Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Christine O'Donnell said gays suffer from `identity disorder,' reporter says

Christine O'Donnell claimed in a 2006 interview that homosexuals are psychologically defective, arguing that they suffer from "identity disorder," the reporter who conducted the interview tells me.

On Friday I noted here that the Wilmington News Journal ran a 2006 profile of O'Donnell which paraphrased her views, claiming she "considers homosexuality an identity disorder." But the paper didn't include any direct quote supporting that.

Now the reporter on the story, Victor Greto, who's now a professor at Wesley College in Delaware, emails over her full quote from his notes on the interview. Here's what she said:

"People are created in God's image. Homosexuality is an identity adopted through societal factors. It's an identity disorder."

O'Donnell's suggestion that gays suffer from a psychological disorder is far worse than other comments about gays that have already gotten media attention, such as her claim that the government spent too much on AIDS and her insistence that "gays get away with so much."

Also: Last week O'Donnell insisted that her rigid moralistic views represent long-ago youthful excesses. But as late as 2006, she was apparently still suggesting that gays are suffering from some sort of mental illness that has caused them to stray from God's "image."

Indeed, this would appear to put O'Donnell squarely in the camp of those who liken homsexuality to pedophilia and bestiality.

By Greg Sargent  | September 20, 2010; 10:42 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Senate Republicans, gay rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: How Dems should nationalize the elections

Comments

Interesting that the DSSC's first ad against O'Donnell focuses on her fiscal irresponsibility, not all her views on sex that have so titillasted the media.

Perhaps there was some research suggesting that is what voters (as opposed to blog readers) really care about.

Posted by: Mimikatz | September 20, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

"Indeed, this would appear to put O'Donnell squarely in the camp of those who liken homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality."

Now was that really necessary?

@Mimi: You're 100% correct. Dems would make a big strategic mistake - as does Greg - by not addressing real voter concerns and instead focusing on cultural wedge issues.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 20, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Then this -- which I just posted in the Morning Plum -- is ON TOPIC:

* Majority Support Gay Marriage *

A new AP-GfK Poll finds that 52% of Americans support the rights of same-sex couples to marry. It's the second national poll to have found majority support for gay marriage in the last two months.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/09/20/majority_support_gay_marriage.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

More on O'Donnell's fiscal irresponsibility and disresoect of the law: She not only spent money from her 2008 run against Joe Biden on her personal; living expenses instead of retiring he campaign debt, she was evidently the treasurer of her own campaign, which is against FEC rules.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/christine-odonnell-con-artist
(h/t to a daily kos diary)

More like Palin every day.

Posted by: Mimikatz | September 20, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

sbj -- I'm not a campaign strategist. If I think something is newsworthy, I'll report it.

and thx Ethan, invaluable context.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 20, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

I think the best quote of the week was O’Donnell saying that if she were a witch, Rove would be a supporter or she'd turn Rove into a ‘Newt’!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "A new AP-GfK Poll finds that 52% of Americans support the rights of same-sex couples to marry."

I wonder how many folks would vote on that, though? Would you vote for a tax-cutting social-security-privatizing pro-War candidate if he/she was unambiguously for gay marriage?

Neither here nor there, really, but I was just thinking. I support civil unions, but wouldn't for or against a candidate based on that.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 20, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

I think it's important for voters to understand these radicals views and how they don't align with mainstream voters. These ideologues would love to glide into the Senate undetected so they can vote with their bible.

OT but I thought I read something Perriello was going to get cut off at the knees for funding and support. I'm not sure who started that. Maybe it was a planted story to put a wedge between Democrats. Not sure.

This isn't the case at all. There are substantial efforts on the ground and all local Democratic districts in VA are busy on the phones going all in for him. Turnout on the ground was pretty strong in Charlottesville and the phone banks are gearing up and should be a good turnout starting this Thursday.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Combine this story with O'Donnell's story on Bill Maher's show about "making out with a witch on a satanic altar":

1. a witch is a woman
2. Therefore O'Donnell admitted to making out with a woman
3. O'Donnell thinks homosexuality is a disorder.
4. Therefore O'Donnell proclaims that she has a disorder.

Pretty basic cognitive reasoning, no?

