IRS admitted it was a computer error. I cannot find any evidence online that the IRS made this admission.Why would it? When's the last time you've seen an internet posting by the IRS saying that it had screwed up on some taxpayer's taxes and that they didn't owe money after all?

She made the claim that the IRS admitted their error. Where? When? To whom? Why can't I find evidence of it?

[Starving Artist]

Why would it? When's the last time you've seen an internet posting by the IRS saying that it had screwed up on some taxpayer's taxes and that they didn't owe money after all?

She made the claim that the IRS admitted their error. Where? When? To whom? Why can't I find evidence of it?Assuming that she's telling the truth, they probably acknowledged it during a phone call or by private letter.

Plus I would think that a U.S. senatorial candidate baldfacedly lying about IRS actions with regard to her taxes would be a serious enough offense for the IRS to have one of its officials step forward to refute her claims.

[Snowboarder Bo]

She made the claim that the IRS admitted their error. Where? When? To whom? Why can't I find evidence of it?Assuming that she's telling the truth, they probably acknowledged it during a phone call or by private letter.

Plus I would think that a U.S. senatorial candidate baldfacedly lying about IRS actions with regard to her taxes would be a serious enough offense for the IRS to have one of its officials step forward to refute her claims.

In other words, you have nothing.

[Snowboarder Bo]

She made the claim that the IRS admitted their error. Where? When? To whom? Why can't I find evidence of it?Assuming that she's telling the truth, they probably acknowledged it during a phone call or by private letter.

Plus I would think that a U.S. senatorial candidate baldfacedly lying about IRS actions with regard to her taxes would be a serious enough offense for the IRS to have one of its officials step forward to refute her claims.

Why would you assume she's telling the truth now when she's lied about both the tax lien and her mortgage problems before (http://www.delawaretomorrow.com/christine-odonnell-errors-mistakes-smears-and-thug-politics/)?

[Starving Artist]

In other words, you have nothing. No, YOU have nothing! :D

I simply described how that likely came to be.

Why would you assume she's telling the truth now when she's lied about both the tax lien and her mortgage problems before?Who said I'm assuming anything? All I did was offer a likely explanation as to why you couldn't find an IRS admission online stating that they'd made a mistake on her taxes.

[Snowboarder Bo]

In other words, you have nothing. No, YOU have nothing! :D

I simply described how that likely came to be.

What is your evidence for "likely"?

Why would you assume she's telling the truth now when she's lied about both the tax lien and her mortgage problems before?Who said I'm assuming anything? All I did was offer a likely explanation as to why you couldn't find an IRS admission online stating that they'd made a mistake on her taxes.

You said you were assuming she was telling the truth.

Assuming that she's telling the truth, they probably acknowledged it during a phone call or by private letter.

Why would you assume that, when she already lied about it in the past?

[Peremensoe]

We fought the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s and 1990s? We did? :smack: How did I miss that?

Well, in the 1980s anyway, by proxy.

[DxZero]

I don't know that the IRS can or is even legally allowed to comment on a previous legal matter like that, whether to refute or support O'Donnell's statements. Have they done it before?

[Snowboarder Bo]

We fought the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s and 1990s? We did? :smack: How did I miss that?

Well, in the 1980s anyway, by proxy.

She specifically said we fought the Soviets during those times, is the point. She doesn't have a good grasp of recent history.

[Starving Artist]

What is your evidence for "likely"?:rolleyes:

You said you were assuming she was telling the truth.No, I didn't. I suggested that if one were to assume that she's telling the truth, the likely explanation to your not being able to find evidence of it on the internet was that the IRS had not posted it to the internet.

[Robot Arm]

Assuming that she's telling the truth, they probably acknowledged it during a phone call or by private letter.On her website is a section titled Christine Counters (http://www.christine2010.com/counters), in which she claims to refute the charges against her.

Regarding the IRS lien is a link to this transcript (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/54514047/IRS-Call-Transcription) of a telephone call with an IRS agent. In the call the agent says the letter was sent to her automatically by a computer, but does not say that it was in error.

