The Inexhaustible Brilliance of Christine O'Donnell

|

Last we heard from failed Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, pundits and bloggers were marveling that the truth-stretching Tea Party darling managed to finish her midterm race with almost $1 million dollars in the bank. And we aren't rid of her yet, according to a report in The Hill: O'Donnell is starting a PAC inventively called ChristinePAC. Why would we want to be rid of a politician so talented, so electrifying in front of a bank of cameras that she today compared the extension of unemployment benefits to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (approximately 2,500 dead)?

"Today marks a lot of tragedy," O'Donnell, the Tea Party-backed GOP Senate candidate from Delaware, said Tuesday night during an appearance in Virginia. 

"Tragedy comes in threes," O'Donnell said. "Pearl Harbor, Elizabeth Edwards's passing and Barack Obama's announcement of extending the tax cuts, which is good, but also extending the unemployment benefits." 

I bet Delaware voters are kicking themselves today.

NEXT: Obama: "When Medicare was started, it was a small program. It grew." You don't say!

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. Why do you hate women, Moynihan?

  2. It’s a shame she didn’t immediately explain her position, or even try to clarify it further after not quite getting her explanation right when she didn’t explain it immediately after. Or something.

  3. If you’re so disagreeable to seeing her being taken seriously, then why take what she says so seriously?

  4. Ken, he can’t get enough of her.

  5. WTF?!? That’s probably the funniest joke about Elizabeth Edwards until Conan weighs in.

  6. Yes, because every person who ever described having gotten drunk from sweet-tasting alcoholic drinks as having been “Pearl Harbored” was making a serious comparison to the attack on Pearl Harbor and clearly didn’t understand the significance of the U.S. role in World War II.

    1. Oh, come on. You know we’d be fuming if Obama compared tax cuts to the rich as disastrous as a Pearl Harbor and a cancer death.

      It was a dumb thing to say for someone who wanted to be taken seriously in the political arena.

      She just doesn’t belong in politics. Neither do most people I respect.

      1. Remember Keith Olbermann comparing Citizen’s United to Dredd Scott? Some people are just loudmouths, joking or not.

        1. And we mocked him endlessly for that too.

        2. Our outgoing blue dog rep in Idaho said the same thing BTW.

          1. A few days before being rolled in the election by a republican who had absolutely no chance of winning…

        3. People seem to mistake what I’m driving at. I think Reason generally rightfully criticizes a lot of Obama’s hyperbolic comparisons. My point is, when O’Donnell does the same, it’s better to be consistent than come to her defense.

          I’m really surprised on a libertarian discussion board people are so defensive of her.

          If nothing else, libertarians should recognize a dud when we see one. It’s called not being partisan.

      2. Yeah. Imagine if the President said something that stupid! We’d be fuming! Like, imagine if he said something like this:

        Obama: “I’ve said before that I felt that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts. I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. Then, people will question the wisdom of that strategy.

        In this case, the hostage was the American people. And I was not willing to see them get harmed.”

        1. Analogy often serves as a mental crutch, and this guy uses it constantly. I just wonder if he does it for his own benefit, i.e. if he’s unaware that he’s doing it and actually reasons in those terms, or if it’s just more of a general condescension thing, where he assumes nobody else capable of dealing with issues in real terms. Whatever the case, it’s very annoying.

          1. I also use analogies a lot. For me, it’s more of a general condescension thing. So, I’ll grant him the benefit of the doubt.

            1. Barry drove our hostages into the ditch with a Slurpee.

        2. It’s pretty clear he was using hostage negotiations as an analogy. O’Donnell was saying that the extension, Edward’s deaths and Pearl Harbor were actual tragedies.

          So, fail.

          1. It’s pretty clear he was using hostage negotiations as an analogy. O’Donnell was saying that the extension, Edward’s deaths and Pearl Harbor were actual tragedies.

            Wouldn’t hostage situations be a tragedy as well?

            Then again, I am not shocked by political figures making idiotic statements. I generally expect them.

            1. Are you shocked by MNG making idiotic statements? Probably not as that seems the norm.

          2. Yes, it was an analogy. He even prefaced it by saying “let me use an analogy” or something like that. It was also mind-bogglingly stupid in a similar way, which was the point. Did you really think I was making a perfectly literal equation between what O’Donnell said and what Obama said?

        3. That was pretty horrific. BHO is a hot house flower who can not function with even the slightest adversity. No Bill Clinton.

      3. Oh, come on. You know we’d be fuming if Obama compared tax cuts to the rich as disastrous as a Pearl Harbor and a cancer death.

