The O’Donnell debate continues
Unleashing her most unattractive, unintelligent, and unconservative side (as she did two years ago in a Sixties-style angry-feminist video on behalf of Sarah Palin), Michelle Malkin casts the Christine O’Donnell issue as oppressive “good old boys” trying to crush a feminist heroine. Isn’t it time to grow beyond the feminist schtick, Michelle, especially with you being, you know, a conservative and all?
Meanwhile, Bill O’Reilly, about whom I have rarely said anything very positive, did an excellent job in the “talking points” segment of his show tonight summarizing the O’Donnell situation. First he laid out O’Donnell’s astonishingly poor resumé—her total lack of any kind of career, accomplishments, or income; her mortgage foreclosure, etc. It knocked you back, and many viewers/voters would be ready to write her off at that point. But then O’Reilly switched perspective and showed the ideological differences between O’Donnell and her Democratic opponent, an all-out leftist named Christopher Coons, who has called himself a Marxist. Suddenly, O’Donnell’s lack of life accomplishments didn’t seem to matter very much, or at least it ceased to be the decisive factor. The question became: given the choice between these two, whom do you want in the U.S. Senate? Obviously O’Donnell. Yet the odious spinner Karl Rove and the full-of-it sage Charles Krauthammer (who, interviewed by O’Reilly, again did his sneaky Krauthammer thing, talking like a conservative even as he surrendered to Obamacare and told us to surrender to it as well) seemed to be positively striving to make O’Donnell lose. The salient point that Rove and Krauthammer miss is that O’Donnell has already won the nomination. The Republican voters chose her over Mike Castle. That part of the process is over. So what’s the point of making such a big deal about her credentials now—unless Rove and Krauthammer want her to be defeated by the Democrat?
There’s another interesting point to be remembered here, which O’Reilly and others have made: when there is an uprising against an entrenched establishment, such as is represented by the Tea Party movement, that is naturally going to bring to the fore people who are not your typical politician, people who are not smooth and finished, people like Carl Paladino and Christine O’Donnell.
Speaking of Paladino, in an earlier entry, a commenter called him a “horndog” because of his having fathered a child out of wedlock. To which Richard O. replied:September 17
Dan R. writes:
Michelle Malkin apparently isn’t the only person who believes O’Donnell is being crushed by “the good old boys.” According to Wikipedia:LA replies:
She sounds like a nutcase and a problem. But the U.S. Senate happens to be filled with weirdos of all kinds and platoons of intellectual inferiors. In the latter group, think of Herbert Kohl of Wisconsin, an absolute zero who has been in the Senate for over 20 years. Think of Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, an absolute zero who has been in the Senate for something like 30 years. Think of Patty Murray. Think of Claire McCaskill. Think of Susan Collins. And there are many more like them. It’s not as though O’Donnell’s presence would lower the level of that body. The choice is between her and a far left-wing Democrat.Mark Jaws writes:
I am with you, Larry. O’Reilly’s Talking Points segment last night was spot on—as usual (I obviously am a much bigger fan of him than you are). I for one stand arm-in-arm with my fellow TEA Party insurrectionists in Delaware who are sick of “smooth and polished” politicians with the complete resume. Just look at what “smooth and polished” resume politicians have done to our country, to our culture, and to our people. It is time to bring regular folks to the fore, who know what it is like to live under the effects of the menacing underclass, illegal immigration, and frustratingly stifling government bureaucracies. And how I wish that the Rovistas of the GOP Establishment, who routinely kowtow to the black and Latino racialists, had shown one half of the venom in going after Obama as they did with this nice, but very unpolished conservative Christian white lady.Stephen T. writes:
Mark Jaws has it exactly right. If I were the opposition I’d be careful about making an issue of O’Donnell’s foreclosure or the fact that she got behind the eight ball on some credit cards. Such revelations may not estrange her from voters but instead endear her to them as part of the experience of the common man and woman in this country today. There’s a survival mentality taking hold out here in the land and people understand that you do what you have to do in these times. Voters are sick of elite “representatives” who have coasted through life on a cushion of trust funds or millionaire daddies, with not the faintest notion how the other 95 percent lives. I’ll bet O’Donnell’s chief critic, Karl Rove, who declared he was willing to open our border to tens of millions of illegal Mexicans if it meant his pudgy, pampered kids would never have to perform manual labor, has never had to miss a credit card payment.LA replies:
“Voters are sick of elite ‘representatives’ who have coasted through life on a cushion of trust funds or millionaire daddies, with not the faintest notion how the other 95 percent lives.”Andrea C. writes:
Here is O’Donnell on Hannity last night, if you’re interested. I think she did a good job. Interview begins at the 2:20 mark.LA replies:
She’s well-spoken and seems a lot more intelligent, decent, and personable than lots of senators I could name.LA writes:
Christopher Coons’s self-description as a Marxist was in the distant past. According to the Christian Science Monitor “Christine O’Donnell: Five reasons Democrats may need to worry”):N. writes:
I tend to agree with you and others that the attacks on O’Donnell by Rove et al. are not going to work as expected. One of the interesting things about the Palin phenomenon in 2008 was how many more or less middle class voters I knew who supported her for emotional reasons. I’m thinking of actual people with somewhat messed up lives; professionals on their second marriage and all the stepchildren that go with it, small business owners trying to “tough love” their 18 year old single-mother daughters, local elected officials in small towns who bristled at the fact that nearly a score of reporters were sent to Alaska solely to dig up dirt.LA replies:
I must say that I don’t like the argument—and I said so many times in 2008—that “real people with messed up lives see themselves in Palin, and support her for that reason.” I don’t think this is a valid reason to support anyone politically. To the extent people are voting on this basis, it is not something to be welcomed. It doesn’t represent anything serious politically on which anything worthwhile can be built. It’s a house of fantasy which will soon collapse, just like the house of fantasy built around Obama has collapseed.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 17, 2010 12:24 AM | Send