Secular Right | Reality & Reason

Oct/10

5

Christine O’Donnell is one of you!

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someoneShare on TumblrShare on Google+

Ms. O’Donnell makes very explicit one of the aspects of contemporary right-wing populism. On the one hand it is surely true that the American Elite Establishment has become stagnant and calcified. On the other hand, do we really want Average Joes in the halls of Congress? Where only 25% of the American have a university degree, 99% of the Senate does (Mark Begich being the exception). Good or bad? My heart leans toward elitism, but my head isn’t so sure.

·

23 comments

  • ChristopherTK · October 5, 2010 at 2:27 am

    She is not me. She is shallow, self-serving, and unaware how lost she is. She loves the spotlight and once again, she has found a willing audience ready to join her madness.

    The right should be better then this.

  • John · October 5, 2010 at 2:37 am

    For some reason, the sound wouldn’t work for this clip on my computer, so I can’t comment on the content of the ad. I will say she looks rather hot in this commercial.

  • Matt · October 5, 2010 at 2:46 am

  • Joel · October 5, 2010 at 2:51 am

    I can’t decide whether “I’ll do what you’d do” directed to no one in particular is the best campaign promise of all time or the worst. Ask me again after the election.

    (Also, I love the YouTube comment “How can she be me if she does not masturbate?” I wish I’d said it first.)

  • Author comment by David Hume · October 5, 2010 at 3:09 am

    (Also, I love the YouTube comment “How can she be me if she does not masturbate?” I wish I’d said it first.)

    she has a history of fibbing about things you know….

  • John · October 5, 2010 at 3:28 am

    Ah, now I got it to work. I actually think it’s a pretty good ad (except the “I’m not a witch” beginning–that’s just reminding people of the issue). The “I’m you” slogan reminds me of George Wallace’s slogan: “Send them a message.”, them being whoever you wanted them to be. She is being portrayed as a kook, and saying, “No, actually, I’m normal just like you” is a good idea. I don’t think it will be enough for a win, though.

    I’m no big Castle fan, but I still think the GOP missed an opportunity here. Right now it looks like we will end up with about 49 seats. With Castle it would have been 50. Oh well, she’s still hot.

  • Author comment by David Hume · October 5, 2010 at 3:39 am

    She is being portrayed as a kook, and saying, “No, actually, I’m normal just like you” is a good idea. I don’t think it will be enough for a win, though.

    yeah, the probability is low.

    http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/senate/delaware

    for the record, i don’t think her financial problems should disqualify her. many establishment figures are buffered from financial problems through sweetheart deals. even the upper middle class can get caught up in the boom-bust cycle if they don’t have “connections” to cushion their shock (e.g., from lobbyists all the way to a wealthy parent).

    some of the stuff she has said though makes it likely that she’s not very intelligent. or at least close to the average american in intelligence. e.g., the mouse with a human brain. i can see a normal dumb person saying this, but really a senator should not be so stupid.

    some of the stuff she’s made up is really a bad sign as to the nature of her character. easily verified stuff like the fact that she didn’t win counties she said she won (she rounded up to above 50% from below 50). obviously crazily implausible stuff on the face of it, like her claim she had inside info on how the chinese were going to take over.

    i suspect that her attractiveness has allowed her to slide through life so far. but it seems to have fostered some unfortunate habits.

  • Chris · October 5, 2010 at 4:00 am

    Will she vote to slow government growth? Will she vote to seal the borders and enforce current law? Will she vote against racial preferences? Is she one who isn’t yet on the take?

    I don’t care who she is – if that’s the case, she’s got to be better than the lib she’s running against.

  • Hisham · October 5, 2010 at 4:46 am

    [F]or the record, i don’t think her financial problems should disqualify her. many establishment figures are buffered from financial problems through sweetheart deals. even the upper middle class can get caught up in the boom-bust cycle if they don’t have “connections” to cushion their shock (e.g., from lobbyists all the way to a wealthy parent).

    I agree that her personal financial situation shouldn’t be a factor in voting for her, but if the allegations about her using campaign funds for personal use are true, that should be a disqualification.

    Claiming an ignorance of campaign finance law isn’t a good excuse for an aspiring lawmaker.

  • Author comment by David Hume · October 5, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Claiming an ignorance of campaign finance law isn’t a good excuse for an aspiring lawmaker.

    sure. but from what i can tell a lot of it was chump-change compared to the quid-pro-quo which is clear in cases of long-serving senators who follow the letter of the law, but not the spirit.

  • Stephen · October 5, 2010 at 10:26 am

    “I agree that her personal financial situation shouldn’t be a factor in voting for her, but if the allegations about her using campaign funds for personal use are true, that should be a disqualification.”

    I think Mickey Kaus took care of this one about a few weeks ago (I would provide a link, but I cannot find his archives). His argument is that running for office is a full-time job, and anyone who is not rich has to use campaign funds, or sell their house. He also seemed to imply that the FEC recognizes this.

  • Polichinello · October 5, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    Will she vote with Reid (or his replacement) or against them? That’s what matters. There’s really no conservative argument for her opponent. Would Castle have been more viable? Probably. I’d have voted for him, nose held tightly. But guess what? That doesn’t matter now, because he lost.

    Again, the Democrats have a host of numbskulls. Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer, Al Franken, and Herb Kohl are no geniuses, but that doesn’t really matter to their party because they vote the right way. Mutatis mutandis, the same thing goes for O’Donnell, as much as a dingbat as she is.

    Now, Paladino, that’s a different story. The man has to do more than follow the leader. He needs to run a state, and the guy is clearly cracked. Him I would probably vote against, even though it means electing Prince Andrew.

  • Jim · October 5, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    Leaving aside O’Donnell’s personal issues, I have to say that an impressive educational background is no help whatsoever to good policymaking. In fact, it’s often the opposite (the heavier the indoctrination, the less the common sense).

    “Where only 25% of the American have a university degree, 99% of the Senate does…Good or bad?”

    EXACTLY!! Are you satisfied with the current Senate, and the current state of the nation? Well there’s your answer!

    BTW I have an Ivy League degree, and I can’t think of many of my classmates who aren’t unthinking knee-jerk Obama liberals. Education is undeniably important for scientists, mathematicians, and doctors. The rest is worthless.

  • Mike · October 5, 2010 at 8:36 pm

    I agree with Buckley. I’d rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard.

    The fact that they have degrees in higher proportion than the general population probably only serves to encourage their sense of elitism.

    In any event, if their higher degrees aren’t in science or math they really don’t mean much to me. Elitist? Perhaps.

  • panglos · October 5, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    I fully support her as she will tow the party line.

    She wants to reduce the size of government and spending and what more is to be said?

    Is the alternative a Dem who fancied himself as a marxist?

    And what of WFB’s very astute observation that in this day of special interests, one would rather be governed by the first hundred names in the phone book.

  • Mark · October 6, 2010 at 4:45 am

    It is amazing that on a blog called SECULAR Right we have so many people here willing to pull the lever for someone about as far from “secular” as one can imagine. Have you all devolved to the point that selecting the “R” is all that matters? JFC, there other options–third parties, write-ins or just abstaining altogether (Ms.O’Donnell would at least like the sound of that). I don’t see how anyone who even just pretends to be s secularist can vote for this extremely silly person.

  • Craig · October 6, 2010 at 5:01 am

    Elites or Average Joes in the Senate? I invoke WFB’s Boston phone book comment.

    But, then, I’m one of those who favor repealing the XVII amendment.

    Honestly, as kooky as she is, O’Donnell would be one of the sanest people in the Senate.

  • Craig · October 6, 2010 at 5:03 am

    Mark:

    My being secular doesn’t prevent me from voting for religious people. There’s no religious test for government, and for good reason. I’ll vote for the most qualified or the candidate closest to my values on key issues even if they believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    Might draw the line at Homeopathy, though.

  • Mark · October 6, 2010 at 5:30 am

    O’Donnell is not just a “religious person”–I’ve voted for plenty of those. She’s a flaming nutjob.

    Second, the Constitution forbids the GOVERNMENT from imposing religious tests for office–there is nothing preventing YOU from establishing such a test for your vote, and if you have any sense you certainly do. For example,I am not knowingly voting for any Scientologist, ever, period. If you can’t imagine yourself imposing such a “test”, then I question WTF you are doing here. Some religious folks are just inherently dangerous, and there is nothing wrong with saying this.

  • Carl S · October 6, 2010 at 6:25 pm

    “Some religious folks are just inherently dangerous”

    Religious folk, at least in this country, are annoying, but hardly dangerous.

    Putting up the ten commandments in a court room, or inserting “under God” into the pledge of allegience has little to no impact on my life.

    $1 trillion stimulus packages and socializing healthcare does. Rationally, fiscal sanity is much more important.

  • Mark · October 6, 2010 at 6:31 pm

    Carl, you need to wait until they achieve critical mass to make that judgment.

    I also note that you needed to drop my modifier “some” to make your “point”.

  • John Beeler · October 9, 2010 at 1:14 am

    Her faults are those of the Tea Party: anti-immigrant and pro-war. So I wouldn’t vote for her but I don’t hate her either.

    Like the unqualified Sarah Palin, another attractive woman for the swipples to hate.

    The masturbation remark is like Jimmy Carter’s lust-in-his-heart remark, unobjectionable religious teaching and testimony but regrettably about a topic even easier for the detractors to make fun of.

  • Ray · October 11, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    Whether she can win is another story, but were she actually to do so, she’d hardly bring down the levels of class, decorum, and sanity in Congress. Compared to Alan Grayson, she’s a combination Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Grace Kelly.

    Have to watch that education thing. Some comments on this have noted WFB Jr’s famous remark on who he’d rather have been governed by. Unfortunately for us, we’re now being ruled the group he was opposed to.

    Considering how it’s unfolding, his words seem more prescient than ever.

    Also, the only president with a PhD was Woodrow Wilson. That alone should make having a doctorate an automatic disqualification from holding the highest office in the land.

<<

>>

Theme Design by devolux.nh2.me