Doesn't anybody around here research these things anymore?

[Starving Artist]

Was I supposed to research it?

[Robot Arm]

Well, instead of talking about assumptions and probablies, some people might be interested in what actually happened.

This election isn't just a hypothetical exercise.

[Captain Midnight]

Does anyone here think that Chrisintine O'Donnell is really beutiful and would like to have sex with her? I would. I think she's gorgeous. I've said it before.

She's unmarried. I wonder if any lucky man gets to tap that ass? I am sure her office fields hundreds of weirdoes like me who wants to marry her or worse.

[Robot Arm]

Does anyone here think that Chrisintine O'Donnell is really beutiful and would like to have sex with her? I would. I think she's gorgeous. I've said it before.No. I can certainly see how someone else could have that opinion, but she just doesn't do it for me. Eye of the beholder, and all that.

I don't know how I'd cope with the cognitive dissonance of a politician who I thought was manifestly unqualified but also drop-dead gorgeous.

[Starving Artist]

Does anyone here think that Chrisintine O'Donnell is really beutiful and would like to have sex with her? I would. I think she's gorgeous. I've said it before.

She's unmarried. I wonder if any lucky man gets to tap that ass? I am sure her office fields hundreds of weirdoes like me who wants to marry her or worse.She's a cutie.

[DigitalC]

It's the Sarah Palin syndrome, compared against other female politicians she's drop dead gorgeous. Compared to regular women she's merely average.

[BobLibDem]

Does anyone here think that Chrisintine O'Donnell is really beutiful and would like to have sex with her? I would. I think she's gorgeous. I've said it before.

She's unmarried. I wonder if any lucky man gets to tap that ass? I am sure her office fields hundreds of weirdoes like me who wants to marry her or worse.


Since she doesn't believe in either premarital sex or masturbation, there's a good chance she has never known pleasure. On the plus side, she'd be in no position to critique your technique or the result.

[Snowboarder Bo]

What is your evidence for "likely"?:rolleyes:

You said you were assuming she was telling the truth.No, I didn't. I suggested that if one were to assume that she's telling the truth, the likely explanation to your not being able to find evidence of it on the internet was that the IRS had not posted it to the internet.

Again: why would you (or anyone) assume that she is telling the truth now, when it's a known fact that she's lied about this in the past?

[rocking chair]

Does anyone here think that Chrisintine O'Donnell is really beutiful and would like to have sex with her? I would. I think she's gorgeous. I've said it before.

She's unmarried. I wonder if any lucky man gets to tap that ass? I am sure her office fields hundreds of weirdoes like me who wants to marry her or worse.


Since she doesn't believe in either premarital sex or masturbation, there's a good chance she has never known pleasure. On the plus side, she'd be in no position to critique your technique or the result.

she dabbled in sexuality before she decided against it.

[Chefguy]

Wow. That was a revelation. The woman is a scatterbrain and a true Palin clone. Coons is well-spoken and stuck to the topic at hand. O'Donnell was all over the place. I had to laugh at "lock step and barrel", though.Surprisingly, it appears that this idiom has been around for a while. Cite (http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=208)

Note that several times the term is used to disparage conservatives:

"Like their conservative counterparts they expect all Democrats to follow the liberal line, lock, step, and barrel."

"The Bush administration is in lock-step-and barrel with the oil industry."

"That is interesting and it points to how many of the congregants of these
megachurches aren’t always lock, step and barrel behind their “spiritual leaders."

:D

So in that context it isn't surprising that that little hott...uh, I mean it isn't surprising that O'Donnell picked it up somewhere along the way.

Damn. . .There are a lot of malapropisms out there, but I'd never heard that one until now. It doesn't even make any sense when said that way, and totally disregards it's origins.

[Merijeek]

Why would it? When's the last time you've seen an internet posting by the IRS saying that it had screwed up on some taxpayer's taxes and that they didn't owe money after all?

She made the claim that the IRS admitted their error. Where? When? To whom? Why can't I find evidence of it?

Umm...hello? IRS=Government. Government=Never Right.

Therefore, it's a completely tautology. You going to argue with 1 < 2 next?

-Joe

[StusBlues]

Does anyone here think that Chrisintine O'Donnell is really beutiful and would like to have sex with her? I would. I think she's gorgeous. I've said it before.

She's unmarried. I wonder if any lucky man gets to tap that ass? I am sure her office fields hundreds of weirdoes like me who wants to marry her or worse.

It is a little weird that she hasn't been married. Usually women with her ideology marry relatively early. I was in a Baptist Bible Study in college; one of the weird characteristics of the group was that couples in the group would marry before most of their friends knew they were dating. Then again, I recently met a conservative christian who was still "saving herself" at age 30, so I guess Ms. O'Donnell is not alone.

[joebuck20]

Does anyone here think that Chrisintine O'Donnell is really beutiful and would like to have sex with her? I would. I think she's gorgeous. I've said it before.

She's unmarried. I wonder if any lucky man gets to tap that ass? I am sure her office fields hundreds of weirdoes like me who wants to marry her or worse.

I'd do her. But then again I'd also do Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Any women that nutty have to be wild in the sack.

[joebuck20]

Does anyone here think that Chrisintine O'Donnell is really beutiful and would like to have sex with her? I would. I think she's gorgeous. I've said it before.

She's unmarried. I wonder if any lucky man gets to tap that ass? I am sure her office fields hundreds of weirdoes like me who wants to marry her or worse.


Since she doesn't believe in either premarital sex or masturbation, there's a good chance she has never known pleasure. On the plus side, she'd be in no position to critique your technique or the result.

I wouldn't be so sure about that:

http://gawker.com/5663084/meet-the-men-who-have-sleepovers-with-christine-odonnell?skyline=true&s=i

Neighbors couldn't help but note, for a candidate who's been so vocally opposed to any pre-marital sexual activity, O'Donnell had frequent overnight visits from her boyfriend Brent [Vasher], a Philadelphia attorney who bought her house just before it went into foreclosure and still owns it to this day...Most gallingly, in the neighbor's view, O'Donnell had frequent visitors, "and the walls upstairs are very thin."

And

She shares the combined home/headquarters with campaign staffer David Hust, a heavy-set Christian rocker with a pudding-cup beard and no previous political experience listed online.

[Chefguy]

Neighbors couldn't help but note, for a candidate who's been so vocally opposed to any pre-marital sexual activity, O'Donnell had frequent overnight visits from her boyfriend Brent [Vasher], a Philadelphia attorney who bought her house just before it went into foreclosure and still owns it to this day...Most gallingly, in the neighbor's view, O'Donnell had frequent visitors, "and the walls upstairs are very thin."

Ah, so she's a screamer, then?

[Procrustus]

Does anyone here think that Chrisintine O'Donnell is really beutiful and would like to have sex with her? I would. I think she's gorgeous. I've said it before.

She's unmarried. I wonder if any lucky man gets to tap that ass? I am sure her office fields hundreds of weirdoes like me who wants to marry her or worse.

I can see wanting to have sex with her, but I can't imagine anything worse than marrying her.

[BobLibDem]

Does anyone here think that Chrisintine O'Donnell is really beutiful and would like to have sex with her? I would. I think she's gorgeous. I've said it before.

She's unmarried. I wonder if any lucky man gets to tap that ass? I am sure her office fields hundreds of weirdoes like me who wants to marry her or worse.

I can see wanting to have sex with her, but I can't imagine anything worse than marrying her.

I bet divorcing her wouldn't be a picnic, either.

[Really Not All That Bright]

She might turn you into a newt.

[StusBlues]

She might turn you into a newt.

You'd get better.

[Snowboarder Bo]

What is your evidence for "likely"?:rolleyes:

You said you were assuming she was telling the truth.No, I didn't. I suggested that if one were to assume that she's telling the truth, the likely explanation to your not being able to find evidence of it on the internet was that the IRS had not posted it to the internet.

