Politically Incorrect With Christine O'Donnell - Macleans.ca

Politically Incorrect With Christine O’Donnell


Now that Christine O’Donnell, who appeared on various shows in the ’90s as the designated young “Christian Activist” (arguing against masturbation, pornography and so on) has won the Republican Senate primary in Delaware, the question is: which other person from this Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher panel would you like to see run for Senate? My choice is Jasmine Guy.

That’s the TV part of it; now a politics aside: what passes for a GOP establishment is appalled at this result — Bill Kristol, who was largely responsible for Sarah Palin’s rise to fame, dismissed O’Donnell as “No Sarah Palin” (Palin, who endorsed O’Donnell, disagrees). She might win yet, but she is obviously much less likely to win a liberal state like Delaware than the man she beat, Mike Castle. Comparisons to Sharron Angle in Nevada don’t work, as Nevada is a more conservative state.

The GOP base currently believes that it’s more important to vote for ideologically “pure” candidates than moderate but electable candidates like Castle, and though it looks weird in this particular instance, it’s a strategy that’s paid off so far this year by pushing the whole party where the activists want it. Where I think they go wrong is in assuming that the moderate Republicans won’t be on their side: moderates like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins vote with their party whenever they’re really needed (like on health care), and Castle would have been the same — meaning that GOP activists haven’t quite figured out that they’ve won.


Politically Incorrect With Christine O’Donnell

  1. NOW A WORD from a Progressive Male Chauvinist Pig
    Did anyone see the video of Christine O'Donnell (Republican Senate candidate from Delaware) talking about outlawing masturbation? I got to admit while this sexy little tart was speaking about abstinence… I was going at it like George Costanza… (lol)

    Truth be told I've always had a thing for Conservative women. I masturbated to Sarah Palin or Tina Fay doing Sarah Palin all during the 2008 Presidential election… And Michele Bachmann… oh la la… I could just pick her up and do the twirl, give the poor deluded girl the ride of her life.

    I don't even need porn, I just turn on the cable TV and wait for one of the FOX News Ho's to come on and it's ON!

    But it nothing like the real thing though. Republican women are easy because they're men are all constipated, impotent and closeted gays. I've had more affairs with those beautiful, sexy Conservative nymphomaniacs than all the Liberal hippie chicks I've met during my protest movement days…

    Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that I DON'T WANT ANYONE I WANT TO MASTURBATE TO IN MY NEW MEDIA OR GOVERNMENT!

    as posted on blog

    • You're a real classy guy. You know that?

  2. moderates like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins vote with their party whenever they're really needed (like on health care)

    What about the stimulus? Or judges? Or a number of other important issues to conservatives? It's been my experience that liberals like so-called conservative moderates, well, because they're not so conservative. That's the point.

    • What about the stimulus? Or judges? Or a number of other important issues to conservatives?

      Well, with the stimulus they watered down the proposal quite a bit. They voted for the package once their demands were met, but the leadership did not consider stopping it to be a priority (since Obama was popular at the time and might have won the publicity wars); the important thing was to make it as low as possible and give it as little bipartisan cover as possible. When stopping legislation is a priority for the leadership, the moderates are required to vote with the party, and do. E.g.Castle usually casts his non-party-line votes on bills that would pass with or without him.

      And with judges, the moderates were extremely effective: the "Gang of 14" or whatever guaranteed that Democrats would stop filibustering Bush appointees while reserving the right for Republicans to continue filibustering Democratic nominees (which they have).

      The idea that there are liberal Republicans who routinely break with the party, though, is gone along with the Dixiecrats. Now the U.S. has much more of a party-line system, where almost everybody falls in line when their vote is needed, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's accepted for what it is.

      • When stopping legislation is a priority, the moderates are required to vote with the party, and do.

        I don't think that's the case for either party. Ask Obama, who had to resort to arcane budgetary procedures to circumvent the moderates in the Senate to pass his health care reform. On the GOP side, it was public opinion that reigned them in as much as anything else.

        I have mixed feelings about demands for ideological consistency on legislators. Yet at least there is a debate in the States. Here, independent legislators are rare.

        • That would be 'reined'.

    • You have no experience. You live in the basement reading comic books.

      • Don't you ever get tired of these trolling remarks, Nola? You used them on Bourque. You can't help but use them on here. It only shows the weakness of your agenda, and your complete inability to engage more capable people. Thanks for showing up.

        • Don't you ever get tired of claiming to be a writer when you can neither write nor spell?

          It's all of a piece with your other wild claims. LOL

          • Going from one insult to another doesn't boost your credibility. But it does prove my point about you. Thank you.

          • No Dennis it doesn't. So stop it.

