Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Can You Say Nutjob, Boys and Girls?

Via James Fallows, FLG learns of Christine O'Donnell's intelligence coup of 2006:
Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware said in a 2006 debate that China was plotting to take over America and claimed to have classified information about the country that she couldn't divulge.

Two things. First, she's nuts. We know she's nuts. So, this nuttiness shouldn't be surprising. Second, it is a bit tawdry that she said this in the context of whom she was running against.

UPDATE: FLG is also beginning to believe that Christine O'Donnell is a pathological liar.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well FLG if she is a pathological liar and nuts, then she deserves to be in Congress. Hell, she deserves to be in this administration. How many lies have been peddled by them? Can you call their Recovery Summer a recovery? Did they truly save or create 3 million jobs? Has all the bowing worked with the Muslim world. If so why is the State Department telling Americans abroad to hide the fact they are American? Did Obama heal the racial divide in this country? If so, then do 36% of white American say Obama is doing a bad job and 91% of African Americans say he is? Oh, and why are more people in poverty and why is domestic violence on the rise? Oh, and are you going to be able to keep your health care? If you are, lucky you. We're not going to be keeping ours because it will be cheaper for Mr. P's corporation to pay the fine for not enrolling its employees than to pay the new mandated fees with Obamacare.

If it makes you feel better to call Christine O'Donnell (and Sarah Palin) stupid, nuts, insane and pathological liars - hey then go to town. It's a free country. At least it was.

Mrs. P

FLG said...

Mrs. P:

There's wrong (the administration), and then there's crazy liars (O'Donnell).

George Pal said...

“Liar” and “crazy” seem so unlike the usually temperate FLG. How is she different than most candidates for either side of the aisle? She seems perfectly suited, if the rest are - lazily informed and only remotely articulate and if she’s a crazy liar they all are.

To "carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America” add “as sole superpower” – not so crazy?
Google ‘Chinese espionage in America’ or ‘Chinese military buildup’ or ‘Chinese space program’ and you could be reading well into next year.

I’m not saying FLG won’t be proven right about O’Donnell – only that he has been proven wrong about Obama, yet, manages a restrained ‘wrong’ characterizing a President who is certainly a life long liar and, if not clinically ‘crazy’ surely the most disordered personality to ever be president.

arethusa said...

Frankly, I'd trust Sarah Palin with the Presidency more than I'd trust Christine O'Donnell with a Senate seat, as Palin is neither crazy nor a pathological liar. Besides, I don't see how she could do any worse than Obama has.

But O'Donnell does not belong in the Senate. If she keeps saying stuff like this, she'll be the Republican version of Al Franken, and because she's Republican, her gaffes will get more media coverage and blacken the party's name. Let's be a little pragmatic here. If I were a Delaware Republican, I'd vote against her, party loyalty and Senate control be damned.

George Pal said...

Pragmatism is what got us here. The GOP lost the Presidency, the House, and gave the Democrats a super majority in the Senate – all by way of the pragmatism that comes of having run for office only the electable; principles be damned.

Ms. O’Donnell probably doesn’t belong in the Senate but she did a service by sticking her thumb in the GOP’s collective eye and keeping a life long Delaware pol of the Republican persuasion from continuing to suckle the at the public service teat by continually and steadfastly voting pragmatic.

arethusa said...

George Pal (and others who read this blog who may agree with you): In a nation where pragmatism is a virtue, what makes you think that true conservative principles can create a lasting governing coalition? Just as the last two years have proved that the nation isn't ready for a truly liberal ideology in charge, I don't see that it would be any different for conservatives. Most Americans fall between the two poles.

I don't think the issue is electable candidates. I think the issue is GOOD candidates. Mike Castle wasn't a good candidate, but Christine O'Donnell is way worse: she is a pathological liar who will say anything - anything! - to get attention and she has committed crimes. Character, not principles, ought to be a more important factor in elections than it is.

Anonymous said...

"In a nation where pragmatism is a virtue, what makes you think that true conservative principles can create a lasting governing coalition?"

I'll be real honest here. My main concern for 2010 is repealing Obamacare. And stopping Cap and trade and any other little idea that will cost the American taxpayers several trillion our ideologue of a President and his lovely wife Piano legs wants to shove down our throat. If I lived in Delaware, I'd vote for O'Donnell. Not because I think she's sane, honest or even in possession of an IQ that can proof yeast (yeast proofs at 96 degrees) . But because chances are really good that O'Donnell will consistently vote against Obama. And that is the kind of consistency America needs right now.

O'Donnell's great virtue was a lack of imagination. Or is it imagination? She either imagine she was worthy of a Senate set from Maryland or she couldn't imagine that people wouldn't support her. By the way, has anyone noticed how her opponent looks like he's Eliot Spitzer's little brother? Uncanny. Wonder if he has sex with prostitutes and keeps his knee socks on...

As far as a lasting governing coalition - 2011 is when I might start thinking about that. But if this election does what it looks like it's going to do, it will take more than 2 years for the Dems to recover.

Mrs. P

George Pal said...

Arethusa,

By all means character - but character will not run and with good reason – character is too demanding, it is judgmental, it consults standards and tradition and the virtues. Allow me to the use of H L Mencken to make my point. From On Politics - A Carnival of Buncombe:

”In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality [and character] cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. 



The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”


The candidate with either character or principle will not be had. Only those ill equipped to make their own way in life on anything other than the public dime, i.e., a career of politics will offer themselves. And worse, only these are acceptable to Party shakers and movers. Offer either party a candidate with sterling character and/or first principles and watch cardiac infarction take a grip.

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.