Posted by: AjaxtheGreater | September 20, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

"O'Donnell's suggestion that gays suffer from a psychological disorder is far worse than ..." the APA's official position stating exactly that pre-1973?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

"Now was that really necessary?"

Yes, yes it was.

These people are the ones suffering from mental disorders. The lack of any substance for their arguments ties them together, whether it's a belief that homosexuals are suffering from some sort of disorder, that homosexuality is akin to bestiality, or that "teh gay" can be "cured."

Their 'disease' is an ideological belief supported by zero credible evidence.

Have your religion in private, fine, but when you mix that religion with public policy there BETTER be hard EVIDENCE to back up your beliefs or you are walking a dangerous line, one that is anti-American in my view.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

O/T

Thanks to lms for setting up the Act Blue page and getting us started.

Excellent work.

Please join me in giving to these candidates. Even a little helps.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 20, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington:

She already said that her litmus test for voting on any bill will be whether it is Constitutional, including the First Amendment. She is not going to "vote with her Bible". Nice try though.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

"Would you vote for a tax-cutting social-security-privatizing pro-War candidate if he/she was unambiguously for gay marriage?"

Is that a joke?

Strawman says no.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Implicit in O'Donnell's ravings is that since being gay is a, "identity disorder," it is obviously curable.

I've known quite a few gay people; all of them knew they were gay at a REALLY young age. They insist they were born gay. They weren't cursed with an epiphany upon hearing Judy Garland sing and suddenly decide they wanted to canoodle with a hairy chested sort.

I'm straight; I can't imagine suddenly deciding I wanted to give guys a chance. It really doesn't work that way. The idea that someone like me can suddenly be excited about men... It would be like shooting pool with a rope.

I wonder what O'Donnell's gay sister has to say about her identity disorder? I'd guess it would be along the lines of, "She said what? Well my sister is a 'tard who eats crayons for breakfast and likes to finger paint with her own feces. Consider the source."

Posted by: nisleib | September 20, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

@Greg: "If I think something is newsworthy, I'll report it."

Twice!

This is just some friendly, critical advice, Greg. More on real, important issues and less on the tabloid-like Angle and O'Donnell crap. (And if you're NOT a campaign strategist you sure do spend a lot of time suggesting how the Dems should campaign!)

Posted by: sbj3 | September 20, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

1973 != 2010

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

"O'Donnell's suggestion that gays suffer from a psychological disorder is far worse than ..." Ethan2010's claim that the 48% of us against same-sex marriage are the ones suffering from mental disorders?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

@sbj3: Where is odonnell's economic platform? Is she running on the Ryan plan? What views does she have on economics? Job creation? Is she another tax cuts and deregulation economic know-nothing republican clone? Can she distinguish the TARP from the ACA from other spending? We don't know because she is going into media seclusion like Rand and Angle. How can they face America's challenges, if can't they face a few reporters...?

Posted by: srw3 | September 20, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Ah thanks Jake, I didn't know O'Donnell said that.

Well, she's a good Christian so we should take her for her word.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

BG you rock.

Here's the url for our community organizing page for anyone who hasn't seen it yet:

http://www.actblue.com/page/plcommunity

CITIZENS UNITE!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington:

Tell me about it! America really went to hell in a handbasket since 1973.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Jake - I don't know about the rest of the 48%, but clearly, you do.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 20, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

@jd2: Is blatant discrimination is a form of mental illness or just plain bigotry? Inquiring minds want to know.... I guess calling it a mental illness means that it could be treated. Reforming bigots is harder to accomplish...

Posted by: srw3 | September 20, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

This is just some friendly, critical advice Greg. When the Republicans start talking about 'more real important issues' and less on how Obama is a Kenyan, anti-colonialist and Michelle should keep here hands off my high-fructose corn syrup beverages - you can do the same.

Posted by: bmcchgo | September 20, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Aren't her positions essentially identical to those of the average Republican, or at least the average Republican legislator? There's still a wide audience for these views, and many otherwise good people, such as my father, would wholeheartedly agree with her.

Also, I've been out as gay from the '80s on. I don't quite get why the disorder slur is worse than the AIDS criticism or the "they get away with more" fantasy. They're all pretty much of a piece -- out-dated but still fairly dominant views based on ignorance and feelings of persecution.

It would be interesting as well to see what wannabe-Speaker Boehner and other tan Americans think about these statements.

Posted by: stonedone | September 20, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

@srw3: "Where is odonnell's economic platform? Is she running on the Ryan plan? What views does she have on economics? Job creation? ... We don't know because she is going into media seclusion."

I suggest that this line of attack would be far more effective than going on about her views on identity disorders. You obviously care about her views on those issues you write about rather than on what Greg and Maher seem to be concentrating on - that's my point exactly.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 20, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

srw3 - good point. Years ago I used the same point against a rightwinger squawking about how I shouldn't be allowed to sit on the panel questioning congressional candidates at a debate, because I had once years before done some work for the other candidate. My response to the reporters who asked about it was "oh, so if elected, he thinks he shouldn't have to communicate with anyone who ever supported his opponent? His stance seems to be that he's not interested in the concerns of anyone who has ever supported his opponent, which makes me wonder how he thinks he can win the race, given that his opponent is the incumbent and the majority of voters in this district have supported him in the past. I'm pretty sure that congressmen are expected to represent, and answer to, ALL of their constituents, not just the ones who happen to have voted for them. He seems to have an interesting take on that concept."

That was the end of the squawking. And yes, he lost.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 20, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Thanks BG, we've got a little over a month to generate some enthusiasm for these candidates on the cusp of winning.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 20, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Brand New Facebook O'Donnell Watchdog Page. Please "Like" this page and help compile the truth about TEA Party darling Christine O'Donnell. She could be the factor that determines if the democrats hold onto the senate.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=161102327233749&ref=mf

Video: Christine O'Donnell - I touch Myself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYbindWziUE

Posted by: seraphina2 | September 20, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

"the APA's official position stating exactly that pre-1973?"

Awesome! She's only 37 years behind the times! Maybe someone needs to let her know that Brady Bunch has been taken off the air and not to ride in a Ford Pinto.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 20, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

lms and others. If you're going to contribute $ to candidates, I'd say better sooner than later. It's a crucial time for messaging.

Just picture Newt Gingrich in any kind of position of power and then give till it hurts. You can always eat Ramen noodles if you have to....

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 20, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

stonedone (and scat):

Maybe "outdated" to you, but TIMELESS and more important "correct" to me.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

JakeD2 @ September 20, 2010 11:00 AM wrote "the APA's official position stating exactly that pre-1973?"

Irrelevant! We have a brain so we can learn. The Earth is not the Center of the Universe, and neither is the Sun.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | September 20, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

OT, we should be seeing more of this:

* Economic News Boosts Stocks *

U.S. stocks climbed Monday, gaining speed after a key nonprofit officially called the recession over, giving investors a boost of confidence in the gradual economic recovery.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 111 points, or 1%, to 10719. The measure's climb accelerated after the National Bureau of Economic Research, the unofficial arbiter of recessions' start and end dates, said the recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009.

The Standard & Poor's 500-share index gained 1.1% to 1138, breaking above 1130, the top of the index's recent trading range.

The consumer discretionary sector posted the biggest gains, as investors grew more bold in hopes that the economy would avoid a double-dip, or second recession. Lennar jumped 6.8% after the home builder reported a return to profitability in the fiscal third quarter, as its earnings beat analysts' forecast.

Among the Dow's strongest performers, Home Depot gained 1.8%. Later this week, the government will release new housing starts, building permits, existing- and new-home sales data.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989304575503412458109340.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

OT - Happy days came back Friday to Spring Hill, Tenn., when General Motors announced it would rehire 483 laid-off workers to build four-cylinder engines. On hand to cheer the news: Three Republican lawmakers who opposed the bailout that saved GM.

As part of its $50 billion bankruptcy arranged by the Obama administration, GM shuttered the Spring Hill plant’s assembly line last year, shedding 2,000 jobs in the process, but kept building four-cylinder engines. The new plan calls for $483 million in spending to upgrade the engine line, pending a deal on state incentives.

