She’s us.
And you know what? I believe her.
Christine O’Donnell isn’t me, of course. Nor is she you. But, as she rightfully points out, she is us—plural: a typical American with strong opinions about things who doesn’t pretend to be anything other than what she is.
When asked about some of her more controversial remarks, such as her statement that she once dabbled in witchcraft, she neither denies the obvious facts (as McCain is famous for doing) nor makes excuses. She simply says, “I’m not twenty any more.” And who among us could claim to have said or done nothing in our 20s that we wouldn’t want broadcast on national television?
Of all the wing nuts the tea party has put forth this campaign season, Christine O’Donnell appears to me to be the most likable, as well as perhaps the most sincere.
She doesn’t torture the truth beyond recognition (like Sharron Angle, when she claims that Harry Reid “voted to give Viagra to child molesters”). Unlike Joe Miller, who wants to abolish Social Security and the minimum wage, she may—as she claims—have some empathetic understanding of the needs of ordinary people. And unlike the Mama Grizzly herself, Sarah Palin, she has a gentle, well modulated voice and conciliatory manner that makes it easy to listen to her—no matter how nonsensical her arguments may be.
I like her.
If I lived in Delaware, I wouldn’t dream of voting for her, of course. Being nice and ordinary hardly qualifies a person to be a Senator, any more than being bitchy, negative, and dishonest qualifies her to be Vice President.
Aided and abetted by Fox News, however, the Tea Party has convinced a good part of the American electorate that to be taken seriously, a candidate must be hostile, sarcastic, and positively bristling with Doomsday scenarios.
Sadly, it’s her lack of those negative qualities, and not her lack of common sense, that makes Christine O’Donnell the biggest long shot candidate in the midterm elections.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hi CJ,
Well this post by you was a surprise! You LIKE O'Donnell, a Republican ... but you wouldn't dream of voting for her. I'm curious as to what you base this on.
You say you "like" her because "she has a gentle, well modulated voice and conciliatory manner that makes it easy to listen to her—no matter how nonsensical her arguments may be."
But you wouldn't vote for her. Why? Nowhere in your post did we get a glimpse of what these "nonsensical arguments" are that you disagree with. Besides your requisite bashing of Palin, McCain, Fox and the Tea Party, you fail to discuss ANY issues.
So I looked up on Christine's website exactly how she stands on the issues. I wonder which ones you consider "nonsensical arguments" that would prohibit you from voting for her?
Here are her issues:
Jobs Believes jobs are created when businesses are freed from endless taxes and bureaucratic red tape.
Security Believes terrorism is an act of war requiring the full force of our intelligence and military resources rather than granting terrorists precious Constitutional rights and outsourcing our foreign policy to the U.N.
Debt Believes heaping trillions in debt on the backs of our grandchildren is immoral and that Congress is elected to make the hard choices to preserve our nation’s future prosperity.
Taxes Will fight to remove the crushing tax burden faced by American families and businesses and dramatically simplify the tax code.
Life Strongly believes in protecting the sanctity of life at ALL stages.
Energy Supports a market-based approach to energy solutions that will keep competition high and energy prices low.
Values Believes our country was founded on core values of faith, family and freedom and will fight to defend those values. Will always fight for maximum choice for parents about where to educate their kids, including private, parochial and charter schools or in the home.
Spending Believes unrestrained government spending is eroding our freedom, destroying our economy and ceding our sovereignty to foreign debt-holders like China.
Accountability Denounces corrupt pork-barrel politics, including earmarks, and will fight for increased transparency and performance information for every Federal program.
Healthcare Believes that the solution to the healthcare crisis is less government meddling in the doctor/patient relationship, more competition in the insurance market and more choice for families about their health plan.
Gun Control Christine’s strong support of 2nd Amendment rights has earned her an “A” rating from the NRA.
I agree with you that "being nice and ordinary hardly qualifies a person to be a Senator." So that is why you should look at the issues and not the superficial things that you "like" about her .. her "gentle, well modulated voice and conciliatory manner." And just because you disagree with some of her arguments on issues, that hardly makes them nonsensical.
Hi, Idna!