No, you didn't. You're lying. You are now adding qualifiers not present (or implied) in your initial post, in order to distance yourself from unsupported assertions you made.

Just like O'Donell has done. I notice that she has not posted the Dept. of Labor stats she claimed she had and would have up on her website by today. Frankly, seeing as how she has a history of making shit up and lying about it (China takeover, anyone?), I doubt these stats exist at all except in her mind.

[Merijeek]

Does anyone here think that Chrisintine O'Donnell is really beutiful and would like to have sex with her? I would. I think she's gorgeous. I've said it before.

She's unmarried. I wonder if any lucky man gets to tap that ass? I am sure her office fields hundreds of weirdoes like me who wants to marry her or worse.

I can see wanting to have sex with her, but I can't imagine anything worse than marrying her.

How about electing her, Sparky?

-Joe

[Jas09]

I notice that she has not posted the Dept. of Labor stats she claimed she had and would have up on her website by today. Frankly, seeing as how she has a history of making shit up and lying about it (China takeover, anyone?), I doubt these stats exist at all except in her mind.Clearly the problem is that the statistics are classified.

[Chefguy]

I notice that she has not posted the Dept. of Labor stats she claimed she had and would have up on her website by today. Frankly, seeing as how she has a history of making shit up and lying about it (China takeover, anyone?), I doubt these stats exist at all except in her mind.Clearly the problem is that the statistics are classified.

When that little tidbit came up about China, I told my wife: If she saw it, then it wasn't classified.

[River Hippie]

Does anyone here think that Chrisintine O'Donnell is really beutiful and would like to have sex with her? I would. I think she's gorgeous. I've said it before.

She's unmarried. I wonder if any lucky man gets to tap that ass? I am sure her office fields hundreds of weirdoes like me who wants to marry her or worse.

I do not.


Link (http://gawker.com/5663084/meet-the-men-who-have-sleepovers-with-christine-odonnell)

Oh....see now someone beat me to it.

[BigT]

It's the Sarah Palin syndrome, compared against other female politicians she's drop dead gorgeous. Compared to regular women she's merely average.

I think she even kinda looks like a younger Palin.

I also think that, for her age, she's rather pretty, even if in a more girl-next-door way. She reminds me somewhat of this older woman who has seemed to have a crush on me for quite a while. Something about their face makes them seem younger than they are.

[Fear Itself]

Most unfortunate headline of the campaign:

Obama Stumps for Coons in Delaware (http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Business/20101015/16029425/Obama-Stumps-for-Coons-in-Delaware-to-lsquo.htm)

[gonzomax]

O'Donnell is getting so ridiculous that she is even losing her fuckability factor. Nothing attractive about gross stupidity.
You almost feel sorry for her when she speaks. I feel myself pulling for her to get something right or at least not embarrass herself.

[Icerigger]

It's funny, you brag about being a virgin in your 30s, but take a job talking about sex and all it's evils.

[gonzomax]

Most unfortunate headline of the campaign:

Obama Stumps for Coons in Delaware (http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Business/20101015/16029425/Obama-Stumps-for-Coons-in-Delaware-to-lsquo.htm)

Many years ago the Detroit Free press ran an article about a new principal in a Detroit High School. He said he was going to concentrate heavily on cleaning the school, repainting and shining the floors. They ran a picture of the black mans face with a headline. "School has a New Shine". Where was the proofreader?
Bart. Colon struck out 15 Tigers in a baseball game hamstringing the offense. The headline"Wiffs of Colon Smothers Tiger Offense'. That one I liked.

[rocking chair]

things would be much more interesting if mr coons would just chant "witch!witch!" every now and again in these debates.

today there is a radio debate that is just like listening to the first 15 minutes of the view. voices jumbled over each other and no one in charge.

