Couldn’t that also be worded as:
“One notable exception to that finding is the Gallup poll, which found that other than being Rich Republican Men, self-described Tea Partiers were demographically similar to the population as a whole.”
I agree. Mid-terms don’t usually attract casual voters. One thing the Tea Party movement is doing is attracting very conservative candidates, but candidates that couldn’t get elected in any other environment than our current one (and in the case of some candidates, not even now). All for what? So they can spend the money to serve one term in which they can accomplish nothing only to get stomped by the more moderate Presidential voters in 2012?
The GOP is going to have to get a muzzle if they want a chance going forward. Are they going to have any chance picking up Florida in 2012 if the Tea Party candidates continue to wax poetically about gutting Social Security and Medicare? Obama could go into 2012 with 150+ already in his pocket (CA, NY, FL, IL, DC, HI, MA, DE, & MD). That’s not even counting traditionally Dem states like WA, OR, ME, VT, etc.
The only silver lining for Republicans is the fact that Dems have a HUGE number of Senate seats to defend in 2012.
Nobody thinks she has the power to outlaw masturbation. The problem is she thinks it is a good idea. I don’t think she would make the house into a coven, but someone who is into witchcraft is weird and it is a bad idea. She can not enact her stringent views on abortion. But the fact that she believes in them is telling. She wants to have say so about people personal lives. What qualifies her?
Has O’Donnell said that she thinks outlawing masturbation is a good idea? If she has, I haven’t heard of it. All I’ve heard is that she disapproves of it (and who knows, she may have outgrown that in the meantime).
There are lots of things I’m against that I wouldn’t dream of trying to outlaw if I were a lawmaker, and there are a lot of things I’m in favor of that I would never try to make into law. I’m sure most of us are the same way, and I imagine O’Donnell is too.
If she’s come out with any concrete legislative ideas, I haven’t heard of them. I’ve read about what she used to be in favor of (or dabble in), her wild times in college, her recent lies, who’s supporting her, the chances of her winning, and what her nomination foretells for the Republican Party. I haven’t heard anything about what she wants to do as a senator.
So, you agree then that gonzomax is wrong in stating that O’Donnell thinks that outlawing masturbation is a good idea? Glad we got that settled.
Now how about gonzo’s next bit of wrongeyness, where he says that O’Donnell “is into witchcraft”. This is so obviously wrong that I can’t believe even gonzo would attempt to pass it off as the truth. O’Donnell said that she “had” dabbled into witchcraft when she was young. Past tense. And not only that, but it was ten years ago when she made that statement. So clearly, it could accurately be said that O’Donnell is not into witchcraft and that anyone who says she is, is either, a.) a person with serious reading/watching comprehension problems; b.) a person of such strong ideological bias that they can’t think straight; c.) or a person of nefarious intent. Would you agree?
If you have anything to say to me, about what I wrote in my post, I’ll read it. I’m not here to play referee between you and gonzomax.
Well, you decided to interject your little non sequitur with regard to my question to gonzomax, so it seemed likely that you might you have something to say in regard to another question I had about gonzo’s post. It appears though, that, having struck out with your first attempt to lodge yourself between us in attempt to make O’Donnell look bad, you’ve decided that your best defense is to pretend not to want to come between gonzo and me, even though you, of your own volition, have already done just that.
I’ll try to make my point again, then.
Christine O’Donnell has gotten a lot of news coverage in the past week. I have probably heard her name more than any other senate candidate in that time. This thread has gone to two pages, and there is another about her that has gone to three pages. I have heard who is supporting her, what talk shows she did not show up for, and what she said ten years ago about something that happened years before that.
Does she want to outlaw masturbation? I have no idea. I haven’t heard a thing about her current legislative goals. I don’t know where she stands on the issues, or if she has said anything about them at all.
If a post about issues (or lack thereof) in a thread about the 2010 election is a non sequitur, well, so be it.
Okay, I apologize. It looked to me like you were using my comment to gonzo as a jumping off point to claim that O’Donnell is an empty suit, so to speak. And, as a matter of fact, I don’t much about what O’Donnell believes or what her legislative goals are either. I blame this on the mainstream media, to be honest. Surely this woman has spoken during her various campaigns about what her views are and what she’d hope to accomplish if elected, but all we hear about are financial problems, her belief that masturbation is wrong, and that she at one time dabbled in witchcraft.