        How about if called tax cut proponents hostage takers that he only dealt with because they were threatening to harm the hostage, ie the American public.

    2. So that’s why they’re called Kamikazis!

  7. That’s dumb.

    Almost as dumb as calling Republicans “hostage-takers” for trying to instill confidence in the people who actually create jobs (hint: they ain’t poor people).

    What’s Obama going to call actual hostage-takers? Misunderstood poor souls?

    Obama is a cunt.

    1. Of course Zero won’t instill confidence in job creators. Most of us who have even worked as mid level supervisors have had to fire people who seemed a lot like him.

  8. “Pearl Harbor, Elizabeth Edwards’s passing and Barack Obama’s announcement of extending the tax cuts, which is good, but also extending the unemployment benefits.”

    Moynahan does not understand how hyperbole works.

    He learned what irony was and stopped thinking after that.

    To be honest that was pretty funny of her to say.

    1. note: I am not a big fan of O’Donnell if only because she took away the spot light of Rand Paul with her weirdness and gaffs.

      Still that line that is bothering Moynihan is getting funnier the more I look at it.

      I wonder if he goes into conniption fits when kids sing “Ring around the Rosy” because it refers to the tragic events of the black plague?

      1. Maybe it’s good she took the spotlight away from Paul. The media seemed genuinely threatened by Paul, but because she came along, they got distracted. The media may not have prevailed, but nothing scares them more then potentially principled small government conservatives, and they would have tried desperately to destroy him.

        The media prefer conservatives who claim to be small government, but who grow the government (like GW), so they can claim small gov’t conservatism a failure.

      2. The next time a 4 year old runs for USA Senate, and sings ringaringaroses, yes I will have a fit. Same as when they wet their pants.

  9. Christine’s the party guest who drove all of the guests away and now won’t leave, even after the lights in the room have gone as dim as she is.

    She’ll be a even more embarrassing Meghan McCain – the go-to gal for making conservatives look stupid.

    1. Meghan McCain isn’t a conservative. She is quite vocal about that.

  10. Some of you can’t seriously be defending O’Donnell. Support for her is even more mystifying, and retarded, than support for Palin. At least Palin didn’t moonlight as a “witch” and didn’t describe masturbation as adultery.

    1. You Don’t have to support O’Donnell to see Moynihan has jumped the shark on this one.

      I am sure she will make a real gaff in the future but this one isn’t a gaff and is actually funny.

    2. It’s because she’s hot. Nothing mystifying about that.

      In seriousness, though, I think a lot of libertarians, even those who’d never admit it, were really hoping the GOP could take the Senate too, and when she won the primary, it made it that much harder; so people started trying really hard to defend her, even if it was against their better judgement.

      1. I think a lot of libertarians, even those who’d never admit it, were really hoping the GOP could take the Senate too

        Oh bullshit…she never had a chance after the primary and it was the Tea party who were happy she took the republican nomination. The GOP establishment were pissed because she knocked off the guy who probably would have won the seat.

        Also there were 3 or 4 GOP nominees who actually had a chance.

        O’Donnell was first and foremost a tea party bomb meant to take out a RINO…then after she did take him out the left wing media latched on to her because she was weird and an idiot and prone to Gaff so they made a strawman out of her to poke at while ignoring serious Tea party candidates like Rand Paul.

        1. Note: being an idiot in the senate is not necessarily a bad thing….and it has been proven to be the common currency in that chamber.

        2. If by “ignoring serious Tea party candidates like Rand Paul” you mean doing the opposite of ignoring by doing relentless attacks, then sure.

          1. Maddow is not the entire Left wing media.

        3. Okay, so maybe it’s jut because she’s hot.

          1. Hot now means pudgy?

            1. I, personally, would have gone for ‘cute’ instead of ‘hot’. Pudgy and cute go together quite nicely on occasion.

        4. A Delaware tea party leader says they were as shocked at her beating Castle as were the media and establishment. What happened was that she was such a long shot, those who preferred Castle didn’t vote in large numbers in the primary because they figured he was a shoo-in.

    3. I sometimes found myself defending W a few years back, not because I agreed with a lot of what he was doing, but because specific attacks on him were so stupid and/or insane…

      This is called Reason for a reason.

    4. +1
      Even when shes right about certain issues by accident that doesn’t mean one has to defend her when she say’s something openly retarded.

  11. Now I don’t feel so badly about observing that it was the 69th anniversary of a lot of blowing and going down.

  12. I’m sure that given the chance, she could qualify such a ridiculous statement. Just like I’m sure there are explanations for her saying “Gee, where in the constitution is the separation of church and state?”

