Mice-Human Hybrids, Vince Foster's 'Murder', and the Anti-American President of America


Just how unfair are the RINOs, squishes, and Tea Party-haters being to Delaware Senate hopeful Christine O'Donnell? I mean, we all could make the mistake of thinking that there exists an army of mice with human brains, or that Vince Foster was "murdered," possibly by those in the White House. (A number of people are offering up the "O'Donnell was just asking questions" defense, though she explicitly refers to "the murder of Vince Foster" "the issue of murder with Vincent Foster," not the shoddy investigation into Foster's suicide.) But what about the testimony of the two former O'Donnell staffers, one of whom currently works for the conservative website Townhall.com, who worked on her 2008 campaign against Joe Biden? From Politico:

Kristin Murray, who left her position in the state party to serve as one of several campaign managers for O'Donnell during that race, said warning bells went off in June 2008 when the two were discussing cell phone plans.

"She told me that she thought Joe Biden tapped her phone line," she said.

Alan Moore, who worked on press releases and policy statements for two months during the 2008 bid and now helps run the conservative site Townhall.com, said his conversations with the candidate led him to believe "her priorities were completely out of whack."

Moore, who first decided to volunteer for O'Donnell after hearing about her at a meeting of college Republicans, said that at one point, O'Donnell talked to him about winning a lucrative television contract with CNN or Fox News Channel.

"I informed her that most media organizations prohibit their employees from running for office. She didn't seem to understand and was more interested in getting a contract," he recalled. "She was more concerned about getting a TV deal than winning office."

Yesterday, I pointed out that lefty talker Ed Schultz frequently denounces ideological opponents as "anti-American" and "unpatriotic." The left-wing group Media Matters notices that O'Donnell too enjoys employing the lazy "anti-American" attack (though they seem not to mind when someone like Schultz—a comrade in the struggle, after all—engages in the same cheap rhetoric). Appearing on Fox News in 2008, she predicted presciently that Republicans would rather run against Barack Obama because he "sooo liberal [that] he's anti-American."

NEXT: What Would You Do With $111 Million In Stimulus Money?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Since when did Delaware become such a hotbed of crazy? In one corner we have O’Donnell. And the other Chris Coons who waxes eloquently about his transformation from a closed minded conservative to a “bearded Marxist”.

    O’Donnell deserves the hits she is getting for some of the things she has said. But Coons rather than crazy seems to be just plain stupid. Like Tony level stupid.

    “I became friends with a very wealthy businessman and his family and heard them reiterate the same beliefs held by many Americans: the poor are poor because they are lazy, slovenly, uneducated,” wrote Coons. “I realize that Kenya and America are very different, but experiences like this warned me that my own favorite beliefs in the miracles of free enterprise and the boundless opportunities to be had in America were largely untrue.”

    Crazy or stupid? Which will it be?

    1. I understand that Delaware is home to a bioengineering lab that’s been developing human-with-mouse-brain hybrids.

    2. According to the article he wrote that
      1. When he was 21 years old
      2. As a joke

      But hey John, keep those GOP talking points coming! The more you say them, the more true they become!

      1. The bearded Marxist part was a joke. That paragraph was serious. And further, that paragraph reads just like about 90% of the stuff that you write on here. For you, that paragraph should make you want to vote for him. The guy is just as dumb as you are.

        1. This is a telltale sign of why you think I’m (well, everyone that disagrees with you actually, I’ve heard you decry the liberalism of everyone from fluffy to the “reason staff”) a mirror image of your shillery.

          You read something on some right wing blog. You feel it is your duty to uncritically run with that meme. I read it and go “I wonder what evidence he as for that claim?” I look it up and go “shit, that seems a bit weak to me” and then express my doubts. And you are like “OMG all you do is defend liberals!”

          Actually, I just don’t condemn them as blindly, uncritically and angrily as you. Shit, no one could.

          1. “free enterprise and the boundless opportunities to be had in America were largely untrue.”

            How is that any different than your claim that Libertarians’ belief in the market is “faith based”. A claim that you make at least twice a day.

            Who are you kidding MNG. You could have written that whole paragraph.

            1. Sure, I think a belief that America is a place of “boundless opportunities” is fairly naive…

              I love America. And free enterprise. I don’t think either is perfect or as magical as some people do, but they are pretty damn good.

              1. “I love America. And free enterprise.”

                Sure you do. You just never support any policies that actually foster that free market.

                1. We have different ideas of what fosters a free market John. For example, I think anti-trust laws are good for free markets, ditto with many consumer protections.

