A Brief Political Observation

I know nothing about Christine O'Donnell and since I don't vote in the state of Delaware, I probably won't expend much effort trying to figure her out.  She is accused of being a flake and of making some crazy statements.  Again, I can't say one way or the other.  But I did have this thought:  Since when did making crazy, nonsensical public statements in the heat of a political campaign become a disqualification for a Senate seat held by Joe Biden for three decades?


  1. Mesa Econoguy:

    Wait, Delaware is a state?

    Jesus, we're worse off than I thought......

  2. Not Sure:

    I think the rule is- once you're elected, you can be nuttier than squirrel turds and it's all good. Until then...

  3. Methinks:

    I just read that out loud to my husband and he's still laughing.

    Why pick on Biden when we have a president who vowed to visit all 57 states during his campaign, whose grandmother was "a typical white woman" and who in at least two speeches spun a story about his conversations with "corpsemen".

    But, at least he doesn't have a negro dialect or anything.

    Yep. That Christine O'Donnell sure is nutty compared to the stellar group we have in office now.

  4. miriam:

    I DO live in Delaware, and I voted in the primary. See http://miriamsideas.blogspot.com/2010/09/yesterdays-election-in-delaware.html

    The establishment's response has been downright spiteful--so spiteful, in fact, that though I voted for Mike Castle, I just sent $25 to O'Donnell's campaign. She couldn't be worse than the other 99 crooks in the Senate.

  5. Bill:

    Excellent point.

  6. Angus S-F:

    The Tea Party and the Value of Craziness - Reason Magazine

    "... to the tea partiers, that's not a bug; it's a feature. If a $1.4 trillion federal budget deficit represents sanity, they would prefer a candidate who escaped from the psych ward."


  7. stuhlmann:

    Also O'Donnell may have violated a number of laws dealing with the management of and use of campaign funds - things like using the campaign funds to pay for her residence. And remember, you only get to exempt yourself from playing by the rules after you get elected.

  8. alanstorm:

    Would it have been better if she'd made the comments in Austrian, after visiting all 57 states?

  9. morganovich:


    i am still laughing.

    that was a fantastic comment.

  10. Ken:

    Yeah, they're definitely overplaying the "crazy" hand.

  11. jake:

    I mean, you got a mainstream white woman who is articulate and bright and clean and a pretty gal. I mean, that's a storybook, man.

  12. caseyboy:

    I do not live in DE, but I am sending Christine a contribution this evening, christine2010.com. The media/political elites are over the top when it comes to laying down double standards. Joe Biden is a walking, talking gaff machine. The president isn't much better when his tele-prompter stops working. And another thing, I'm not real happy with the republic elites either. All upset because they might not get their committee chairmanships back. 51 might do that but it doesn't break filibusters or over-ride presidential veto's.

  13. Mesa Econoguy:

    I thought Biden was saying something plagiarized like "I'm well-aware I'm in the Senate..." etc.

    What amalgamation of fools would possibly endorse some illiterate stuffed-suit retard like him to do anything, much less park their car?

    I also though Delaware was a parking space for US incorporation. Silly me.

  14. Foxfier:

    Simple! Look at Joe. Look at the lady. Who would YOU pay attention to? ;^)

  15. Eddie:

    Unless I'm mistaken, aren't the "crazy" statements alluded to from an MTV documentary she was interviewed for 14 years ago? They can't find any current issues to oppose her on, so they have to bring up something that has nothing to do with politics, or the present, to attack her.

    Hopefully, the snide little quips over the issue will backfire as much as the "teabagger" humor has for our intellectually self-gifted media.

  16. morganovich:

    i fond it incredibly refreshing to see someone going after the "political class' and really meaning it.

    this country was founded on an idea as radical as it is amazing: the citizens posses inalienable rights that derive from nature, not government. the primacy of the individual had never been constitutionally enshrined before. since the 30's, this notion has been under grave assault and the one way ratchet of federal power has just kept sliding.

    i find horrifying that members of our own government are describing adherence to the constitution as radical, insane, and evil. i find it even more horrifying that much of the population seems to buy this.

    this is exactly what happens once you get a government with a huge budget and redistributionist tendencies. the bottom half throw notions of rights out the window in favor of taking money from the top half. the top 3% of taxpayers in the US pay as much income tax as the bottom 97% combined. how can such a group possibly defend itself from tyranny of the majority? only with rights.

    the whole purpose of rights is precisely to prevent tyranny of the majority. if 2% of people want to say something unpopular, the other 98% must not be allowed to silence them "democratically". democracy is not freedom. it can easily be the opposite. only when tempered by inalienable individual rights will it serve freedom, but even then, it must be carefully watched.

