October 20, 2010

Let's not talk too much about Christine O'Donnell.

She's way behind in the polls. Many other things are going on right now, and she is a big distraction. Democratic candidates in this election season are offering us precious little defense of what the Democrats have done with the vast power that was handed to them in 2008.

The 2010 elections should center on critique or defense of what has happened in the last 2 years, and what Republican candidates propose to do about it, not hoary old questions about who will and who won't accept the theory of evolution and who can state constitutional texts and doctrines with precision.

In whose interest is it to make the elections about O'Donnell? What I think I'm seeing is the idea that O'Donnell could be made to seem like: 1. a blithering idiot, and 2. the face of the Republican Party. Then: Watch out for Republicans! Vote for Democrats. That is all such repulsive nonsense.

120 comments:

Scott M said...

Well, I suppose the one nice silver lining in the pre-defeat DNC mantra is that I haven't seen too many try and deflect the mandate on President Obama's agenda meme, a la Scott Scott Brown in the MA special election.

Not that they wouldn't like to try it whole-hog, but someone over there gets the sense that nobody would believe it.

A.W. said...

i read an opposite analysis from james taranto. he said something close to this. remember when ollie north ran for senate? the democrats did their damnedest to defeat him and so when they were told he lost, they were cheering. That would be early on election day, in november, 1994.

And of course you know how the rest of the night went. by the next morning the left was curled up in a fetal position and sucking its thumb.

taranto believed that the two were related. the left spent so much of their fire on stopping ollie, that they let the other races walk past them.

Besides, she isn't down by that much.

Btw, i have alot of commentary on this and other stuff at http://patterico.com/ where i am guest blogging.

DADvocate said...

Excellent point. The Dems/MSM/other lefties don't want to face the issues because the truth reflects so poorly upon them. They prefer sideshows to distract from the $3 trillion dollar increase in debt since Obama took office, sky high unemployment, their complete incompetence, etc, etc.

ricpic said...

Actually the evolution question is very important. More important to progressives than to conservatives, in that if progressives can finally get the diety out of the debate it's full speed ahead on MEN molding men any whichaway they like.

Original Mike said...

"In whose interest is it to make the elections about O'Donnell? What I think I'm seeing is the idea that O'Donnell could be made to seem like: 1. a blithering idiot, and 2. the face of the Republican Party. Then: Watch out for Republicans! Vote for Democrats. That is all such repulsive nonsense. "

Yes. That's what they're doing with O'Donnell and what they've been trying with Palin for some time now. O'Donnell's fresh on the scene so the jury's still out on this strategy but, 'ummmm (to quote Gwen Ifill), it ain't been working so well with Palin.

Roger J. said...

The O'Donnell thing is simply the dems way of distracting attention from the rest of the train wreck that is coming their way in 13 days--they can say--ooohhh lookey--we defeated this flake; while the rest of the dem candidates find themselves out of a job.

this is a political juke by the dems and msm--removes the focus from the rest of the dems that are getting their asses kicked

1jpb said...

My favorite non-O'D event.

Yes, I slipped this in a thread yesterday, but it's so awesome, you can't have too much of it (much as Althouse sees O'D and the 'separation' stuff).

MadisonMan said...

I'm not going to vote for Scott Walker.

I think he's a nice enough guy, like Tom Barrett, and I like that he seemingly represents the fiscally conservative wing of the Republican Party. But the more I read about his running mate, the more I think the Republican Party should be punished electorally for putting someone who holds views like hers (with regards to fellow citizens) on the ballot. If the Lt. Governor candidate was more like Walker, I'd be more enthused to vote for him. I'm also not thrilled with his stance about that train.

I honestly don't see why either of the candidates want to be Gov of this sorry state. They won't be able to do much of anything because of the financial shenanigans of the last three Governors. Do they like to be hated? Is that why they're running?

There. Not one word about you-know-who.

Michael said...

O'Donnell is a fun and easy target for the lazy MSM which is ignoring the jaw dropping Al Green of South Carolina.

Scott M said...

which is ignoring the jaw dropping Al Green of South Carolina

Oh, and he is painfully jaw-dropping. Kudos to the SC DNC for sticking with the results of the primary and not trouncing this obvious loser out on his ass through some legalistic chicanery (like they did with Michigan and Florida in 2008...which was almost, but not quite, as funny).

Salamandyr said...

I agree with Pat Caddell. If the Delaware Republicans were smart, they would have offered O'Donnell Castle's House seat, which she would have won handily (and which fits her political stature), leaving the Castle an to pick up the Senate, after they had sat on him to get him to make nice to the Tea Party.

As it is, she's smarter than people give her credit for, though her delivery makes her every utterance sound like the vapid musings of a not too bright high school cheerleader. She's not my first pick, but she's a dang sight better than her opponent, which is damning with faint praise, I know.

garage mahal said...

You have 24 Christine O'Donnell tags.

So what you mean is you can write whatever you want about her, you just don't want liberals writing about Christine O'Donnell.

Richard Dolan said...

"That is all such repulsive nonsense."

Yes, of course. The pols/pundits pushing the nonsense (I'd include Krugman, MoDo and the New Rep team as well) don't intend it as an argument -- as in O's "fact and argument and science" meme -- but instead as an effort to scare marginal D voters who are thinking about abandoning the team into the irrational choice of sticking with a losing program. They don't want their voters to doubt D dogma that your typical R (like O's grandmother) is a crypto-racist, self-centered moral idiot.

We see that here all the time, from the mobys and others. Very tiresome nonsense too, made more so by the fact that you don't have to look that far to find it.

Dark Eden said...

Democratic candidates in this election season are offering us precious little defense of what the Democrats have done with the vast power that was handed to them in 2008.

>>>>

You mean handed to them in 2006, when they took over Congress.

Fen said...

ricpic: More important to progressives than to conservatives, in that if progressives can finally get the diety out of the debate it's full speed ahead on MEN molding men any whichaway they like.

Spot on. There's a good reason Socialism is at odds with Religion - they are both competing for the same thing. One wants us to worship God, the other wants us to worship The State.

If you like Theocrats, you'll just love Socialists.

1jpb said...

Folks pay attention to O'D precisely because she is much more capable and smarter than Al Greene. Al was on Lawrence O'Ds show and it was horribly sad, the guy was so much of a joke, and so pitiful that it was hard to watch. But, O'D is totally different she can fight back. And, she's adorable!!

Palin and O'D should only get a lot of incoming because they can take and return fire w/ equal or greater force. Al is piloting a ship at the bottom of the sea. Why waste the ammo?

TMink said...

What I love about O'Donnel is that she shows the Republican leadership that we prefer a blithering idiot conservative to a crafty, veteran rino.

Look on her and tremble.

Trey

Pastafarian said...

Here's a suggestion: Let's talk about constitutional scholar Phil Hare of Illinois.

I hear he's not doing too well in the poles; maybe he could use the attention.

Or we could talk about those Mensa members Maxine Waters or Hank Johnson.

Waters, you'll recall, was listening to someone from NASA discuss the Mars rover; and she asked if the rover had come across the flag planted by Neil Armstrong.

The one he planted in the lunar surface.

Johnson was the guy that suggested that if the island of Guam became to overpopulated, it might actually tip over, capsizing like a canoe. Because islands float on the ocean.

Republicans are teh stooopid!!1!

Pastafarian said...

Let's not discuss Alvin Greene, though. Seriously, that's just a little cruel. The guy can't help it. He'll lose by 40% and go back to his job at Piggly Wiggly. Give him a break.

Hare, Waters, and Johnson are all employed by us, and make 6 figures salary plus all the bribes they can take, to bombard us with nuclear-grade stupid. Let's talk about them, shall we?

edutcher said...

Agree with Original Mike to the extent they are creating another Mama Grizzly in O'D if she loses, particularly for the RINOs if the margin is small. If it turns out to be the difference between controlling the Senate, I would bet much on Michael Steele's job security.

I think the real point of the Demos and Lefties (distinction without difference?) going after her is that it makes them feel so much better about themselves, considering what a tone-deaf, politically inept crew they have (Pelosi Galore, Dingy Harry, Slobbering Barney) and how lousy this all bodes for '12. After all, they have to run for the White House with The Zero and Halo Joe - no, the Hildabeast isn't going anyplace and a lot of the bench may not be there in 2 years.

edutcher said...

Should be wouldn't for Steele's job security.

WV "shebr" (no kidding) What's hunting down the Lefties these days.

Mikio said...

Okay, fine, let's not talk about O'Donnell much. But I have just one question for Althouse.

You claim O’Donnell wasn’t dumb for asking Coons, “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” because you think she was being nuanced and asking about the word-for-word phrase. Okay, so let’s say Coons had said, “It's well known that the phrase separation of church and state is not there verbatim, but the concept is clearly stated in the First Amendment. So what? What’s your point?” What should O’Donnell’s response have been?

By the way, if you don’t believe in separation of church and state, which many conservatives clearly don’t, then you believe in unification of church and state -- i.e., theocracy.

traditionalguy said...

As a blithering idiot, I resent that remark. We vote too. OK,OK. No more fun with the O'Donnell pinata. She is a young and articulate politician that will be heard from again soon. Let's talk about the Iowa game that will not happen again until the 2013 divisional meeting among the 12 teams in the Big Ten. Scot Tolzien is just as articulate as Christine O'Donnell and he has a stronger arm. All that intellectual record comparisons does is cloud issues since everything in DC takes 3 to 7 before it becomes an effective change Fire them all! Only elect men and women that have passed Statistics with an A.

BJK said...

She's way behind in the polls. Many other things are going on right now, and she is a big distraction.

I thought that was the whole point; using an almost certain loser in the Senate race to lure Tea Party donors into a state where the candidate does not have a real shot at winning, and away from stronger battleground states like WI or NV or even CA.

(Also, who would you rather show footage of: O'D or Sharon Angle? The tune-in factor is a definite secondary benefit.)

If she wins, great. If not, that's a whole lot of money which would have been better served somewhere else.

Der Hahn said...

I appreciate you not wanting to talk about O'Donnell but she is not running an Alvin Greene level campaign. She closed a 21 point gap after the primary to 11 points according to a current Rasmussen poll. I've seen polls that put her behind single digits.
(http://www.nationalreview.com/battle10/249945/new-poll-gives-coons-11-point-lead-katrina-trinko)

She's also got good fund raising - 3.8 million last month and good size chunk in the bank.(http://www.nationalreview.com/battle10/249982/o-donnell-campaign-has-raised-38-million-katrina-trinko)

Sorry for the http splatter, links don't seem to be acceptable.

Kurt said...

A.W. makes an excellent point. I also think that the Democrats want to focus on Christine O'Donnell to draw attention away from how bad their candidates are and how poorly they are doing.

Besides, there is the added benefit that more time spent attacking Christine O'Donnell means less time spent going after those candidates in truly close races.

k*thy said...

She's the new shiny object and we all fell for it. It's much more *fun* that debating anything substantive.

Bruce Hayden said...

In the Dems defense, I would also suggest that there is an attempt here for tarring the Repubs through guilt by association. And, maybe the Tea Party in particular with this.

What do they have to run on? The legislation that they passed over the last 4 years of Democratic control of Congress has deepened, not alleviated the recession, with the only real beneficiaries their biggest constituents, notably government workers. They really don't want us to dwell on that. Nor on ObamaCare, passed on almost a strict party line vote, and likely rated by many as the worst piece of legislation of the last 50 years. It raises rates, reduces the really important coverages, and totally screws up what most think is a great health care system.

So, no, they don't want to run on their record, and character assassination is pretty much all they have left. Unfortunately, in many cases, the Republican is running against a party hack, many of whom have some culpability for what the last 2 Congresses have done, and so they have to find bogeymen (and, here, women) to take our eyes off of their failures.

Kirby Olson said...

There is a curious element in the Democrat party going after Palin and O'Donnell of misogyny, and in the case of O'Donnell of bigotry against witchcraft. A huge swath of the feminist group is interested in Wiccan ideas, and it's in fact the fastest growing religion in America with about 500,000 official adherents. She should use the Seinfeldian maneuver -- "I'm not a witch -- not that there's anything wrong with that."

Even the US military now allows Wiccans to practice their faith.

The Wiccans ARE a little outside of the mainstream, but I thought the Democrats were supposedly all-inclusive?

Has anybody spoken up for witches on this topic? I am personally not for boiling babies and I take regular airplanes when I travel, but I've been shocked at how the Democrats are willing to demonize witches just because they have a pact with Satan. Many mainstream churches including the Episcopalian are all for redeeming Satan and bringing him back into the fold. It's almost like there's an assumption that boiling babies is a bad thing.

Where's the tolerance? I mean, it's a growing culture for heaven's sake. You'd think both parties would be scrambling for this demographic.

yashu said...

Yes, let's talk about Moe Tucker instead!

I'm getting such a kick out of MT (probably my favorite member of one of my all-time favorite bands), the most unlikely person ever, being a Tea Partier. Though I also find myself feeling bad for her, because I can imagine all the shit & vitriol she must be getting right now.

It's kind of amazing: VU is like the quintessence, the paragon of a certain species of cultural "coolness"; Velvet Underground Tea Party (what a great name/ title!) is the ultimate oxymoron-- according to the MSM cultural grammar.

I'm so used to running across some wince-or-groan-inducing quote on politics from pop culture figures I'm fond of; it's so rare to be surprised in the other direction-- rarer still to find such an explicit "coming-out" on the right. Probably what I like best in the artists I love is political reticence & ambiguity-- the nonpareil being the enigmatic epigrams, sphinx-like politics of Dylan. But I salute people like Mo Tucker for their courage, and we do need more of them-- more "out" examples like that to change-- or rather, complicate, diversify, un-stereotype-- the "face" of the so-called "right-wing" (i.e. what is projected upon it by the current MSM & culture in general, both high & pop).

Original Mike said...

Folks pay attention to O'D precisely because she is much more capable and smarter than Al Greene.

If by "folks" you mean the media I say "Bull".

Hagar said...

Mikio,

This is a false dichotomy. My native country does have an established church, but the people have a very lively sense of what is, or is not, appropriate for State activity in the religious sphere, and in no way will they tolerate the individual's right to "free exercise thereof" to be infringed upon.

This was not always so, and in the newborn United States, where a number of colonies had been established by various religious sects seeking to stake out a territory where they could set the rules for religious observance, it was particularly important to many that the new national government should not be permitted to meddle with local religious practices. Hence the First Amendment.

Big Mike said...

Whoever is working on election strategy for the Dumbocrats needs to be replaced by somebody who actually "gets" the electorate.

To an ordinary person it certainly looks like the Dumbocrats are piling on somebody who's already been knocked down, and this will generate a backlash. Probably not such a huge backlash that it sends O'Donnell into the Senate (though, as I've pointed out in the past, her opponent is a couple fries short of a Happy Meal himself). But it's a backlash that could cost other Dumbocrat senatorial candidates a percentage point or two in their vote totals. And Boxcar, Murray, Manchin, Giannoulias, Bennet, and the execrable Conway cannot afford that percentage point or two.

Rasmussen projects a Republican pickup of 55 in the House. I still see more like 70, maybe more than that. Senate is not so clear.

Paul Snively said...

Fen: If you like Theocrats, you'll just love Socialists.

Worse yet is when you get theocratic socialists, i.e. the religious left. Think it's an accident that we got the Federal Reserve, the Federal income tax, the League of Nations, and WWI "making the world safe for democracy" out of Woodrow Wilson?

Hagar said...

It would have been well if Madison had thought to insert ", nor the Courts," after ".... Congress"?

Wv: "theater" - indeed.

Skyler said...

It's pretty sickening how they attack women. Unless they're blithering idiots like Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi.

Alex said...

Of course we shouldn't talk about O'Donnell. She only IS the fact of the modern GOP, but let's pretend it's not!

Trooper York said...

Madison Man, I never thought you would vote for Walker in a million years.

That would be like me voting for Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

Alex said...

Book of Palin

1. And God spoke to Sarah, in tongues: Run for President and as President bring all the children of God to Alaska. 2. Build an Ark and fill it with 2 of every type of Christian. 3. Then await further communication 4. God out.


LOL.

Big Mike said...

@MadMan, Trooper's right.

Scott M said...

HOWARD JOHNSON IS RIGHT

MadisonMan said...

I'm not voting for anyone. I vote against people. Especially people like Kleefisch.

Especially Governors. The last governor I voted for? Milton Shapp? No, couldn't vote for him, I was too young. I may have voted for Tony Earl back in '82.

The start of the Barrett/Walker Governorship reminds me a lot of Earl's start. Huge deficits, high unemployment. I don't see how Barrett or Walker survives more than one term.

A.W. said...

Slightly off topic, but i caught the WaPo revising its article about the O'Donnell Coons debate, here: http://patterico.com/2010/10/20/wapoap-caught-revising-the-o%e2%80%99donnell-story-without-issuing-a-correction/

I am guest blogging over there.

El Pollo Real said...

Let's not talk too much about Christine O'Donnell

Hey if this all helps Fiorina bear Boxer out here I say pump up the volume!!

Geoff Matthews said...

Josh Green is doing his darndest (still) to make Iott out to be a Nazi.
They'll stretch the guilt-by-association tactic to the point of (british) slander.

AJ Lynch said...

Yashu:

I am copying that Mo Tucker interview [was in The Riverfront Times] and I am sending a copy to all my smug [aka credentialed but uneducated] liberal relatives.

Alex said...

O'Donnell a disaster for Tea Party

Read it an weep Rethugs. HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA

garage mahal said...

Rasmussen projects a Republican pickup of 55 in the House. I still see more like 70, maybe more than that. Senate is not so clear.

LOL

Alex said...

Well Lott did praise a former Klansman and Dixiecrat. How else can you interpret it other then racist? I can't believe he's still a sitting Senator.

Alex said...

garage - what id your over/under on the House?

garage mahal said...

+35 in the House for Repubs

*muted Price is Right horn*

Michael said...

Alex: Trent Lott is not a sitting U.S. Senator.

Scott M said...

Alex: Trent Lott is not a sitting U.S. Senator

lol...I'm going to have to stop skipping over his comments if he's going to be this blatantly, hilariously wrong.

Michael said...

Scott M: It is highly entertaining to read his posts. I would engage him in a bet on the election if I thought he could or would pay up.

Scott M said...

We should stop assuming that he's a he. Poor form, you know.

Mikio said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Montagne Montaigne said...

Professor Althouse is right! Let's not talk about O'Donnell. Let's talk about more important things, like about how the first lady is a fatty with a big black ass. Also, Rushbo knows about how MoDo is a dragon lady. Not hoary old questions about whether religious extremists should be elected to our congress under false banners of pragmatism.

Scott M said...

lol, MM, you mean how we elected a President under the false banner of pragmatism? My hope is that he either "pivots" quickly to the center or starts emailing back and for with Jimmy about how to get involved with Habitat For Humanity.

Hagar said...

Alex,

Leaving aside that Lott resigned from the Senate in 2007, is there a progressive Democrat who does not praise the memories of Justice Hugo L. Black and Senator Robert Byrd?

Mike said...

Well Lott did praise a former Klansman and Dixiecrat. How else can you interpret it other then racist?

Lott praised Robert Byrd? When was that?

Mikio said...

Hagar,

This is a false dichotomy.

No, it’s not a false dichotomy. It’s pure logic and deals with reality which all religious people, of course, suck at.

Here’s the reality: on one side of the continuum (the liberal/left side) is separation of religion and state and on the other side (on the conservative/right side) is unification of religion and state -- i.e., theocracy. To the extent one rails against the concept of separation of religion and state, like the typical conservative O’Donnell did/does, one is therefore advocating the opposite of separation, namely, unification. To deny any of this is to lie. Of course, all social conservatives I’m aware of deny some part of it because they’re all liars when it comes to this subject. All of them. Show me one who doesn’t and I’ll amend accordingly. But I doubt you can. You also said:

…and in no way will they tolerate the individual's right to "free exercise thereof" to be infringed upon.

Infringed upon? Ha! You want to talk about infringement? The preceding topic between Coons and O’Donnell was the issue of disallowing the teaching in public schools anywhere in America of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. Conservatives like O’Donnell see this as gov’t infringement because they believe that teaching ID as a scientific theory is not pushing a religious agenda by the gov't. But this is a lie upon a lie. Coons explicitly exempted private and parochial schools and dealt with only taxpayer-funded public schools, so that is the purview of gov't; and the findings from the Dover case is a good place to start for proof beyond a reasonable doubt that ID is just creationism by another name.

Unfortunately, no doubt nothing I can say will sway you on any of this, but it's just to illustrate the crux of our disagreement here. We liberals see the forced teaching of ID as a scientific theory in public schools as the infringement by gov’t in violation of the First Amendment whereas typical social conservatives like you and O’Donnell see the forced NOT teaching of it as a scientific theory as the infringement by gov’t in violation of the First Amendment. The conservative view is, of course, completely backward and wrong on this, as usual.

Michael said...

MM: I agree. I had hoped for some words on the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in South Carolina. Could you fill us in on your support for this remarkable candidate and your party's reasoning behind backing him for this important position?

Thanks.

LonewackoDotCom said...

O'Donnell wouldn't be the choice and wouldn't be a topic of discussion without the teaparty idiots. That idiocy oozes from everything about what Althouse is complaining about. Without them she wouldn't be a topic. And, if they were smarter and saner they would be able to better defend her against smears (the 1st Amdt ignorance isn't a smear, I mean the others). They can't even defend their queen. And, without the partiers throwing tantrums and lying, we'd be in a better position to have grown-up debates about important topics.

Now, since this comment is anti-stupidity, expect partiers to lie and smear about me. They aren't capable of making a valid, logical argument against anything I've ever written about them; all they can do is lie and smear.

Ask the teaparty "patriots" why they almost completely ignored immigration for over a year.

Trooper York said...

"Scott M said...
HOWARD JOHNSON IS RIGHT!"

Howard Johnson is never right. That's why even the dog ass Mets are firing him as batting coach.

They are going to hire Al Weiss instead.

Scott M said...

Olson Johnson and Dr. Sam Johnson were just as right about Howard Johnson's being right. Gabby, too, however eloquently expressed.

Trooper York said...

Madison Man you are one of my favorite liberals who post here on the evil blogger lady's site.

But you would no more vote for a Republican than I would vote for Big Papi for the Hall of Fame.

It just ain't happening.

It's against the religious clause of the Constitution or something like that there.

c3 said...

This sums up the election decision and the public's attitudes well.

Hagar said...

Mikio,

How old are you?

And please learn to read. My first paragraph was about my native country, not the U.S.A.

And in the old country, these American fooferaws about the teaching of "Intelligent Design," praying before high school football games, etc. (not to mention American football itself!) would be regarded as rather bizarre manifestations of the primitiveness of the American populace and inscrutable cultural life.

Nevertheless, the Founding Fathers of this country on popular demand amended the Constitution to specifically prohibit Congress - and by extension, the Administration, which only exists to carry out the legislation passed by Congress - to meddle with the State and local authorities' in religious matters.

The "progressive liberals" do not like this, so they have turned the interpretation of the Establishment Clause on its head from what it says in plain English, but that does not make it right. The proper way would have been to have it repealed or amended by Constitutional Amendment, but that you know would never pass, so you did it with smoke and mirrors.

Big Mike said...

@Monty, Mrs. Obama's butt certainly is a huge topic.

Big Mike said...

And for what it's worth, I don't regard Christine O'Donnell as being any less sane or holding opinions that are any more extreme than Nancy Pelosi.

Big Mike said...

@garage, if you feel a need to give away all of your money can I suggest the American Cancer Society or Jerry's Kids? Offering up 35 as your over and under demonstrates to me that you must be up at the gold-plated end of limousine liberalism.

Hagar said...

For confused babble, Claire McCaskill would be hard to top, and she is in the Senate Democrat caucus leadership!

garage mahal said...

I've given directly to two candidates this election. And it appears to be working.

c3 said...

Delaware population: ~900,000. so Sen. O'Donnell would represent less than 1 million citizens and that's why her statements (most made well over 10 years ago) are so important in this year's mid-terms.

They are much more important than other candidates in larger states prior statements. Such as:

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., noted Rice has no children of her own to lose overseas. "Who pays the price?" Boxer repeatedly demanded. "You're not going to pay a particular price," she told Rice, because the secretary has no "immediate family" at risk.
(she represents 37 million)

I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican.
Senator Harry Reid (he represents over 2 1/2 million)

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D.-Md.) said yesterday it would be “morally wrong” for members of Congress to vote against the health care bill.
(Senator Mikulski represents 5.7 million)


I believe there's enough outrageousness to go around. Candidate O'Donnell has many video clips and makes for nice, neat 10 second sound bites. That suffices now as in depth political coverage. The people of Delaware will decide what they think of Ms. O'Donnell. But speaking as a centrist, if national Democrats think that focusing on her verbal gymnastics will convince me "that's what the Republican Party is about" and that I should "pay no attention to that [party in control] behind the curtain" they are sadly mistaken. And I bet many other independent and centrist voters feel the same.

PS And I last I checked Sarah Palin is running this year either. So no, shouting SQUIRREL doesn't work

Big Mike said...

@garage, I meant if you're going to bet on 35 as the over/under for Republican pickups in the House. (Unless, of course, you take the over -- that's like found money.)

Trooper York said...

Monty Hall said.....
"Not hoary old questions about whether religious extremists should be elected to our congress under false banners of pragmatism."

Normally I would agree but the last time we did that we ended up with a Muslim as President. Just sayn'

traditionalguy said...

Monty has had a great idea. Let's start a Pragmatic Party. The Party's motto can be "We always do whatever is good for us and then quit". Whatever is the issue...No Problemo. We refuse to worry about any methods , but only the outcome favorable to us. Or are those methods already in use by the Democrats about to be fired for it?

Roger J. said...

Alex: you are one dumb son of a bitch--I mean really--Trent Lott is a sitting senator? Can you possibly be this stupid? Yeah

what a dumbass

Big Mike said...

C3 has a good point. After Leahy and Schumer, Mikulski is the surest lock for reelection there is.

But she's neither particularly bright nor particularly sane.

Fen said...

LoneWacko breaks another Irony Meter:

teaparty idiots...idiocy oozes ...if they were smarter and saner.. can't even defend their queen...partiers throwing tantrums and lying

VS

They aren't capable of making a valid, logical argument against anything I've ever written about them

Geez Wacko, buy a fricken mirror

AST said...

How about Van Tran? Running against Loretta Sanchez.

"When he was just ten years old, Tran and his family fled war-torn Vietnam, emigrating to the United States in search of a better life. When they arrived stateside, Tran knew only two words of English: 'Okay' and 'Salem,' a popular brand of cigarettes among American GIs stationed in his homeland. 'My candidacy is an affirmation of how great this country is,' he beams. 'I came here as a little boy with literally the clothes on my back, and without any knowledge of the language, and now I’m the first Vietnamese-American member of the legislature of the largest state in the union, and a candidate for the United States Congress. Where else on this earth is that possible?'"

Reported by Guy Benson

Bob said...

FWIW - Isn't O'Donnell running for Biden's old seat? Biden, old Joe. Its not like he ever said anything stupid. Just an observation.

AST said...

What think ye of whether this group is sexist, talking about Sarah Palin's voice?





wv: flati - diminutive of my sometimes nom de pixel, flataffect

Cedarford said...

TMink said...
What I love about O'Donnel is that she shows the Republican leadership that we prefer a blithering idiot conservative to a crafty, veteran rino.

Look on her and tremble.


No, Mink, the outcome is that you prefer a liberal Democrat who will vote with Dems 100% of the time to an electable Republican candidate who will vote with Democrats 8% of the time for the next 6 years.

Yeah, you sure showed Republican leadership that electing someone like Scott Brown in Mass or Carly Fiorina in Cali is a huge mistake!

Leadership is trembling - but it is over how to convince Tea Party people that unqualified idiots like O'Donnell and Sharron Angle are not the way to go, without ticking off the torch and pitchfork and ideological purity in loss is "sending a message" contingent of Tea Party yahoos.
The Tea Party is on a learning curve. Putting liberal Democrats in office when they should have won because they fielded a bad candidate is a lesson learned. They will also obe day realize that Cali is not Alabama, Massachusetts and Maine are not Mississippi, and Delaware voters are not like Dakotas voters.

=================
A.W. - "Besides, she isn't too far behind".

The ever so perky, smiling and feisty beam of dim sunshine that is Christine O'Donnell is 18 points behind in the average of this weeks polls. That actually isn't in the not too badly behind category, but the dead meat ranks of candidates two weeks out.

Trooper York said...

But Cedarford, you didn't want to give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!

El Pollo Real said...

Cedarford wrote: The ever so perky, smiling and feisty beam of dim sunshine that is Christine O'Donnell is 18 points behind in the average of this weeks polls.

Well the latest kerfluffle should have notched her up a few points on your totem pole*

==============
*Your metaphor, not mine

Cedarford said...

Trooper York said...
But Cedarford, you didn't want to give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!

==================
I wasn't born when the Germans hit it. Some teacher once said the Japs did it, but the progressive Jews on the school board convinced her to correct herself and say it was all Hitlers fault after all. And it was racist to mention anything about the Japs doing it and mentioning the casualties there or the 13 million Chinese and 4 million Indonesians butchered detracting attention from the most imprtant group that suffered in WWII.

Big Mike said...

Well, Cedarford, while you are focusing on the "feisty beam of dim sunshine that is Christine O'Donnell" you seem to find it convenient to ignore strange candidates put up by Democrats in various races around the country. I'd like to include the quaint notion held by the Democrat candidate for President in 2008 and the current Speaker of the House, who seem to think that money grows on peanut trees.* If Barney Frank is a mainstream liberal Democrat then Republicans have no reason whatsoever to apologize for O'Donnell.

Is Christine O'Donnell any worse than Martha Coakley?

For that matter, is O'Donnell any crazier than her opponent, Chris Coons?

But the final point where I think you are wildly off base is that somehow it's up to the voters and the leadership. It. Is. Up. To. The. Candidates. End of story.

Mike Castle could not make the case to the primary voters that he deserved to be the Republican candidate.

And now he's not.

__________

* Yes, I know that peanuts don't grow on trees, either. I'm just saying that there's a reason why I call them Dumbocrats.

Trooper York said...

"feisty beam of dim sunshine that is Christine O'Donnell"

Dim Sun.

What the heck. Chrissy is Chinese?

garage mahal said...

* Yes, I know that peanuts don't grow on trees, either. I'm just saying that there's a reason why I call them Dumbocrats.

Polls are tightening everywhere. Why can't Republicans close the deal with 10% unemployment and the worst President and Congress ever? Republicans should be pulling away. Right?

El Pollo Real said...

Polls are tightening everywhere.

Is that another one of your internal polls?

garage mahal said...

Nope, even Rasmussen is showing it.

Trooper York said...

Polls are tightening everywhere.

So are sphincters.

Despite repeated internal polling.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

dbp said...

GM: Polls are tightening everywhere. Why can't Republicans close the deal with 10% unemployment and the worst President and Congress ever? Republicans should be pulling away. Right?

So the Republicans should admit failure if they loose any races in the House or any of the Senate seats which are up for grabs? Pretty high standard you got going there. But it goes both ways; how come the Democrats didn't win every House seat in 2006 or 2008? Losers.

El Pollo Real said...

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Clenching now.

America's Politico said...

This is so sad. The GOP is worried now. What a mess. It will not matter.

On Nov. 2, we will retain at least 224 seats in the House and at least 54 in the Senate.

This is a fact. You know today what you will find out on Nov. 3.

This is what makes me the best politico. This is why I am sought after for consulting Democrats. I bring results.

Trooper York said...

America's Politico, what is your position on Dim Sum?

Cedarford said...

Big Mike - "Mike Castle could not make the case to the primary voters that he deserved to be the Republican candidate."

That is the problem when partisan zealots not representative of the voting population dominate the Primary process. It affects both parties, as the system then regularly proffers up two candidates "from the wings" that are each fairly unpalatable to mainstream voters. Add in the Democrat problem of 90% of blacks voting on skin color if one of their own tribe is running and you understand why Dems are stuck with running Obama again no matter how badly he polls with the general electorate. "Their Man" has 91% approval amongst them and blacks are 35% of Dem primary voters after Iowa and NH.

El Pollo Real said...

That is the problem when partisan zealots not representative of the voting population dominate the Primary process. It affects both parties, as the system then regularly proffers up two candidates "from the wings" that are each fairly unpalatable to mainstream voters.

Hardcore zealots from within a party have always dominated primary elections. In other words, the most fired up in either party have always gotten out more for their own party. Mainstream voters tend to stay home.

What you're suggesting is that something new is affecting the results: either unregistered partisans crossing party lines to vote or that Democrats, in their own version of "Operation Chaos," deliberately crossed lines to vote O'Donnell in.

But since I would have voted for O'Donnell in the primary, and would vote for her in the general AND I'm not put out if she loses (I've voted for more losers than winners over the years) I'm non plussed by your concern.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

So what makes for a good Republican political operation is now the deciding factor in figuring out what to post?