Are you referring to Christine O’Donnell’s new web site—the one provided her by the GOP/Rovian money machine right after she stunned the establishment by winning the nomination? That would be the one which, according to the site itself, was designed by “firm behind other key Senate and Congressional campaigns this cycle.” (NYT, 10-8-10)
All those policies you mentioned are the old Bush/Rove agenda being brushed off and recycled for the benefit of those still delusional enough to believe that the Republican Party is, in any sense of the word, “for the people.”
Ms. O’Donnell’s old site was really and truly her own: The one that stated that evolution is a myth, that masturbation is synonymous with infidelity, and that abortion should be illegal 100% of the time (including in instances of rape and incest). It also contained falsehoods too numerous to mention about her academic credentials.
But the GOP spin machine fixed all that, so now she’s presentable and invited to the Tea Party.
Good post! I think I basically agree with you (minus your misplaced confidence Social Security and misunderstanding of the effects of minimum wage laws).
There is a reason they call this time before the election the "silly season." To make a big deal about the fact that a person who wins the nomination to run for Senate gets a new website is beyond liberal/progressive talking point nutty. Who doesn't create a new website when they are running for a new office?
And to bring up things she said when she was a teenager ... you know, right about the time when Obama was snorting coke and smoking weed ... is indeed silly season stuff. (At least HER teenage activities weren't illegal!)
Do you actually think that masturbation will be an issue that will be up for vote in the Senate any time soon? So why is that topic a problem AT ALL ... no matter what her position on it is?
Democrats/liberals/progressives/ (whatever the latest term is for them) are in a panic and resorting to politics of personal destruction rather than talking real issues. Their hysterical, deceptive and irrational talking points don't quite fit these pages which tout "thought and comments from a rational perspective."
Thread Hyjack... where is President Obama on DADT? Oh yeah, he is in opposition to this judge... Candidate Obama promised to end DADT, President Obama fought in court to keep DADT, then played games with the language of the judges ruling, criticizing the judge for basically telling the president what he is doing is unconstitutional (what would Senator Obama have been saying about President McCain if the roles were reveresed?). Now the word is that the Obama Administration plans to appeal this judges decision that it is unconstitutional. It's time for him to FINALLY do the right thing and annouce that he will not appeal the judges decision!
Hi, Six,
I agree. I'd be disappointed (and amazed) if the administration tried to appeal Judge Phillips' very sensible ruling.
Obama has been on record since long before his inauguration as being in favor of repealing DADT, and the administration probably won't miss this opportunity to let the courts take care of the problem.
Obama's greatest weakness (which, in a sane and sensible country, would be a strength) is his insistence on trying to find common ground with people (read "Republicans") who simply refuse to agree to anything, no matter how sensible, or to act in a bipartisan way for the greater good.
Yes, it would be comforting if he could just issue executive orders and get past some of the ridiculous obstructionism that's slowing progress to a standstill in areas from the economy to the environment to the over 400 nominees awaiting Senate approval.
But to issue such orders would be philosophically problematic, politically unwise, and against his nature as a person.
That's why it's so important that every Democrat, independent, and moderate Republican (if any) in America votes for midterm candidates who are interested in moving this country forward. (In almost every case, that's the Democrat.)
You used the phrase 'if he could'... thats the issue - HE CAN. President Clinton used the same Presidential Directive process as the Commander in Chief of the military to implement Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This is not a matter Congress is needed for. What is there to work towards 'common ground' on? Not a single Republican need support him... not even a single Democrat. Just as his administration argued quite feverently in court to keep the policy in place, I suspect that he will appeal it. The reality is that he does not actually care about gay-rights... he cares about votes. I actually believe that he weighs against counting on gay-rights supporters voting for him no matter what he does... so he does not expend the political capital to do the right thing and take the political hit. He knows that he has it in the bag that those who care most about gay rights will vote for him and the Dems for the most part no matter what. By continuing to pay lip service to ending DADT, but not actually ending it, he helps save face in those closely contested states.
I do love the irony in this all though... President Clinton signs in to law DADT, President Obama pledges to repeal it, but then instead defends it in court (and also makes clear he opposes gay marriage). And in the end it is a Republican activist group that gets it found as unconstitutional. And the Democrats are the party of Civil Liberties? Heh.
Post a Comment