Hey, SA: quick question. How many people voted for Caroline Kennedy over the course of her entire political career?
Answer:
Zero.
How do you think that sort of support compares to the support generated by Christine O’Donnell.
I think, with regard to the tea “party,” the Republican party is trying to save its cake and eat it too. To the degree that they’re mostly anti-Democrat, they’re a an extension of Republican ideology and recognized as a party. To the extent that they challenge some Republicans, and have some problematic candidates, they’re a group of individual candidates, and they’ll be renounced only on a case-by-case basis.
As to what the party really represents? It seems to me that it’s just a vague notion that suddenly, after 2008, the country for some reason started going to hell in a hand basket. At least, that seems to be the most common denominator in the rhetoric of its adherents, and I think they prefer that stay somewhat amorphous, in order to have the largest apparent base. It’s really not much more than the same old “We’re not Washington insiders!” trope, and when they get in office, they’ll probably just become Republicans, for all practical purposes.
I don’t think they are that smart, I don’t think they will grasp the whole “go along to get along” concept that is the bedrock of any representative democracy. They didn’t run to compromise, they weren’t elected to compromise, and…the biggie!..they see themselves as the wave of the future, they see themselves as the silent majority finally come unto their own.
You can’t be serious! No one voted for her because she never ran in an actual election. She simply assumed Paterson was going to appoint her to office because of who she is and who her relatives were. Once she found herself actually having to answer questions and speak to what she would do once she found herself in office, she was found to be holding an empty sack.
Now let me ask you a quick question: What does the fact that no one ever voted for Caroline Kennedy have to do with the fact that Christine O’Donnell has shown herself to be by far the more eloquent of the two?..which is what I said to begin with?
That is, in fact, precisely my point. You’re attempting to defend a moderately successful conservative candidate by comparing her to a political non-entity who was laughed off of the national stage before she got her name anywhere near a ballot. Sure, O’Donnell is more eloquent than Kennedy. She’s also better dressed than the homeless guys I walk past in the city everyday. What’s that supposed to prove?
It’s supposed to prove that she doesn’t deserve to be portrayed as being too stupid to know what she’s talking about when she uses words like “emanations” and “penumbras”, and that the people trying to portray her that way are hypocrites unless they were even more insulting of Caroline Kennedy’s intelligence during the time she was under consideration for Hillary Clinton’s senatorship. And to the best of my recollection none were.
I’ve said before that I’m not particularly a fan of O’Donnell’s, and I’m not defending her because I think she’d make a great politician. But I do think that if people are going to criticize her, they should do it for legitimate reasons and not just point and go “Hey, guys, she’s really dum…hur, hur.”
Would you settle for “nut job?”
She is not the weakest and easiest Tea Bagger to make fun of. We have Angle, Palin , Robinson, Paladino, Bachmann and a few others. She is not even top shelf. This is what the Tea Party is, a collection of crazies without a clue . They are candidates who have to be locked up in rooms away from the press to keep them from showing what they are. They spend their time on Fox ,hiding from the news stations.
Maher showed a series of clips from her on his show last night in which the guests were stunned at the stupid shit she was saying. This was several panels at different times. She is a huge embarrassment.
OK. I’ll criticize her for being a fucking retard and a nutball conservative extremist, if that isn’t totally redundant.
See, this is the kind of thing I’m talking about (i.e., not legitimate and therefore I have to defend her). O’Donnell clearly isn’t retarded, she isn’t a nutball by any objective measure, and she’s not an extremist…at least not by any definition I’m aware of. She pulling numbers around 19% less than her opponent, which in my opinion means she has sufficient support among the Delaware electorate to disqualify her from the extremist label.
This tickles me. What is the objective measure of nutballism?
I’m sure we are all grateful to Starv for reminding us, once again, of the pernicious influence of liberal hypocrisy. Its a point that cannot be made too often.
Sometimes, nutballism is like pornography: You can’t really define it, but you know it when you see it.
Except it doesn’t prove anything of the kind, unless one is going to argue that Caroline Kennedy is any kind of an exceptional intellect. And I’m not aware of anyone attempting to make that argument, least of all you. So, at best, you have demonstrated that she’s marginally smarter than a very stupid person. Which is, all things considered, not that bad of an achievement for a Tea Party candidate, but still not exactly bragging material.
As to the subject of being a hypocrite, I do not think that criticizing one person while not criticizing a second makes one a hypocrite, particularly when there is no particular connection between the two people. However, if you want to establish this as a standard for hypocrisy, I do not object too strongly, in particular because this would, by your own definition, make you the biggest hypocrite on the board. After all, to the best of my recollection, I cannot remember a single instance of you offering any criticism of any conservative politician or policy, except, perhaps, to complain when they are insufficiently conservative for your taste.
You have to be an extreme conservative to understand. But in regular terms, she is a fruitcake. She is so outside logic and sense ,that she is a joke. Who the hell runs against masturbation? Who says she would have been a Hari Krishna if she didn’t have to give up meatballs? Who runs for office and says she was dabbling with witchcraft. The list goes on. She is a nut. She has also been accused of using campaign money for her own private use. Not legal.
And that is obviously most clearly evidenced by pulling a blue lever.
-Joe
You know, I was having a rough day. Clients were being obtuse, the boss was growling, the LAN was acting up. So, I decided to take a break for a few minutes and surf the web, looking for something mildly entertaining.
Then I came across this item: ‘O’Donnell questions separation of church, state’ and I laughed for 5 minutes.
And then I came across this item: ‘O’Donnell Campaign Statement on Coons’ Understanding of the First Amendment’ and I laughed for another 5 minutes.
Thank you, Christine! 
I know there are electoral races around the country where the nabobs of nutballism are in danger in winning election to office. And, yes, I’m sure as hell going to vote on 11/02.
As it happens, Christine is trailing badly in the polls and, once the election is over, she won’t get nearly as much press coverage. I’m going to miss her.
So I’ve come up with a plan to indulge both my fantasies and make money:
Step 1. Ask Christine to marry me and my wife. I mean, if marriage is good, more marriage is gooder, right?
Step 2. ???*
Step 3. BIG PROFIT$!
- When we’re married and Christine is required to be the good, submissive wife, I’ll require that she dress in skimpy leather bondage gear and masturbate on a witch’s altar. Sell the video.
She may be able to pull a Palin and tour the country giving talks to the Baggers. She can make a bundle . Apparently they will support a good looking bagger who does not know what she is doing. She can be trained enough to say what they want to hear .
Hell if she gets elected ,she would probably quit . That’s not where the money is.
Here’s what I think is funny. Apparently, this was meant to be a gotcha in her favor.
She had crammed for a pop quiz that her opponent had not crammed for. She might have gotten away with it if she hadn’t been transparently unable to recognize the actual language of the first amendment: