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.
-
Archives
- August 2019
- July 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
-
Meta
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.
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.
This link on the same topic from Australia may be useful
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/can-a-whitecollar-pollie-understand-a-workers-plight-20100927-15tlo.html
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.)
(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….
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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”.
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.
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.