I don’t watch or listen to Rush Limbaugh but once or twice a month I briefly scan his website just to get a feel for what he’s saying versus what people on the left are saying that he’s saying. As it happens, I looked at his site today and here’s part of what he’s saying about O’Donnell:
[bolding mine]
And that’s exactly what’s happening. The media and her opponenst are focusing on everything but her legislative goals. They are trying to torpedo her before she ever gets out of the starting gate by harping on her finances, her college degree and when she got it, her stance on masturbation, etc., etc., etc. They’re trying to make her an intellectual laughingstock just like they’ve tried to with GWB, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. It’s pathetic. The left has apparently decided that on the field of ideas, it’s best to do an end around and avoid them altogether, opting instead to play upon one of the baser elements of human nature and try to give people a perch from which to look down upon, and laugh at, someone else.
So, I did a little digging. Not much, just took a look at the Wiki article on her, and found the following:
And since so much has been made around here of her views on sex and masturbation, I’ve included the following:
There’s lots in this article that people around here can have a heyday with. Cite She apparently drank a lot when she was young and was promiscuous to boot. And she’s had a very checkered financial history.
But she ultimately came to feel her behavior was wrong and turned firmly away from it. She’s also been an extremely industrious and passionate woman during her adulthood, working hard to make a difference and to attain elective office so as to more effectively toward her political goals. It seems that politics and a strong desire to hold public office are firmly in her blood.
Now whether this is all a good thing, and whether she’d ultimately be good for the conservative movement and/or the Republican party, I’m not about to guess at this point. But I do think she’s coming in for a lot of cheap shots and character assassination that she not only doesn’t deserve, but which fails to give people any kind of idea of what she wants to accomplish politically.
And I think there’s a very definite reason why the media and her opponents, both political and among the population at large, want to direct attention away from she and other Tea Party politicians want to accomplish.
I got the impression you didn’t watch much of the mainstream media. Hardly seems fair to blame them for not getting out her message if you’re not tuned in to hear it.
And they have tried. She was scheduled to appear on Fox News Sunday and Face the Nation, and cancelled. She doesn’t seem particularly anxious to state her goals either. Her website is a place to donate money to her campaign, and nothing else. Is that the fault of the mainstream media, too?
It would be interesting to compare her views now (should we be lucky enough to discover what they are) with her previous campaign. I question her dedication to fiscal integrity if she has only held this view since the summer of 2010.
Also, if her plan to simplify the tax code consists of a flat tax, then she’s an idiot with no idea what she’s talking about.
Even if you take the Tea Party candidates at their word that social issues will not be their priority, they’re not the only ones in the Senate.
I don’t think O’Donnell will introduce a bill banning masturbation. But how will she vote when some back-bencher introduces an amendment that makes a piece of education funding dependent on abstinence-only sex education? How will she vote on gay rights? Or abortion rights?
These are potential first-term Senators and Congressmen we’re talking about. I’m not nearly so interested in their own legislative agendas as I am with how they’ll vote on other people’s agendas.
Quoth Rush Limbaugh, via Starving Artist:
If we’re lumping Social Security in with “social issues”, then what is there that isn’t a social issue? Of course we’re focusing on those, if that’s all there is.
You don’t see any disconnect there, Starve?
I think it’s pretty obvious what is going to happen: the Tea Party candidates will take some “safe Republican” seats from mainstream Republicans via primaries. They will also take some closely contested seats from mainstream Republicans by splitting the vote and handing them to Democrats.
What this means for America is anyone’s guess, but I’m wondering if we’re not going to see a post-election backlash a la Nader in '00 if the Tea Party ultimately does more harm to conservatives than good.
To be fair, which party wins or loses each race isn’t the whole picture. There have also been Tea Party candidates who won primaries in strongly conservative states/districts like Alaska and Utah, who still have an excellent chance of winning the general election, and whose election would shift the Overton window to the right. I think that the benefit to the left from places like Delaware and Florida are likely to more than balance that, but it’s not a given.
For some reason, due to the lack of editing here with all the little [xx] sprinkled about, I misread this as evidence that America can no longer claim to be a Young Nation.
Most of the citations for those stances are years old. Maybe the media isn’t focusing on her legislative goals because she actually hasn’t promoted them and now won’t even talk to the media. The fact that you had to use Wikipedia rather than recent interviews or even her website says a lot about whether she has any substantial legislative goals. When I look at her website, the whole of her content regarding issues is exactly one sentence on each issue apart from “Values,” which she gives two sentences. christine2010.com
I don’t have the energy or patience to view the videos, but I’m guessing they’re similar to the one sentence statements rather than describing actual legislative goals.
So how can we debate her legislative agenda when she apparently doesn’t have one? Blame the media, right?
And it’s only in the past day or so that even that much showed up on her website. Before, it was nothing but a donation form.
Exactly. Both Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell have no concrete ideas, just psycho babble. And now that the GOP is “cleaning them up” for the election, you won’t be able to even glean anything from the web sites. Angle is a self-proclaimed Oath Keeper, although she now insists that it just means she keeps her promises. :rolleyes: