Wednesday, September 15, 2010
The lefty bloggers are having a field day with this video, in which a youthful Christine O'Donnell appeared on MTV decrying that ancient plague, masturbation. William Jacobson responds with a "there they go again" post, supposed feminists viciously attacking a female candidate because of her opinions on sexual matters. Jacobson has a point, to which I would additionally speculate that the same bloggers would have mocked her mercilessly had she advocated masturbation as, say, a way to avoid getting AIDS or having sex out of marriage. These attacks are not principled, habits in self-pleasure not having any known relevance to service in the United States Senate, they are ugly and personal and meant to distract voters from the Democratic unpopularity. Oh, well, politics ain't bean bag. If you are going to run for office as a Republican, you had better hope that nobody has a video of you so much as using the word masturbation.
And, no, I have not found any indication that O'Donnell either stands by or does not stand by her opinion on that subject today. Just as well. We do not need to hear more. That said, if O'Donnell has any chance at all she is going to need the support of people who masturbate. I, for one, stand four square in favor of both Republican control of the Senate and masturbation, and reconcile these apparently contradictory preferences the way I always do, by reminding myself that consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
As much as Rachel thinks this is a big issue, all it does is solidify the bible belt and make the rest of wonder what this has to do with O'Donnell's views on the economy, the deficit, jobs, freedom, government corruption, ObamaCare and so many other more pressing subjects she will have to work on.
Opinions of politicians about masturbation should not count for much. The government would fail miserably if it tries to ban masturbation, even more than it fails in it band on illicit drug use. Will she help cut spending and taxes? If so I support her!
Well, Ms. O'Donnell could be Irish Catholic. This really is the position of the Catholic Church and even if it sounds silly making fun of this position just might backfire. I am fairly certain Ms. Maddow would not poke fun of this if it were espoused my the loved Immam Rauf.
Christine O’Donnell is from the Holy Roller Moralist wing of the Republican Party (Papist Division). O’Donnell cared more about Gay Marriage in her prior runs for Senate than she did about Runaway Federal Spending. She’s a professional political activist who’s never had a real job. She’s part hustler. If you look closely there’s a lot of political hustlers riding the Tea Party Express right now.
Before you get too worked up about the Significance of Christine O’Donnell, realize she won with only 30,000 votes – not margin of victory … total votes! Mike Castle lost this race more than O’Donnell won it. Given his voting record, Castle had no Republican street cred. He could have declared himself Born-Again Anti-Obama to fix this but instead he just attacked O’Donnell personally. This left him vulnerable to the late-in-the-race Palin Endorsement. QED.
I would have voted for O’Donnell just to teach the Mike Castles in the party a lesson – I’m looking at you Senators Snowe and Collins (R – Maine). But if the Left succeeds in using the O’Donnell campaign to paint the Tea Party Movement as more about Holy Roller Moralism than about Stopping Runaway Spending, we lose … Sarah Palin even more so.
What do Christine O’Donnell and Chris Christie have in common? They’re both Irish-Italians from New Jersey – and that’s about it. I thought O’Donnell was a professional virgin who should have been a nun, but recently learned that she grew up “drinking too much … having too much sex” before she got religion – sounds like she could have been on MTV’s Jersey Shore.
If you're in the game, then the strokes the word
Dont take no rhythm, dont take no style
The Rasmussen Poll has Coons – O’Donnell at 53% to 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 …..
Ignoramus, that hurt. I used to be “Jersey Shore” but no more.
I found purpose in my life and have been living it every day since. That’s what got me into politics, and what makes me run.
I’ve stumbled along the way, especially financially. But I’ve never had family money, and I’m actually honest.
I’ll never quit. I’m a change agent for the values I believe in. If you give me half a chance, I’ll prove it. I’ve got more to speak to than just masturbation – trust me.
If you then share my values more than you do those of Chris Coons,my opponent, I ask for your support – and if you live in Delaware your vote.
You guys are all wankers. Not a real man among you. Just a bunch of spoiled, over-educated assholes.
Chris Coons is another 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!
You all think you’re so smart – but you don’t have the cunning of a salmon. 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’
For what it's worth, I'm with BT--Mr. Ed is the clear winner in my book.
Ignoramus, all I could think of after reading your post was "stroke for stroke." Must be the swimmer in me.
And, yeah, I think she's a train wreck of a candidate. But then, so is Charlie Rangel. UGH.
I just read the complaint she filed against her former employer ISI, in which she claims she suffered mental anguish, loss of enjoyment because of the gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (take that Rand Paul!)
Get this: Her lawsuit claimed damages of $7M including $4M for lost income (her salary was $65K) and lifetime damages to her *cough* reputation. Of course, defaulting on her mortgage, the IRS filing a lien for failure to pay taxes, getting sued by her university for unpaid tuition, taking 10 years to get her undergraduate degree and getting trounced in an election by a man who was also on the ballot as vice-president did nothing to tarnish her sterling reputation.
After 5 years, she dropped the lawsuit because she could no longer afford a lawyer.
Atta girl, Christine. You don't need yet another creditor chasing after you.