Thanks for being up-front on your motives, Professor.

JAY said...

Here’s the reality: on one side of the continuum (the liberal/left side) is separation of religion and state and on the other side (on the conservative/right side) is unification of religion and state -- i.e., theocracy.

That's funny.

You mean except when President Obama frames the debate over national health care in terms of a moral obligation in front of a group of religious leaders, right?

Or do you mean except for when leftist Democrats frame welfare as a moral obligation?

Your ignorance and silliness is stunning.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

So every moral imperative is a religious one, Jay?

Sounds like there's the first step toward an unnecessary unification.

Synova said...

"To an ordinary person it certainly looks like the Dumbocrats are piling on somebody who's already been knocked down, and this will generate a backlash. Probably not such a huge backlash that it sends O'Donnell into the Senate (though, as I've pointed out in the past, her opponent is a couple fries short of a Happy Meal himself). But it's a backlash that could cost other Dumbocrat senatorial candidates a percentage point or two in their vote totals. And Boxcar, Murray, Manchin, Giannoulias, Bennet, and the execrable Conway cannot afford that percentage point or two."


Good point.

I can't vote for O'Donnell. So who can I vote for that might express my thoughts and feelings?

It will have to be someone local.

Synova said...

Every time someone says "theocracy" I contemplate both the Historical driving need for Christian division into ever more finely split doctrine reflected in yet another denomination coming to be, and the willful Historical ignorance of the person that can say the word "theocracy" and think they said something wise.

El Pollo Real said...

Mikio wrote: By the way, if you don’t believe in separation of church and state, which many conservatives clearly don’t, then you believe in unification of church and state -- i.e., theocracy.

That's wrong because you propose simplified dichotomy. Church and state can co-exist as a heterogenenous mixture. You propose a "unification" as some sort Gleichschaltung fantasy, no doubt just to frighten people.

Synova said...

Believing in the separation of church and state has everything to do with how "church" and "state" are defined.

If "church" means, "any expression of a religious nature" and "state" means "anything touching on the public sphere" then it is very true that many conservatives do not believe in the separation of "church" and "state."

For what it's worth, I'd put money on the notion that by "church" Jefferson meant "church organizations" and by "state" Jefferson meant the legislative and coercive elements of government.

Synova said...

Also, please!

Historically a "theocracy" and an official "state church" are not at all the same thing. How one gets to "theocracy" as the ONLY alternative to a philosophy that rejects the establishment of a state church I have NO idea.

And how anyone, ANYONE, can entertain the notion that the Lutherans will allow the Presbyterians or the Baptists will allow the Catholics or (heaven help us) the Anglicans or (worse!) the Church of Christ or Oneness Pentacostals to establish a state church MUCH LESS a theocracy, begs the question of sanity.

Seriously.

But I do realize that it's FUN fantasying about a theocracy. It's also fun to make-believe about vampires.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Perhaps "Rasmussen" is the name of one of the voices in Garbage's head, and is no relation to the pollster.

Or perhaps he's just making shit up again.

Big Mike said...

@Cedarford, you make a good point about primaries sometimes being dominated by extreme elements, and thank you for conceding that it happens on the other side (though I'd have put up Pelosi as an example of a far left extremist who couldn't be nominated, much less elected, out of districts where the voters were more rational).

But if Castle ever made an attempt to reach out to those members of the Tea Party who believe in fiscal responsibility, and tried to convince them that he "got it," that fact has not been published. His hard-edged negative attack on O'Donnell rebounded against him, and brought out people by the truckload who wanted to teach him a lesson. It's not clear that the lesson has taken, either, but Castle is 70 and entitled to play the curmudgeon if he wants to.

kentuckyliz said...

I understand O'Donnell. "Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law...." disestablishmentarianism is.

(What people refer to as "separation of church and state" was a much later SCOTUS interpretation. Eisegesis.)

And...the Constitution is just about Congress making no law. Did you know, it would be Constitutional for a state to establish an official church?

So, I get O'Donnell. Those sneering at her are truly ignorant of Constitutional and colonial history, when different colonies had different levels of tolerance of various religions. Early America was not about religious freedom.

LoafingOaf said...

It was just days ago that Althouse told us:

"We should take note of who drives people on the other side nuts. That person has a special power. It's not witchcraft, but it is power that they are afraid of. The more they deride her, the more those who agree with her politics should notice how desperately they want you to reject her. Think about what that means. (As Rush Limbaugh loves to say: They will tell you who they are afraid of.)"

First, notice that Althouse says "the other side". She used to fashion her site as an independent blog, more interested in culture than politics, and above partisanship. But she has a definite side now. Today, she is a total Tea Party blogger. (I guess this began sometime around the time she married a hardcore Republican ideologue.)

Next, notice what a difference a few days makes. A few days ago Althouse was telling us:

" The more they deride her, the more those who agree with her politics should notice how desperately they want you to reject her. Think about what that means. (As Rush Limbaugh loves to say: They will tell you who they are afraid of.)"

Today she tells us:

Let's not talk too much about Christine O'Donnell. She's way behind in the polls. Many other things are going on right now, and she is a big distraction.... In whose interest is it to make the elections about O'Donnell?"

Which is it? Are people afraid of O'Donnell, or is giving O'Donnell prominence part of a plot to make the Tea Party Right look bad?

It was Limbaugh, Fox News, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin, and blogs like this one that made us all pay attention to Christine O'Donnell. But she has been exposed as an airhead, a phoney, a bigot, a fool, and an ass.

This is a candidate for Senate who has been deeply involved with the movement to cure gay people of what she calls their "disorder" of being gay.