  3. You consider playing with one's "ding-a-ling" a manly thing, do ya? Interesting.

    • Well, it's more than you manage.

      • Why would I want to manage your masturbation desires? On a political discussion board that's obviously beyond your intellect? God.

        • Dennis you hate women, so all you're left with is your…ahem…magazine…and your hand.

          That's not intellect son.

          • Enough with the vicious smear tactics. God.

          • Then go to bed instead of trying to talk about things beyond your comprehension.

    • "Ding-a-ling' , Dennis? That's definitely not manly.

      • Exactly. Now tell it to Nola. She's the one who said it and posted the video. Geez.

  4. This is exactly who Christine is. She long ago become entrenched in her thinking and she has no interest in listening to anyone else's point of view. Her world view, the Tea Party world view, is the only legitimate perspective in her mind, and she will shout down anyone and everyone who tries to get a word in edgewise.

    Scream all you want, girl. The Tea Party just handed Delaware to the Democrats.

    • Yeah, opportunists are everywhere…even having tea.

    • That's funny. You seem to be describing many leftists on these boards.

      • There are none.

        • There is not one leftist on these boards. Another "Emily" whopper.

          • None I know of. But you see them everywhere.

            Maybe it's just you.

          • On a political discussion board, there is not one leftist. I mean, why keep lying about even the most basic of facts? For that matter, why keep lying about not being a leftist yourself?

          • I loathe leftwingers Dennis. quite as much as I loathe rightwingers.

            Rightwingers want us to live in a church, and leftwingers want us to live in a cave.

            I have no intention of doing either.

            So give your 'invisible friends' a rest.

          • I don't know what it is about the left that they hate admitting to being left. Then they accuse others of having a hidden agenda. Nevertheless, you're the one making the moronic claim that no left-wingers post on here. Why be so flatly absurd? Nevermind.

          • Political direction is another subject you're not sane on. Along with sex and religion.

            Well….a lot of things, really. LOL

  5. They can't comprehend it. They can't define it. They see it as the Republican's gimmick. They don't know how to defend against it. Smear, play it nice, kiss ass, whatever, they know they have angered the American TAX payer, and when you anger the people who make this country work, we will rise up against you and change the system. We need to Repeal the 17th Amendment, and break the House into 6 regional houses, this is the only way we can take back our nation and take back our future. The people of this country never wanted elites, aristocrats, the nobility. We are HARD working, free thinking, anti-establishment Patriots who never had a voice, never had a message. We just wanted to be left alone. Thank God For Barack Obama!

    • 'We'?? So you're American?

      Then what are you doing here?

      • sorry, didn't know this was a canadian website. I just searched the news story and posted the opinion. I didn't catch the .ca on the end. Won't happen again, and I'm not in the US right now, if that's any consolation.

        • I don't care if you post here….the 'we' just startled me. LOL

        • You don't have to apologize. You guys are the topic. You have every right to provide your own perspective, and I think it adds credibility to the discussion.

          You see, liberals like "Emily" adore internationalism until the second it intersects with their agenda. Don't mind "her".

  6. The woman is right on, she was speaking the truth and fighting liberalism before fighting liberalism was cool.

  7. "The GOP base currently believes that it's more important to vote for ideologically “pure” candidates …. "

    There are good reasons for them to think this way. One, Repubs really hurt their brand during the 2000s and Bush era because they were spending like drunken sailors like Dems do. Repubs need to define themselves and they can't do it by being awfully similar to Dems.

    Secondly, Repubs have seen what's happened to Dems and their 50 State strategy. Dems recruited anyone who they thought could win, regardless of ideology, and now we have Dems and their supporters squawking about Repub obstruction when Dems have filibuster proof majorities in both Houses of Congress and Presidency.

    Dems appear to be gang who can't govern and are about to be punished for their hubris.

    • She isn't repub, she's a teabag candidate. Not a very good one, but about par for the course for them

  8. This show was great.

  9. I love how liberals aren't learning the lesson in this election.

    So fed up is the electorate with big government wasteful spending, graft, unsustainable social programs, so desireous of fiscal sanity being brought back to order, than they elected her, despite her shortcomings.

    On the issues that matter: smaller, more effecient government, she took it hands down.

    Liberals enjoy the moment of glee. But the wave that caused this is going to hit the Dems in November harder than any political party has ever been hit in N. American polity.

    Now, carry on with the snide condescention. Grass roots love snide condescention.

    • LOL amazing you can say that with a straight face after 8 years of Bush.

      What Americans want is jobs, not that same old ideology they've heard for years and years, and never seen.

      Her 'issues' just keep the nutjobs wound up and sending in money.

      • If you believe that government creates jobs, not small medium and large businesses, then I see where you are coming from.