[Merijeek]

things would be much more interesting if mr coons would just chant "witch!witch!" every now and again in these debates.

today there is a radio debate that is just like listening to the first 15 minutes of the view. voices jumbled over each other and no one in charge.

Coons: Brarkjlkjsdflksdjfgnmbh!

Coons: She MADE ME SAY THAT!

-Joe

[conway]

Christine - suprised to find separation of church and state in the First Amendment. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gZ1QQxkvUw15IjhGIveoszz67aIA?docId=612ea91debdb4492bfb5af83baa68cc0)

[gonzomax]

Christine - suprised to find separation of church and state in the First Amendment. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gZ1QQxkvUw15IjhGIveoszz67aIA?docId=612ea91debdb4492bfb5af83baa68cc0)

Just another Tea Bagger running to promote stupidity and ignorance. I pity a country that will elect these fools.
How can she be qualified to be senator?

[Bricker]

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.


See, clearly she's displaying her incisive analysis of First Amendment law here, by pointing out that while the Constitution does bar Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, it does not mandate an exclusion of religion from the public sphere, and that "separation of church and state" is a phrase that does not appear in the Constitution. She's obviously well aware that the Constitution bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Or... uh... maybe not.

Sheesh. What an idiot.

[Bricker]

I think it would be fantastic for the GOP to take back the Senate. I think the country needs this.

But if I were a Delaware resident, and the GOP and 49 seats and this was the last one on the line, I would vote for Coons. Even if I knew I somehow had the deciding vote, I would vote for Coons.

[SmartAleq]

Christine - suprised to find separation of church and state in the First Amendment. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gZ1QQxkvUw15IjhGIveoszz67aIA?docId=612ea91debdb4492bfb5af83baa68cc0)

It's even better in video. (http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002765/)

I find the howls of incredulous laughter from the audience to be quite encouraging. I also applaud the restraint of Mr Coons, because I think I would not have been able to take his high road when presented with such arrant ignorance and would have immediately begun channeling Dan Aykroyd's usual response to Jane Curtin.

[rocking chair]

some one needs to take a trip just a wee bit north and perhaps visit the constitution centre.

when you state that you will make all your decisions as senator according to the constitution, it would help to know what is in the constitution.

they give you a copy of it as well as a nifty wrist band when you visit, perhaps you could go to the gift shop and get a nifty copy in a frame.

[Starving Artist]

when you state that you will make all your decisions as senator according to the constitution, it would help to know what is in the constitution. Is it your belief that all congressional candidates should be constitutional scholars?

There's plenty of time to learn about all that once you've been elected. (And don't laugh. There's no way for a presidential candidate to know everything he'll need to learn about the Constitution and other laws once he's in office either, and his is clearly a much bigger and more important job.)

[rocking chair]

perhaps just those who stress that the constitution guides their judgement, like ms o'donnell. she has said that the consitution will guide her votes in senate, not her religion.

it now seems that she may not have read it. she not only had trouble with the first amendment but others as well.

if she wants to rely on the constitution perhaps she should carry a copy of it like mr. kucinich.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Is it your belief that all congressional candidates should be constitutional scholars?

I personally believe that all congressional candidates should have at least the passing familiarity with the Constitution one would expect from a typical ninth-grader.

If that seems overly strict, well, the Turnip is a harsh mistress.

[Raygun99]

If someone were to tell you they were going to base their decision making according to, for example, Sun Tzu's The Art of War, then when you asked them what that book said, they were unable to tell you, wouldn't you find their decision making process a little suspect?

[rocking chair]

exactly, raygun99!

i don't think that the turnip is a harsh mistress. just a correct and highly logical one.

ms o'donnell every time i see or hear her has only cemented the theory that she is a dabbler. she hasn't found her niche or place in life yet and goes from thing to thing, idea to idea. she also seems to rely on what she is told and doesn't seem to investigate things on her own.

[Chronos]

I can understand not remembering if it was the 20th or 21st amendment which ended Prohibition. But not knowing which amendment is the separation of church and state? That's inexcusable for someone claiming to be politically active.