Inviting you to continue this discussion here.
Actually, no. Count Bricker in the “defending against incorrect statements” camp.
I’m not at all impressed with her.
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).
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?
By her own confession she drank and fornicated her way through college. Now she wants to tell the rest of us how to live.
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.
Sounds like she’s qualified to! 
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.
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?
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.
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
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.
Look up the word hypocritical.
“Sanctimonious,” I agree is a fair description.
So how serious do the offenses have to be before someone can condemn them?
At a certain point, habits that lead to vision impairment become a public health issue. We should consider witholding optometric treatment for chronic offenders.
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?
oops
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.
Oh, and it’s immoral to lie to Hitler.
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.)
No, that’s a human with a mouse brain.