        But "the rich" who Obama happens to be waging a class war against (being the hard leftist that he is) happen to occupy another title: "small business owner" – the greatest generator of jobs known to mankind.

        Under Obama's pro union anti small business approach, business owners have rightly parked their money on the sidelines.

        Thankfully twice as many Americans now identify themselves as Conservative than Liberal, the tea party movement is gaining strength as most Americans are increasingly aware of the above realities.

        • No, the govt does not create jobs…Obama even said so last week.

          Govt can create the conditions for new jobs though.

          He's not even a mild lefty, much less a hard one. That's absurd. Nor is he waging a war against anyone…unless it's the ignorant. And the US is overrun with ignorance.

          The greatest generator of jobs known to mankind is technology.

    • I agree that Obama has made the landscape ripe for an anti-government political movement that the left truly doesn't know how to respond to except with insults and derision.

      • I wouldn't associate it with Obama or anti-government sentiment. What's going on now is identical to what was going on in the Clinton era: GOP activists simply don't recognize Democratic presidents as legitimate. There's no real evidence that the party activists currently calling themselves the Tea Party are consistently anti-government or anti-spending (and I'm not just talking about military spending); for the most part, they hate Democrats and liberals, and vote against Democrats or anyone who is seen as being too chummy with Democrats.

        This was another one of Obama's mistakes: he assumed that by governing as a moderate on issues like health care (where he insisted that implementation be spaced out for years to avoid busting the deficit) and stimulus (where he ignored liberals' warnings that more spending was needed) and as a conservative on civil liberties (where conservative grassroots are famously pro-government), he wouldn't be accused of being an extreme leftist. He didn't realize that all Democratic presidents are by definition considered extreme leftists, even though all three Democratic presidents of my lifetime have been moderates at best.

        • Then where was the Tea Party movement during the Clinton years? Yes, there will be those on both sides who can't stand the other side. I don't think that's what this is, which is why the Democrats have been falling all over themselves in dealing with the movement.

          Barack Obama decided to engage in a relentless year-long push for expansive government health care during the worst economic recession in recent memory, and this after huge spending on bailouts and stimulus. If you think that's a moderate or conservative-friendly agenda, then so be it. But the American people seem to disagree, and the polls have been showing it for quite some time now.

          • Then where was the Tea Party movement during the Clinton years?

            It existed; it just called itself by a different name. The landscape in 1993-4 was the same as it is now: GOP activists, including those who had been alienated from the party by Bush, coming together to protest against the socialist President and work to elect Republican candidates. (Not that I'm saying this is a bad thing; it isn't bad for people to get involved in the democratic process.) This isn't very new as I see it.

          • And there was never a vehement anti-Bush movement on the left-side of the political spectrum? Who are you trying to kid?

            If the Tea Party movement was only a partisan reaction, the Democratic leadership would never have been forced to deal with it in the way it has. In fact, even the GOP establishment would never have been forced to deal with it, too, like they are now.

            Numerous movement candidates are set to win seats in Congress. Scott Brown, a Republican, won Ted Kennedy's seat in liberal bastion Massachusetts. This isn't solely as a result of partisanship. The electorate has distinctly moved away from Obama. It's unmistakable.

            In fact, the country is getting tired with the establishment in general, which Obama said he would fight. Castle in Delaware is the establishment, and it's in part what the Tea Party movement is fighting.

          • And there was never a vehement anti-Bush movement on the left-side of the political spectrum? Who are you trying to kid?

            There was a vehement anti-Bush II reaction, but not so much against Bush I or Ford, who are the equivalents of squishy Democrats like Carter, Clinton or Obama. This is a generalization, but I think Democratic base tends to get up in arms against conservative Republicans, while the GOP base gets up in arms against Democrats, period.

            If the Tea Party movement was only a partisan reaction, the Democratic leadership would never have been forced to deal with it in the way it has. In fact, even the GOP establishment would never have been forced to deal with it, too, like they are now.

            But the GOP establishment had to deal with this even before it was dubbed the Tea Party Movement. Primaries against "RINOs" have been going on for many, many years, as has the activist base pulling the party further and further to the right. What's happening this year is high-profile because this is a big Republican year, but it's not a new thing, it's the culmination of a trend of many years.

            And the Tea Party is basically a new name for the type of conservative activists who propelled the GOP to victory in 1980 and 1994. And the issues are basically the same now as then. Which is fine, by the way. People have issues they want to see the government deal with and would prefer to vote for candidates who are ideologically compatible. And while a party can't win on activists alone, they don't need to — genuine independents will vote Republican this year because of the economy, just as they voted Democratic in 2006 because of the war (and look where that got them).