                  I know you disagree of course. But really, I don’t see myself as a hater of capitalism. I think it’s an amazing system actually.

              2. —“I think a belief that America is a place of “boundless opportunities” is fairly naive…”—

                Boundless opportunities. I see no assurance of success. Some opportunities don’t work out, some do, but it is the opportunity that is important. Hard work is not always rewarded, but it is the opportunity that is importsnt. Some people just don’t take advantage of the opportunity, but it is the opportunity that is important.

                Name me another country where the opportunities are greater. I admit that some people are roadblocked in their endeavors, but not as many as most people believe. In this country, we have the greatest number of opportunuties to be successful, but that is all they are. OPPORTUNITIES.

        2. And yes, I don’t think thinking that the poor are not necessarily lazy, slovenly, uneducated, etc., makes one necessarily a Marxist. In fact, just recently you defended O’Donnell against charges that her financial troubles at times in her life makes her somehow unfit for office, so I doubt you think every poor person is poor because they are slovenly uneducated and lazy…

          1. Good for you. I told you that you agreed with that paragraph. And no not every poor person is poor because they are lazy. Some are and some are not. It is the whole paragraph that is problematic not that one particular clause.

            1. So which part is so problematic? Do you beleive that free enterprise works “miracles”? Do think opportunities here are “boundless” (infinite)?


              1. I would find it problematic that as of the year in question he could see no differences between the political and economic systems of the US and Kenya.

                “I took my time machine to the year 20 AD, and saw the way that Roman patricians treated their slaves. And this showed me that American rich people are evil and that free enterprise is bad.”

                Saying this would make you a dumbass.

                1. “”I realize that Kenya and America are very different”

                2. It seems to me what he was getting at was this: after being in Kenya I saw that many people in crazy poverty were not lazy and such, and this made me question my previous beliefs that such things are the cause of poverty in my own nation.

                  That just doesn’t sound so crazy to me…

              2. —“Do you beleive that free enterprise works “miracles”? Do think opportunities here are “boundless”—


      2. He says the headline was a joke, but it seems we were supposed to laugh with him and not at him, because the content of the story supports his headline very nicely.

        And who cares if he was 21? Anyone stupid enough to be a Marxist at 21 will never be smart enough to be in the Senate. It’s just too stupid to recover from. You’d need some serious Flowers For Algernon shit to recover from that.

        “It was just a phase I went through as a kid,” applies to wearing Capezios or drinking Zima. It doesn’t really apply to being a Marxist.

        1. You do know that Thomas Sowell was once a Marxist, don’t you?

          1. Every rule has an exception. And if Coons were now saying the things as smart as what Sowell says instead of the same tired leftist crap that he does say, he would get a pass.

            1. There’s a lot more heroes of the right and libertarianism that at some point in their life held Marxist views…

              1. So what? If you repent and learn something from it, that is one thing. If you go from hard Marxist to soft Marxist, that is something entirely different.

                1. Ah, I see, so it’s not about what he said then at all. It’s this “everyone who disagrees with me on things economic is a Marxist” thing…

          2. Thank you for making me aware of this.

            I will never vote for Thomas Sowell for Senate.

  2. Keep fucking that chicken, Michael.

    1. Yeah…

      That first hit piece was understandable…

      O’Donnell just won the primary and she was in the news.

      But O’Donnell for the most part has done what was expected of her…she slayed a Rino. That job is done, why is Moynihan beating on a dead horse?

      1. Obviously it’s because Moynihan is a masterbater, and O’Donnell’s scolding really bothered him.

    2. At least Moynihan managed to get David Friedman himself to call him “either incompetent or dishonest”. Well done.

  3. Hey, isn’t this the Red Team? Aren’t we supposed to just blindly defend anyone who’s not Blue? So what if she’d like to hang our balls from the rear view mirror, yay, Team Red!

    1. It’s a question of available alternatives at this point, it’s not a vacuum. And watch the masturbation video if that’s what your referring to– I don’t see anyone advocating anything to do with me at all, just some somewhat odd personal beliefs.

      I frankly don’t care what someone thinks should go on in a bedroom, or what they think happens after I die. I care about the policies they actually really espouse in the real world. You let me know when she actually attempts any legislation that limits my masturbation– because Coons, Castle, Biden, everyone else in this little story is far worse and actually have contributed to losses of liberty.

      Balls on the rear view– nope, not a worry for me.

      1. I guess you haven’t read “The Road to Balls on the Rearview Mirror” then.

        1. The original or the graphic novel?

      2. I should add that if any anti-masturbation legislation is pursued, the civil disobedience circle jerk will certainly be an interesting affair.