    i have never been politically active, nor has anyone in my family, but we are all riled up over the tea party. this is the vast upper middle class that is usually too busy working and raising kids waking up and demanding government that represents them, not milks them. government should represent not just the people, but also their rights. trampling on the latter to allegedly accomplish the former is the road to fascism.

    i find it fascinating how upset this has made the left who believed they had a monopoly on grass roots politics.

    they are about to get a lesson they will never forget. the "teabaggers" are the people who know how to do things. that's why they were successful. they are a MUCH more potent force that longhairs marching demanding free healthcare. it make take a couple of election cycles to get up to speed with the reds and the blues in terms of political sophistication and machine politics, but this is going to be a slaughter.

    the hubris of our "political elites" has finally brought down nemesis.

    how much fun would it be to have a real third party emerge? one that could relegate team blue and team red to the margins and mean that neither would ever hold congressional majorities again? such a third party need not be the majority to mater. if they hold the swing votes and push always for fiscal prudence and social freedom, that would change everything.

  17. Ignoramus:

    The latest Rasmussen Poll for the Delaware Senate race has Coons at 53% and O’Donnell at 42%, but I don’t think it will end that way. I expect O’Donnell will (1) either lose by 25% or more, or (2) keep it close or even win depending on how things develop.

    The O’Donnell race will get more attention than it deserves and overshadow other Tea Party-contested races. That’s because it’s raw red meat for MSM.
    If O’Donnell does poorly she’ll discredit the Tea Party Movement and drag down Republican candidates generally. But if she does well ….
    I’m now going to channel Sarah Palin:
    “Chris Coons is an over-educated spoiled wanker (Amherst, Yale Law, Yale Divinity). He’s practically an avowed Communist (think Obama in whiteface) … and he’s bald!

    “I’m going to get behind Christine O’Donnell 100%. I can’t wait until she gets to debate Coons – she’s going to gut him and field dress him … and I’m going to teach her how … just like I did Joe Biden, but better. You betcha!

    “Think ahead … if a Christine O’Donnell can beat a Chris Coons for the Senate in Delaware with my help … what does that portend for 2012?

    “Portend” … SAT word … Didn’t think I knew it, did ya’”
    I’ve warmed up to the idea of a Senator O’Donnell after initial skepticism. The Republicans should support her 110% -- she did win the nomination fair and square … she absolutely can win … if she flounders it’ll be a drag on other races … she could be the 51st.

    But here’s the problem: Both Christine and Sarah have roots in the Holy Roller Moralist wing of the Republican party. This wing has significant clout within the party and in primaries, but its positions are problematic in general elections.

    Here’s an old joke with a political moral:

    A priest, a minister and a rabbi get on the topic of “when does life begin.”

    The priest says: Upon conception, as a unique individual is defined with a God-given soul.

    The minister says: No you have it wrong. It’s at the Quickening. Forty days or so after conception the spark of life gets lit and the fetus shows independent movement.

    The rabbi says: No, you’re both wrong. Life begins when the youngest kid goes off to college, and the dog dies.


    The political moral of this joke is that morality has no place in politics. God gave Moses Ten Commandments but only three are still on the law books. Hell, “coveting” is a the Amercian way of life. Seriously, politics requires compromise. How could a Priest-Legislator sign onto a Quickening compromise.

    Holly Rollers should be welcome candidates in politics. But they need to learn to render unto Caesar on matters where there is no moral consensus. That doesn’t mean they can’t preach, just not legislate.

    I’m still not clear where Sarah stands on this. If she’s “pragmatic” then she should say so.

    Vote for Pedro!

  18. Pat:

    Ms O'Donnell needs to say something like, "Years ago in my youth I dabbled in something stupid, but matured and got over it. Our leadership in the White House and Congress dabbled in socialism and progressivism in their youth, and despite evidence that it doesn't work from all over the world, they still cling to it. Despite the fact that their Progressive big government policies are not working now, they still cling to them. They call me crazy?"

  19. Gold Trader James:

    well...I know nothing about Christine O’Donnell either..

  20. Terry Noel:

    You know, sometimes someone says something so well there is little need to clarify or interpret. Well done.


  21. caseyboy:

    Our founding fathers were adamant about separating the practice of religion from the function of government, but do not jump to the conclusion that they did not understand the importance of morality based on religious beliefs as an appropriate foundation for life.

    John Adams - "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
    • Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts (11 October 1798).

    It turns out President Adams was right on money. No surprise tyranny is on the rise.