Christine O’Donnell: Not That Bad, Really

The first week after Christine O’Donnell won the primary to be the Republican candidate to run for the Senate from Delaware was — well, it was a bit of a catastrophe. A flood of old videos hit the internet. See Christine O’Donnell: “Evolution is a Myth”.

Since then she’s definitely been getting some good advice, and she’s making some moves to rehabilitate the disaster of all those old videos from her appearances on the Bill Maher show.

At the website of CNN we find: O’Donnell to CNN: ‘I’ve matured’. Here are some excerpts, with bold font as in the original:

On the Bill Maher tapes: “No I haven’t been embarrassed. And I’m not saying that I’m proud. You know, obviously what they’re trying to do is paint a picture of who I was 20 years ago. I’ve matured in my faith. I’ve matured in my policies. Today you have a 40-something woman running for office. Not a 20-year-old. So that’s a big difference.”

That sounds okay. Let’s read on:

“A lot of what I said [on the Bill Maher tapes] … I had a new-found faith and I saw this an opportunity to talk about the faith on national TV and more as a ministry opportunity. But voters need to rest assured that when I go to Washington D.C., it’s the Constitution by which I will make all of my decisions. And I will defend their right to disagree with me.”

That sounds good too. If she’s serious about the Constitution, who cares what she thinks privately? Well, we’d prefer someone with a tad more rationality in her private views, but one must consider her opponent, Christopher Coons. We continue with CNN:

Teach creationism in schools? “It doesn’t have anything to do with what I will do in Congress. … My opinion on that is irrelevant.”

See what we mean? She may be a flake on a number of topics, but if she sticks to her job we’ll never be bothered. (He said hopefully.) Here’s more:

Why so reluctant to talk about her past statements? “This campaign is about the future and not the past. This campaign is about what each candidate is going to do to address the needs of the people of Delaware.”

That was then, this is now. Hey, whatcha gonna do? Her opponent is about as far left as one can be. It’s far from a perfect choice, but not an impossible one. If your Curmudgeon lived in Delaware, he’d vote for the cutie.

There’s more at the CNN website, including a video. Click over there. You’d better get to know Christine. She just might win.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

32 responses to “Christine O’Donnell: Not That Bad, Really

  1. How the hell is she qualified to be in the Senate?

  2. Ben Hoffman asks:

    How the hell is she qualified to be in the Senate?

    She’s a citizen, over 30, and a resident of Delaware. Dumb isn’t a disqualification. If it were, we wouldn’t have had a Senate for a long time.

  3. retiredsciguy

    SC: “Dumb isn’t a disqualification.” (For serving in the Senate.)

    Evidently not. Exhibit A: Joe Biden. Hmm. He was in the Senate from Deleware, too, wasn’t he?

  4. Education unknown, Lies for no good reason, thinks
    scientists have created mice with human brains, rabid
    fundamentalist.

    This is what the Republican Party has become.
    This isn’t the party of Goldwater or Eisenhower. It’s a zoo for
    zealots and billionaire back scratchers.

  5. Here in West Tennessee the Republicans are backing a gospel singing
    farmer with a high school education. Will not debate. Want state his income.
    Says “we are gonna take our country back”. We all know what that means.
    Another rabid fundamentalist.

  6. Curmy, I think your head is turned a little too easily by a pretty face.

    Has O’Donnell changed or has she learned how to hide her lunacy?

  7. Charley Horse says:

    This is what the Republican Party has become.
    This isn’t the party of Goldwater or Eisenhower.

    And the Dems aren’t the party of Harry Truman and Jack Kennedy.

  8. Tundra Boy asks:

    Has O’Donnell changed or has she learned how to hide her lunacy?

    She hasn’t changed. But she says she won’t vote her lunacy. That’s important.

  9. I had the pleasure of meeting both of those. Drove a Lincoln
    convertible intended for Kennedy’s use when he visited my SAC base after the Cuban Crisis ended. A South Carolina lady loaned it.
    Met Truman outside my high school.
    Another bit of trivia….Remodeled Bush 1’s mother’s swimming pool.
    Didn’t see him, though except in passing.

  10. I have a problem with anyone who holds irrational beliefs, whether they vote them or not. Even if the specific issue of creationism never arises in the Senate, she will almost certainly be voting on measures related to climate change, environmental protection, energy conservation and policy, funding of research programs, and numerous matters requiring at least a basic respect for scientific knowledge, if not an understanding of it.

    I would rather elect a rational, ethical individual that I disagreed with than an irrational or unethical individual who happens to say all the right words. Good thing I don’t live in the county, er, state of Deleware.

  11. Ed says:

    I have a problem with anyone who holds irrational beliefs, whether they vote them or not.

    So do we all. But this election will probably be a referendum on the one party which is currently in power. Christine is certainly daffy, but she’s opposed to that party. In most states that’s likely to be the whole story. Except the “experts” say that Delaware is likely to vote Dem anyway. I have no idea.

  12. One solution would be to merge Delaware and it’s neighbors into a single state of “New England”. They would benefit by eliminating the duplication in their governments, saving their citizens huge amounts of money, and the country would gain by eliminating 8-10 senators. Out of a larger pool of senate candidates, the best two should emerge, and almost certainly a Christine O’Donnell would not be one of them.

    In the same vein of insane wishful thinking, I believe we should double the size of congressional districts (at least) and thereby cut the house membership in half. (again, halving the number of staffs, the costs of political campaigns, reducing the difficulty in reaching agreement on issues in the house, etc.) The most significant benefit would be the larger pool in each district from which to select representatives, and the larger electorate to judge them, which logically would result in better people going to Washington.

    It will never happen, but it’s nice to dream.

  13. Gabriel Hanna

    I do think O’Donnell is as bad as that; but as retiredsciguy says, dumb isn’t a disqualification. I don’t think she’ll win, but I think she made the GOP see they can’t just be what they were in 2006 when the Democrats took over.

    Incidentally I have little patience with liberals who say “not the party of Reagan/Goldwater/Eisenhower/Buckley”. Because some of us remember what you said about them when they were alive, and if they were here you’d still be saying it.

  14. Not that bad? She’s an uneducated moron. Couldn’t tie her own shoes without a manual which she couldn’t read.

    Does she have any business representing the people of Delaware? No, she doesn’t. She’ll just take up space and take up time. This isn’t 5th grade homeroom representative stuff, or has it sunk to that level?

  15. And is she does win it will just show how gullable the US electorate has become.

    The ***is a pathalogical liar, a hypocrite, who will do or say ANYTHING to get a vote.

    If you place your trust in ****s like her you really are screwed.

  16. Doc Bill says:

    Not that bad? She’s an uneducated moron.

    I would not have chosen her to be where she is, but she is there nevertheless. Now it comes down to deciding between her and the Dem candidate — Christopher Coons. You can read about him here. He’s likely to support the sort of thing that’s been going on the last two years. Christine won’t. That’s the deal. This isn’t a perfect world.

  17. She hasn’t changed. But she says she won’t vote her lunacy. That’s important.

    Only if you believe her.
    If she were running for the house I might be more inclined to agree with you. The damage an individual congresscritter can do is less than what a senator can do. Or if she had some past political record of holding office and not promoting her creationist views. But AFAIK, she doesn’t.

    Except the “experts” say that Delaware is likely to vote Dem anyway. I have no idea.

    Lots of chemical engineering business and retirees in DE. The anti-regulatory part of her conservative platform will probaby go over well with both crowds. But the duponts etc. are going to oppose anyone who might dumb down science or interfere with science education, and the older folks may dislike her opposition to national health care (just guessing on that last one). So I can see why folks are calling it for the Dems, even if they get it wrong and she wins.

  18. She was/is affiliated with Concerned Women for America. And that raises enough concern with me.

  19. retiredsciguy

    Curmy says, “She hasn’t changed. But she says she won’t vote her lunacy. That’s important.”

    If she’s a lunatic, how will she know the difference? I may be all wrong here, but it seems that the Republicans, at Sarah Palin’s urging, have nominated a candidate who is virtually unelectable.

  20. Not that bad? She’s evil, I tell ya! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-VIIIIIIIIIL!

  21. So I got around to seeing O’Donnell’s “I’m You”. The original, not LRA’s version. For someone who says, “I’ve matured”, they sure have her looking and sounding like some innocent 17/18-year-old in that ad.

  22. RogerE says:

    … they sure have her looking and sounding like some innocent 17/18-year-old in that ad.

    I noticed that, but of course it had no effect on me. None whatsoever.

  23. Curmudgeon: How could you?? She reallys is THAT bad!

  24. Benjamin Franklin

    Curmy, I must say I’m shocked to see you advocate that any registered Delaware voter, much less any rational human being vote for Christine O’Donnell.

    O’Donnell believes there is ‘just as much, if not more, evidence’ supporting creationism than evolution. “Now too many people are blindly accepting evolution as fact. But when you get down to the hard evidence, it’s merely a theory. … Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that.” [New York Magazine, 9/15/10]

    O’Donnell wonders why monkey aren’t ’still evolving into humans.’ On an Oct. 15, 1998 episode of Politically Incorrect, O’Donnell said, “You know what, evolution is a myth.” Host Bill Maher responded, “Evolution is a myth?!? Have you ever looked at a monkey!” To which, O’Donnell said, “Well then, why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?” [Politically Incorrect, 10/15/98]

    O’Donnell warned China was plotting to take over the U.S., claiming she had access to classified information. In a primary debate during her failed 2006 Senate bid, O’donnell warned China had a “carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America.” “We have to look at our history and realize that if they pretend to be our friend it’s because they’ve got something up their sleeve,” she said, basing the claim on “classified information that I am privy to.” [AP, 10/4/10]

    Not only is O’Donnell demonstrably ignorant regarding science, and the scientific process, she appears to have a similarly enormous lack of knowledge and understanding of history, economics, and foreign policy.

    She has never held office, nor has she ever had the reality of holding down a job. For the last ~15 years she has been a “Christian Activist”.

    It is incumbent upon the electorate to send the best to represent us, not fluffernutters like O’Donnell.

    That, and as she is also a demonstrable liar, so on what basis can you lend any credibility to her statement ” it’s the Constitution by which I will make all of my decisions.” when from all my research, she doesn’t even understand that the law of the land transcends her warped theology?

    Perhaps if all of our elected officials were a lot less ignorant about science, economics, history, and foreign policy, there could be some cooperation between parties and something positive could be advanced, instead of the ideological and demagogical gridlock, oppose-everything and do-nothing
    situation we find ourselves in.

    The answer can not lie in voting for know-nothings like O’Donnell.

  25. Benjamin Franklin says:

    Curmy, I must say I’m shocked to see you advocate that any registered Delaware voter, much less any rational human being vote for Christine O’Donnell.

    Ordinarily I couldn’t even consider such a thing. But as I’ve commented earlier, this election is a referendum on the party that gave us the last two years. If you’re happy with the status quo, fine. That’s how you’ll vote — for more of the same. In that case it’s easy to bash Christine.

    I agree that she’s a goofball, but these are extra-ordinary times. Considering the overall consequences of this election, voting for Christine — although difficult — isn’t unthinkable. I take some small comfort in the fact that she’s not running for the post of Chief Biologist.

  26. Better to elect a rational person you disagree with, than to elect an irrational person just because she’s the only other choice. I don’t even think she’s a conservative. What’s conservative about believing in superstitious woo? Where is her understanding of fiscal policy, or, really, anything? The only thing she seems to be is a fundamentalist (and the letters “mental” is the middle of that word are wildly misplaced in her case) christian – what the heck will she do when she has to vote on anything important? You can bet she won’t reflect on the issues. Who will she turn to for guidance? Someone will have to tell her what to do. Whoever that is, will be the real person you are electing.

  27. Ed says:

    Better to elect a rational person you disagree with, than to elect an irrational person just because she’s the only other choice.

    It all depends on how serious one is about stopping the current Congress from continuing on its path. I’m very serious about it. There are more important things than knowing why there are still monkeys — at least in my humble opinion.

  28. BF, written like an excellent campaign operative. Hmmm….

  29. Benjamin Franklin

    SY said;

    BF, written like an excellent campaign operative. Hmmm….

    SY, I'm afraid that my days of actively politicking are well in the past, but I wonder how some of the original constitutionalists, ie; Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and James Madison would feel regarding the candidacy of someone who is so demonstrably void of rational thought.

    Unfortunately, in the confection of Congress, O'Donnell would be the nut on the brownie.

    Alas, there has to be a better way than simply voting for a candidate who sits on one particular side of the aisle.

  30. You missed the talking points on the last post. Surely you have more talking points?

    O’Donnell is not running for Biologist, she’s running for Senator. She’s stated unambiguously that her beliefs are her own and not a political agenda. Her political agenda is quite clear and frankly, given the performance of the last two presidential administrations, I’d welcome a lot more obstructionists.

    Yes, it would be nice if we had politicians who had actually accomplished things in their lives beyond politics, like build a business and make payroll every week, but that’s not our current reality (witness our Nobel Laureate in the Oval Office).

  31. I don’t think the present administration has had a lot to do with the issues in congress. For some reason, the congress has behaved like a mob of angry, whiney, 6 year olds for the past two years. We need to elect a few adults that will speak to each other and bring order to the chaos – not further the polarization and insanity that’s been going on.

    How can one expect a balanced health care bill, or prudent financial recovery measures, when the only thing the representatives and senators care about is whether their side wins, or more often, how badly they can embarrass the other side? What’s frustrating is that there have been some good ideas floated on both sides of the aisle, but no one is interested in working together – so every idea proposed is trashed by the opposition no matter what merit it might have.

    Somehow, I don’t see how electing more children like O’Donnell will help anything.

  32. My political leanings aside (because I’m a bleeding heart liberal), I wonder why anyone would trust O’Donnell not to vote loony — or not to vote as the loonies tell her to. Remember the old song? “How could you believe me when I said ‘I love you’ when you know I’ve been a liar all my life?”