        • You fundamentally misunderstand the nature and genisis of the tea party movement. You further seem to be suggesting that they are "lying" by the millions. Listen to their rallys, their leaders, the individuals who attend the crowds. It's limited government.

          That many Dems in tight races refuse to mention Obamacare, and have – on a dime – become fiscal conservative hawks on the campaign trail, says that many have heard the masses. Many like yourself have not though, and to those who have, these Johnny come lately fiscal wolves in sheep's clothing will feel the voters wrath in November.

  10. And don't expect the lessons from down there to be learned up here by the left.

    While the likes of Bernier ride the front of the wave on fiscal conservatism (Harper as leader can never be at the front of the wave, but rather solidly in the middle of it), tone deaf liberals with their tone deaf out-of-touch cheerleaders in the statist media will continue to preach this or that massive government program – the cradle to grave nanny state solution with an open checkbook.

    While the leftists in the media try to say, "look, look here, THIS is what's really important: long form vs. short form census" the economic reality of greater fiscal conservatism and the publics desire for it, continues unabated .

    • After the wild spending of Bush and Harper, and even Bernier in his riding, I expect your nose to have grown after telling that one.

      • Bush didn't spend. Presidents don't have spending power. His failing was not vetoing enough house spending bills … by the Democrats. To that extent I agree with you. Obama's spending (supporting the drunken sailors in the Dem house that is) is triple Bush's. Triple the deficit.

        Harper has spent more than most fiscal conservatives would like, but much, much less than if we had the massive and permanent entitlements to "free" child care, etc. His "stimulous" was targeted and limited, not based on new entitlements.

        As for my nose growing, I'm not surprised you cast disagreement with me as my "lying". That's what leftists do. Then never bona fide debate. Only smear. When you have a failing position that is all that is left. And that is why the Dem's favourite counter to criticism of Obama's policies are not reasoned defense buy cries of "Racism!"

        • Bush spent them out of a surplus into a massive deficit, along with the war spending which is off-book.

          Harper also blew our surplus, and now we're facing the biggest deficit in history.

          LOL your nose is growing again.

          • The "surplus" that was taken from EI?

          • LOL no, we had surpluses for over 10 years

            EI funds were in general revenue anyway

          • I understand now why to go with the lying smears.

            You really don't have a very good understanding of the facts and issues. Fair enough. I'm a liar and the house Dems didn't have spending powers. The "truth" to a liberal.

  11. On the contrary there is a HEALTHY DEBATE among the republican base about regarding purity vs electability, with a lot of tea partiers prepared to tolerate a Castle if he can win against a Dem and have him reined in by Senate leadership. See NRO the Corner or Ace of Spades for lots of commentary on this

    • In fact, much of the GOP establishment, including Karl Rove, is going ape over O'Donnell's victory, and even threatening not to fund her Senate run. It's been quite a nasty saga, actually, involving non-policy issues going back a few years.

  12. moderates like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins vote with their party whenever they're really needed

    I don't think that's true. The moderates steer the party in a direction that the voters don't want to go. For instance, the voters think of the Bush deficits and the Bush pharmacare program. They think of expanding government spending under Bush that has exploded under Obama.

    Since 2001, the country has had Republican congress for half the time and a Republican president for 8 of 10 years. Yet spending has exploded and the country is leftwards of where it was in 2001. This is what caused the tea party movement and this is what the moderates have wrought, they've enabled the Obama leftists to do significant damage. The government today is larger than it has ever been in history. This is not what Republican voters want, and this is specifically what the tea party was created to stop.

    I also think that O'Donnell has a chance to win, particularly this year. And when this new group of Republicans take office in November, the voters want them to be the right type of Republicans: real Republicans, not RINOs.

  13. I agree about getting rid of at least one massive government program- the military.

  14. Rove just jumped the shark with the large portions of the republican base with his comments on O'Donnell, as he does not seem to understand that while not a perfect candidate for that State, she is the candidate the people chose and he should STFU already.

    Strategically, the House will go back to the Republicans, so they have the power to block anything that comes out of the Senate so getting to 51 could be viewed just icing on the cake, for now; because later you want 51 to start rolling back key sections of Obama care etc..

    Plus, and i haven't seen anyone remark on this, the House has the power of the subpeona, so if you're a member of the Obama administration you might want to check if you're covered by executive privilege before November.

    As to winning they said Scott Brown couldn't win in Mass. Sharon Angle is now in a dead heat with Harry Reid in Nevada after having an "insurmountable" 9 point deficit in the polls. The Dem candidate in Delaware is also VERY left, so that could help make this competitive. Rubio is crushing everyone in Florida.

    It ain't over in Delaware.

  15. One more thing. She's raised half a million dollars in the last 24 hours