  4. She may be an idiot who believes in things as stupid as chastity or Vince Foster’s “murder,” ut even she can still figure out that the government is too damn big and not every failing buggy-whip corporation needs a bailout.

    Go team retard!

    1. I don’t think she is stupid. I think she is just kind of a kook. But as you point out, she seems to understand a few things her moron opponents don’t.

      1. Exactly my point.

        She’s right about the big things, who cares about the small stuff? Hell, if she were smart, she’d talk herself into believing that she could run the economy, and healthcare, etc.

  5. There are two alternatives right now. O’Donnell and Coons. Advocating against one is effectively advocating for the other, post-primary. Go ahead and run with that.

    If Castle, or Coons, or Biden for that matter aren’t weirder and more potentially damaging in every way than Christine O’Donnell, I’ll eat my hat. Biden’s an outright liar, Castle’s 8 million is suspect but apparently just not of any interest, and Coons is a Marxist.

    Yeah, wow, O’Donnell’s trouble.

    1. In Reason world, if you are cool being a Marxist is just a mild eccentricity.

      1. Poor grammar is fine as long as it doesn’t obfuscate a point. Try again.

        1. It only seems like obfuscation because you are too stupid to understand the point. And I will only try again if you suck my balls really hard.

          1. I think I’ll pass; don’t want to kill even more of your brain cells.

            1. That is sad. I was really looking forward to cumming all over your face and then maybe pissing on you after that.

              1. Rough day at work, honey?

                1. Sadly for you Taco, you won’t be able live your fantasy about that. It is not that I wouldn’t want to piss all over you. It is that you are just not quite worthy of it.

                  1. You can almost see the spittle flying from John’s angry face today…

                    You go John, stick it to those liberal elites! Save us all!

              2. wow, you just made me realize you have no more brain cells to kill

                1. Good. Now shut the fuck up and stay out of the threads I am on.

                  1. I would, you crude, witless cretin, except that this isn’t your personal pissing, cumming ground

      2. I prefer O’Donnell to Coons. The fact that she’s kinda nutty is a point in her favor: If there’s even the slightest chance she’ll start condemning self-abuse from the Senate floor, that’s reason enough to root for her. Freak Power!

        But I don’t think Coons is a Marxist. The “bearded Marxist” business sounds like a joke to me.

        1. Coons isn’t really smart enough to be a full fledged Maxist. He is just a typical lefty idiot who will mindless vote for whatever leftist policy comes before him.

    2. Biden’s an outright liar..

      Er…well, so is O’Donnell. I mean about that Princeton thing and all.

      But hey, no big deal. Most people claim to have gone to Princeton when they didn’t.

  6. Would it be too much to ask that Reason devote as much time and energy to eviscerating lefty candidates as righty candidates.

    Sure, O’Donnell isn’t one of the comfortably familiar insiders, but isn’t that, right there, a pretty big point in her favor? Apparently, to Reason staffers, it just makes her an inviting punching bag.

    O’Donnell has already become the new Palin for me – don’t know much about her, probably too social conservative for me, but there’s something about the smug tone of her detractors that really gets up my nose.

    1. “Would it be too much to ask that Reason devote as much time and energy to eviscerating lefty candidates as righty candidates.”

      After reading this publication through four elections cycles, I can say with confidence the answer is “yes”. Inside every Reason staffer is a smug lefty screaming to get out.

      1. To be fair, O’Donnell seems firmly encamped in the “Civil Liberties Don’t Exist ‘Cause of BIG BAD SCARY MONSTERS!” section.

        She’s better than Coons in many ways, but you guys really just can’t argue that she’s a great gal who loves small government who just happens to have weird beliefs about masturbation but nothing else wrong with her.

        1. I will say she is kook who has some odd views on things that really don’t matter a whole lot. But she is firmly correct on the big things that do matter right now.

          As Abdul points out above, who do you want in the Senate; the guy who has all the right views on masturbation and sex but is a avowed Marxist who will vote to continue every policy that is destroying this country or a kooky outsider who has odd views on sex and masturbation but gets the big issues that are important now right?

          I will take the latter. She is not perfect. But she is better than Coons.

          1. Isn’t big government the biggest issue?

          2. “But she is firmly correct on the big things that do matter right now.”

            She’s a fucking neo-con, dude. I don’t want somebody who’s going to oppose a stimulus but support invading Iran.

            Fuck that. I’ll take the liberal, thank you. Neo-cons are the worst. If they’re going to steal my money, I’d rather they spend it some social program than to an overseas war where they kill innocent people.

  7. Why do you bother with ‘-tarian’, Michael? Why not just go with ‘liberal’?

    It suits you, it really does–who cares if it makes your ass look big, right? Some people like that.

    You link to an article with a link to a report that says that scientists have grown fully functioning human brain cells in mice. So, a little exaggerated, but wrong? She left out the word ‘cells’. She got the fact that it was an experiment right–and I couldn’t find any mention of your hyperbolic ‘army’.

    Vince Foster? Really? Did you read your link? She suggests investigation, and does so because of the ‘witch hunt’ directed at Gingrich. I really can’t see anything wrong with wanting investigation–what’s her opinion today? Did she accept the results of the investigations that happened? Or does she hold on to the idea in the same way that so many leftists hold onto the idea that Bush ‘stole’ the 2000 election even after that had been proven false?

    And, after your own article on the subject, can you please explain how you managed to write that little jibe about her calling Obama anit-American without your head exploding? Are you so committed to the left that doublethink has become your standard?

    Here’s a tip, the accusation of ‘anti-Americanism’, applied by politicians and their enablers is exactly equal to the exchanged ‘you’re stupid’ insults made by kindergartners, ‘kay?

    Why the hell do you post here, anyway? Weigel can’t get you a job fluffing at Slate?

  8. Team Red just can’t stand it whenever their guys take a hit, no matter how kooky their guys are. And they have poor memories. Right, Obama is not at all criticized around these parts. Neither is Castro, or Chavez, or Chomsky, or Ward Churchill. Sheesh, it’s some of you commenters who off the fair and balanced charts.

  9. Moyniahn,

    You relaize, O’donnel’s running to fill the shoes of a guy who 506th of 688 at the University of Duh-leware; who plaigiarzed through law school; who still only graduated 76th of 85 from a third rate law school; who plagiarized a speech from a British MP (including the biographical detials?!?!?); and repeatedly lied about his educational qualfiications.

    O’donnell is clearly following the formula for success in Delaware. Shit, she needs to go on mike calling Obamacar a “big fucking deal” and she’s all set.

    1. But Biden is part of the club. He can be a moron and it is okay. If you are not a part of the club, any eccentricity disqualifies you from public life. If you are a part of the club, you can be a borderline retarded plagiarist like Biden and be considered a a VP candidate that gives gravitas.

  10. Pick the better belief system for your politician:

    1) There is an army of mice with human brains and government should be small and fiscally responsible.

    2) There is definitely not an army of mice with human brains and we should constantly expand government spending and authority.

    I’m not saying she’s awesome, but pick your poison. I know which I prefer.

    1. Are you one of the mouse/human hybrids?

      1. For the last fucking time, no you cannot have my number. I have standards, you weirdo.

    2. I agree, but there’s nothing in this post that suggests the Democratic opponent is preferable. It makes sense to criticize leftists for their own brain dead, kooky, authoritarian notions and it makes sense to criticize righties for their own brain dead, kooky, authoritarian notions. If you only want the left half of that, why not just hang out at Townhall?

    3. Pinky and the Brain was a documentary!

  11. I ask for a little balance on the snarky attacks on candidates. This is what I get:

    Right, Obama is not at all criticized around these parts. Neither is Castro, or Chavez, or Chomsky, or Ward Churchill.

    None of these are candidates.

    Try again.

  12. So, whackjob or Marxist? I’m thinking I’ll go with the whackjob every single time if that’s what my choices are. Hell, I’ll take John Wayne Gacy’s reanimated corpse over anybody who says they’re a Marxist. At least Gacy did his work at the retail level.

  13. she explicitly refers to “the murder of Vince Foster,” not the shoddy investigation into Foster’s suicide

    Some Christians think that suicide is technically murder.

  14. O’Donnell came out today to clarify her positions and made a statement that any libertarian would (or should) appreciate-

    Asked about what the proper role of government should be in sexual matters during a two-hour candidate forum sponsored by The Jewish Federation, O’Donnell echoed the sentiment of one audience member, who shouted, “It’s personal.” ….”I agree with you; it’s personal. When I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional,” she replied.

    She also spoke about her comments from 20 years ago-

    “I was in my 20s and very excited and passionate about my newfound faith. But I can assure you, my faith has matured, and when I go to Washington, D.C., it’ll be the Constitution on which I base all of my decisions, not my personal beliefs,” she explained Thursday to cheers.

    These are statements that should be cheered by libertarians.

    1. So we should not hold people to what they said when they were in their early 20’s?

      Like Coons calling himself a “bearded Marxist?”

      I actually thought O’Donnell looked so young on the tape where she makes the masturbation comments I thought, well, if she disavows that stuff she deserves a bit of a pass on that.

      1. So we should not hold people to what they said when they were in their early 20’s?

        Why start now? We sure as hell didn’t do this with Obama.

        Like Coons calling himself a “bearded Marxist?”

        Yeah, I’ll give him a pass on this. I know I said some pretty stupid things when I was in my 20’s.

        I actually thought O’Donnell looked so young on the tape where she makes the masturbation comments I thought, well, if she disavows that stuff she deserves a bit of a pass on that.

        That’s why I want to concentrate on what she said today, and specifically the idea that her litmus test for legislation if elected will be “is this constitutional”?

        It’s sadly pathetic that her litmus test is almost radical at this point.

        1. I think the quote you just put up sounds pretty measured and reasonable to me. Good for her.

      2. I prefer someone who didn’t believe in nonsense at any point in their adult lives. There are only 100 slots for Senators. Man the bar has been set low.

        1. For once we agree, sadly though there are not many senatorial campaigns in this world where either candidate has not believed in nonsense at any point in their adult lives… I struggle to think of one where either candidate doesn’t currently believe in some nonsense for that matter.

        2. I prefer someone who didn’t believe in nonsense at any point in their adult lives.

          That pretty much rules out most of Washington altogether.

          And yes, when we have people like Corrine “Go Gators!” Brown holding positions of such preeminent authority, the bar has indeed been set low.

          1. I think it rules out nearly everyone. Who among is so arrogant or sheltered to say the have at no point believed in nonsense at some time?

    2. I was in my 20s and very excited and passionate about my newfound faith.

      Crazy Christian chicks really are under appreciated. First off they are often repressed from self gratification which i think makes them tigers in bed.

      Plus unlike crazy secular chicks they have a place to focus their crazy. So with crazy christian chicks you get the great crazy chick sex and you also get less crazy chick bullshit because they put all their crazy energy into being christian.

      The down side is that crazy christian chicks are more likely to lie about contraceptives and get pregnant.

      1. I like how you thought that through. So who is more like to put out for the anal?

    3. “””When I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional,” she replied.””

      If you don’t chalk that up to candidate talk, you’re bullshitting yourself.

      1. On the plus side, it sounds like she is putting the money bomb being dropped into her campaign into buying some competent advice.

  15. If she thinks Joe Biden has tapped her phone, she is clearly nuts. Joe Biden would set himself and his office on fire if he tried to tap a phone.
    I hope they have a good sprinkler system in Blair House.

  16. Follow the hits. First the topic was Palin. Then it was the GZM. Now it’s O’Donnell. Follow the hits.

    1. Critiquing the crazy and the defending civil liberties is pretty normal around here. i think reason’s priorities are often skewed, but this doesn’t seem all that objectionable. unless you’re a partisan, i guess.

  17. Not only did O’Donnell win, she raised $1.2M in the 48 hours following her victory. I think this Tea Party thing is a passing fad.

  18. she explicitly refers to “the murder of Vince Foster,””

    Not, at least, in the passage you link to. What she says there is:

    “And then there’s also the issue of murder with Vincent Foster. That’s a much more serious charge than failing to seek legal advice”

    There is a large difference between referring “explicitly” to “the murder of Vince Foster” and referring to “the issue of murder with Vince Foster.” The former is a claim that Vince Foster was murdered, the latter implies that he might have been.

    When you give what purports to be a quote from someone, in quotation marks, it is supposed to be the words that person said. Putting in words the person did not say is either incompetent or dishonest.

    1. You are right she should not have been so loose with her words there. Something more specific ‘that weird shit that ended in the death of Vince Foster’ would have been more exacting and apt.

    2. “either incompetent or dishonest”

      So you’re just now meeting Michael Moynihan, Prof. Friedman?

    3. Plus, Vince Foster was murdered, along with 24 children in Waco.

  19. So now I’m a wacko because I have questions about how Vince Foster got to Fort Marcy park without his car keys?

    1. I believe he was taken there by black helicopter.

      1. Did the helicopter drop off his car too?

    2. Of course you’re wacko. The world’s most powerful people have never done anything like that to protect their positions. That’s just crazy-talk you nutcase.

  20. How can any rational person believe she is a bigger, more wild-eyed, corrupt and dangerous kook than Nancy Pelosi, or a fair number of sitting senators and congress people?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.