    Regardless, if she can’t avoid letting such dumb things slip from her mouth, she doesn’t belong in politics. Especially since she was one of the most watched politicians of the last election cycle.

    Some people just can’t speak in sound bites. I’m one of them. I’m a better man for it.

    1. Maybe you can tell us where it is in the Constitution, then. The last time I looked, it said “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. There is no mention of “separation of state,” which is exactly what O’Donnell was saying. The term was first mentioned in the Supreme Court in 1878.

      See, here’s a great example of what’s wrong with criticism of O’Donnell. Yes, she’s more than a little kooky, yes she has said some silly things, and yes I wish we could come up with MUCH better candidates for the Senate (though I doubt her opponent qualifies). However, jumping all over her when she’s actually right makes no sense unless your motivation is purely partisan. If Rand Paul had said the same thing, people here would be bending over backwards to explain that he was actually right.

      1. See, here’s a great example of what’s wrong with criticism of O’Donnell. Yes, she’s more than a little kooky, yes she has said some silly things, and yes I wish we could come up with MUCH better candidates for the Senate (though I doubt her opponent qualifies).

        Exactly, most of the criticism of O’Donnell is complete bullshit.
        Running as a true outsider with no party support she did roughly as well as Carly Fiorina and Linda McMahon. Both spent tens of millions and had republican party support for the low 40s that they got. Why not talk about what crappy candidates they were? Or more realistically how stupid the voters in some states are.

        Oh and O’Donnell did a great service to small government advocate by eliminating that corrupt douche bag Castle. If she had won the general election, killing the Rhino would still be the most important thing that she ever did.

      2. The last time I looked, it said “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. There is no mention of “separation of state”, which is exactly what O’Donnell was saying.

        Wow, those are some sweet mental gymnastics.

        1. It’s a pretty legitimate argument. The way people use the phrase “separation of church and state” today is totally unfounded in those two clauses.

        2. In the context of the Constitution “establishment of religion,” meant something akin to the Church of England. I.e., an established state religion, not the abolition of religious influence on government. Suspicion that England might extend its sway to the colonies was a major contributor to the Revolution.

          I’m an agnostic, but not intellectually dishonest or historically ignorant.

      3. No, it was stupid for two reasons:

        1) She said repeatedly that she has changed her mind and no longer wishes to legislate her morality and her religion. Many people found this hard to believe. Later, she asks petulantly where it says there is any such separation of church and state. Why dwell on the point if you have no interest in breaching this wall? It accomplishes nothing.

        2) Anyone with any political acumen whatsoever would know how a comment like that sounded. If separation of church and state really came after the constitution, and wasn’t in it, she should have said so, but she instead said “Gee, I didn’t know that” when her opponent said it was in the First Amendment. She basically conceded he was right (and apparently, he wasn’t).

        Just because it was right, it was still a dumb thing to say.

        And you are all right to call me stupid, because it takes attention away from how inept she was. I didn’t like her opponent either, and an extra seat taken from the Dems would’ve been nice. But, I’m not going to pretend she was a worthwhile candidate.

        1. Apologies to Fatty Bolger and JoshlNHB, you didn’t call me stupid. Only JohnD did, and he apparently thinks the separation of church and state is a bad thing.

    2. J, you are the dumb one. The Constitution makes no mention of the seperation of Church and State. That phrase was coined by an activist, liberal judge and perpetuated by the left wing loons that hate Christanity. Get a clue, moron!

      1. I didn’t realize that Thomas Jefferson was a liberal, activist judge.

      2. If anything, separation of church and state saved Christianity. They don’t have it in England, and Christianity is all but dead there. In fact, more Muslims attend religious services in the UK than Christians.

        Now, if Islam became the dominant religion here, I think you’d be glad for the separation of church and state.

  13. “Tragedy comes in threes,” O’Donnell said. “Pearl Harbor, Elizabeth Edwards’s passing and Barack Obama’s announcement of extending the tax cuts, which is good, but also extending the unemployment benefits.”

    If it weren’t her her horse, she wouldn’t have spent that year in clown college.

    1. I could go for some horse cock right about now, it would break my non-masturbation habit.

      1. Another post by a juvenile that thinks it’s funny to make up shit and attribuite it to someone else. Grow up asshole.

        1. Correction: I love raping babies.

        2. JohnD, if you’ve been and these threads for any length of time, you know what this is often done as a joke. No one here would really believe that was her.

          Take a joke. Asshole.

        3. Quit posting on here and come back and suck me some more, JohnD

  14. Tragedy comes in threes: Christine O’Donnell making a public statement, the making of the movie “Pearl Harbor”, and the passing of gas after dinner tonight.