This is a candidate for Senate who rolls her eyes and smirks when someone says that evolution is a fact of science, because to her it is "just a theory." She is cool with public schools teaching Creationism in science classes on an equal footing with evolution.

This is a candidate for Senate who tells us she is running as someone who has studied and analyzed the constitution very deeply, yet when she speaks about the constitution it is not at all clear that she has even ever read the Bill of Rights a single time.

Althouse gave it a go, acting as her lawyer. I guess she tired of it, because it's hard to defend such an idiot. Now we shouldn't talk about her. That we talk about her so much is a plot from the Left. I dunno. Of all the blogs I read, this is the place I have seen talking about O'Donnell the most.

Richard Bennett said...

O'Donnell is the sweet, pretty, and abysmally stupid face of the Tea Party, a movement that wants to sneak creationism and the rest of a theocratic agenda into government in the guise of "local control" or by any other expedient means. Obama hasn't been as empirical (he calls it "data-driven") as he promised, but the critique of that failing isn't to abandon science for theological government.

AlphaLiberal said...

You are very selectively repulsed, Ann Althouse. Were you clutching your pearls when you wrote said that?

All this stuff is fair game. The TeaPartistas put up this candidate. Now, this candidate is being inspected and criticized.

What the hell is repulsive about that? The very idea that a Republican candidate would be criticized effectively?

But, I'm with you, Ann. Let's focus the spotlight on many of the other bizarre Republican candidates, like Ron JOhnson of Wisconsin, the plastics acountant who opposed legislation to protect children from abusers on behalf of the Green Bay Dioceses which protected child sexual abusers for years.

Let's do!

AlphaLiberal said...

Althouse demands we not deal with the reality of the Tea Party and their weird candidates but that we repeat the TP talking points (which are TP TP).

Look, any candidate who wants to take us back to the 19th century, is going to get hammered. As they should!

Oh, and Ann! Do tell us again how the Citizen United decision won't make any difference!! BULLSHIT!

JAY said...

Ahahahahaha!

BWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Chris Coons changed his previous position on the Bush era tax cuts this morning telling me that he would support extending all of the Bush era tax cuts for everyone for ’several years.’”


Gee, and I wonder what forced that change?

JAY said...

Ritmo Brasileiro said...
So every moral imperative is a religious one, Jay?


Um, want to take a guess as to how morality is generally defined?

Further, if this morality has nothing to do with religion, why are Democrats speaking to religious leaders when talking about moral imperatives?

You are utterly clueless and your myopia is appalling.

JAY said...

Look, any candidate who wants to take us back to the 19th century, is going to get hammered

Your idiocy is quite fun to watch.

Now, this candidate is being inspected and criticized.


Funny how you didn't say that when it came to Obama.

Gee, I wonder why?

March on in your silliness.

Synova said...

"...the Tea Party, a movement that wants to sneak creationism and the rest of a theocratic agenda into government in the guise of "local control" or by any other expedient means."

Well, this is new and different.

We all KNOW that the Tea Party can't possibly be about taxes or government intrusion so it's all about trying to figure out their REAL agenda.

Racism.

That was the big one. They don't care about centralized government controlling our lives, they're just racist.

But maybe that's getting old?

Now is it that the Tea Party is REALLY about a "theocratic agenda" and the complaints about taxes and the principle of local control is only a "guise", just a lie, to divert us?

Freedom, certainly liberty itself, is all about letting people be wrong. Centralized government is all about keeping them from being wrong. It's about control and management.

Local control of the *thought* which our children are exposed to is actually a very effective test of liberty. Can you bear the thought of *allowing* someone else to be wrong or to continue in their error?

I'm an oldest child. I understand in my bones the driving *need* to manage other people. I also understand that it's not an adequate excuse.

Mikio said...

Hagar,

And please learn to read. My first paragraph was about my native country, not the U.S.A.

If that’s true -- that your first paragraph was only about your native country and not about the U.S. even partially -- then it was totally irrelevant to the topic which is about the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause. Are you willing to concede it was totally irrelevant? Of course not. If you look carefully, you’ll see that I simply didn’t bother to parrot back at you most of what you already said, but instead culled the relevant point of commonality you were trying to make between your native country and the U.S. --

…and in no way will they tolerate the individual's right to "free exercise thereof" to be infringed upon.

-- namely, the infringement aspect, and focused on that. I did this to render your point ineffective by explaining (or reminding you) that conservatives and liberals have completely opposite takes on the matter. What you and conservatives in general consider gov’t infringement we consider freedom from gov’t infringement and vice versa. To illustrate this I used the teaching of ID as a scientific theory in public schools. Another example would be the issue of displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses. The liberal take is that the displaying/nondisplaying of them equates to gov’t infringement/gov’t noninfringement respectively, whereas the conservative take is flipped: displaying/nondisplaying equates to gov’t noninfringement/gov’t infringement respectively.

Synova, this part is to you too --

This all goes to bolster my point that the conservative take is one of unification of religion and state taken on a case by case basis. I didn’t mean conservatism is for a totally theocratic state per se as you both are misunderstanding. My using the words “continuum” and “to the extent” should’ve made this clear to you.

And Hagar, it doesn’t matter if you’re halfway enlightened enough to personally consider the teaching of ID as a scientific theory as “primitive” to use your word and perhaps too the displaying of the Ten Commandments in courthouses yet still advocate for them on a local/state basis because you consider it a given right by the Establishment Clause; that still amounts to you being politically and policywise in the unification of religion and gov’t camp in these cases whether you acknowledge it or not.

Synova said...

The idea that a person can comfortably separate their public and private selves and so not feel at all like they are being infringed upon when asked not to be a unified person in some situations will be news to those who don't think it comfortable to separate their public and private selves in order to serve in the military.