    TRAGEDY, I SAY!

  15. Why should anyone at Reason be adding wind to the sails of a mini-Sarah-Palin?

    1. Good point, that’s our job.

    1. Where can I find jade?

    2. See, and I was lookin’ for jade cock ring.

      Oh well, I guess I’ll have to go look somewhere else.

  16. Please be sure to use the same adjective (“failed candidate”) the next time that you refer to …
    Hillary Clinton
    John Edwards
    John McCain
    Al Gore
    John Kerry
    etc.

    1. Except those folks, you know, did something else

      1. O’Donnell “did something else” as well. She jousted to be the loudest and dumbest of the conservative buffoons that Maher trotted out on Real Time as pretend “balance” to his crypto-liberalism-masquerading-as-libertarianism. And she did well, proving herself the loudest and dumbest quite a few times. And generating hundreds of pull-quotes to use against her when she got too pudgy for TV and decided to cash her chips in on a doomed senatorial race.

        Her willingness to be an idiot attention whore should be acknowledged, Ramsey. And celebrated.

      2. At least one did someONE else, and only one of them is doing anything they didn’t do before failing as candidates. What dirt does HC have on the Obamas, I wonder…

      3. Yeah, they were successful parasites.

    2. I prefer the adjective “federal government cum-swallowers”, but I guess “failed candidate” works, too.

  17. Enough about that conservatron whore Christine “the Witch” O’ Donnell. Let’s have some more links to that dreamy closet libertarian Glenn Greenwald. I could just gay marry him!

  18. Moynihan could write about a tree falling in the woods and get 40 comments here.

    1. I didn’t hear that.

      1. That tree was a douche!

        1. That tree should die in a fire!

  19. Politics, of Greek and Latin origins, meaning…”Poli”, meaning many, and “tics”, meaning blood sucking vermin..
    The conclusion is yours to form……

    1. Actually, a tic is a “sudden, repetitive, stereotyped, nonrhythmic movement or sound”.

  20. I think the real story here is not that O’Donnell made an over-wrought comparison to Pearl Harbor and unemployment benefits, but the rise of a new creature in politics: the celebrity politician.

    We’ve had political celebrities before (Rush Limbaugh). They’re famous, but have no real responsibility. We’ve had celebrities who became politicans (Reagan, Sonny Bono), people who were famous and took on responsibility.

    But I can’t think of too many politicians who became celebrities–eschewing responsibility for fame, and maybe being able to turn that fame into responsibility some day.

  21. I bought three foods at the grocery: broccoli, chicken, and Twinkies.

    OMG! I compared Twinkies to broccoli! I’m so much the stoopid! Broccoli is healthy and Twinkies are the other thing of that!

  22. You see, this is the kind of shit I have talking about. The Right is crazy.

  23. “Why would we want to be rid of a politician so talented, so electrifying in front of a bank of cameras that she today compared the extension of unemployment benefits to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (approximately 2,500 dead)?”

    You mean giving people money so they don’t work, for 13 more months, is not AS tragic?

    I bet Delaware voters are kicking themselves today.

    I bet they will after the “bearded Marxist” grows an actual beard…

  24. The last time I looked, it said “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. There is no mention of “separation of state”, which is exactly what O’Donnell was saying.

    O’Donnell takes a very respectable position here, one that was universal in this country until sometime after WWII, based on the argument that a rigid “separation of church and state” as currently practiced by SCOTUS is one step beyond what the Constitution actually prohibits.

    Basically, it comes down to an argument about whether “establishment of religion” refers to the creation of a state church (as the Founders no doubt understood it) or refers to any reference to a particular religion by any state actor, or on any state property, or in any way supported directly or indirectly by state funds.

    If only we could get such a rabid interpretation of other items of the BOR. Imagine if the 2A were policed as ferociously as that.

  25. My favorite part beyond all of the Christine O’Donnell love here is that nobody has noted that Christine O’Donnell has NO ACTUAL ROLE in Delaware or federal government. Or why (similar to the Tweetzilla from Wasilla), we get treated to her commentary as serious and important political analysis.

    1. Not. It’s just filler.

  26. That’s an old cue card, fool!

  27. It’s already clear you’re a hack, Moynihan. No need to continue flogging the latest bandwagon.

  28. Also relevant to the theme of multiple disasters on December 7.
    Delaware became the first state to ratify the Constitution on 12/7/1787. An alert Delaware politician would have already pointed that out.

  29. Geez O’Donnell, I think both Edwards were idiots, but even I wouldn’t bring up her death to talk about politics.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.