The irony of the Republican lawmakers’ presence wasn’t lost on the workers who attended the ceremony; they booed Tennessee Republican Bob Corker, and one UAW official made clear from the stage that the union still remembered which politicians had voted to rescue Wall Street but opposed an auto industry bailout.

http://jalopnik.com/5641416/republicans-hail-jobs-from-gm-bailout-they-opposed

Posted by: nisleib | September 20, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

what a way to start the week. Mr Sargent dishes out saliva inspiring tidbits for the pavlovians who follow him.

I imagine that a silly story on Ms Angle is next.

Not to much about Rand Paul anymore though. gosh I wonder why. Could it be that the once loudly excoriated Mr Paul has trotted off to a 54/38 lead? How did that happen?Weren't we assured that Mr Paul was just too radical for the voters?

So the race boils down to an avowed bearded marxist who raised property taxes three times, VS an ordinary american who has faced many of the same challenges most have faced.

the left is in a hurry to write this lady off. Probably because they know how weak their candidate is.

And once again lefties, I will remind you of a famous Democrat with a checkered past, Marion Barry. So rumors of Ms O'Donnell's demise are greatly exagerated.

but isn't that how denial works?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 20, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

AMviennaVA:

It's not "irrelevant" if it's also CORRECT. That's my entire point.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, also OT, sorry:

Republican leaders are also devising legislative maneuvers that might have a bigger impact, using appropriations bills and other tactics to try to undermine the administration's overhaul of health care and financial regulations and its plans to regulate greenhouse gases. GOP leaders also hope to trim spending, return unspent stimulus funds and restore sweeping tax cuts.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575501782138298328.html

That's what Republicans want. They want a government shut down in the middle of an ECONOMIC RECOVERY.

SENSELESS.

*The Recession Ended in June 2009*

The average of real GDP and real GDI reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009. The committee concluded that strong growth in both real GDP and real GDI in the fourth quarter of 2009 ruled out the possibility that the trough occurred later than the third quarter.

The committee designated June as the month of the trough based on several monthly indicators.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/sept2010.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

"Not to much about Rand Paul anymore though. gosh I wonder why."

He decided to hide his radical views from the public and will try and slip by voters as are the other right wing cooks trying to get elected. See, their game plan is run and hide your views, get elected, then bend the public over while you have your way and the labor forces continue to not have anyone fighting for them.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

"@srw3: "Where is odonnell's economic platform? Is she running on the Ryan plan? What views does she have on economics? Job creation? ... We don't know because she is going into media seclusion."

I suggest that this line of attack would be far more effective than going on about her views on identity disorders.

----------------------------------------

I will admit that I don't have a clue about what is more effective or how the voters of Delaware are going to respond to O'Donnell or the attacks on her.

What I do know is that the average Jane and John Doe voter out there are lucky if they get to spend 30 minutes watching the news each day after spending all day working, feeding the kids, getting homework done and preparing for the next day. They don't sit at their computers and intricately parse out every position of every candidate. How many people do you think even know who Ryan is or what kind of plan it is he's pushing? Now imagine how few of those are even remotely familiar with the details of his plan.

People, for the most part, vote emotionally and often times vote for the person they feel most comfortable about. I remember in college going nuts with a friend who insisted on voting for Reagan even though she disagreed with absolutely everything he had to say - "he just seems like such a nice man" she would insist. It's the whole "I'd like to have a beer with that person" voter.

While I don't think that in this environment economics should be ignored, I also don't think you can completely downplay character issues....especially when they are as extreme to the right as people like O'Donnell, Angle, Miller, etc.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 20, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

since Mr. Miller has already pronouced that SS, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, then Delaware voters should take Ms.O'Donnell at her word and admit that she would join Mr. Miller to REPEAL those programs b/c that is what she believes the Constitution tells her to do. Or perhaps she could ask Elizabeth Montgomery.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 20, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of what is and is not "news", I think it's pretty foolish to pretend that a candidate statement tarring an entire group of voters as somehow "defective" is not newsworthy.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 20, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Christine,

Since you are the one who dabbled in witchcraft, then became an evangelical Christian, and campaigned for adult celibacy, no m@sturbation or any sexual thoughts; but now claim that you have since matured;

Aren't you the one who suffers from a chronic identity disorder?

Christine,

You have changed you identity so many times, that the voters of Delaware can only be sure of one thing;

What you claim to be now, will not last very long either.

Christine Sybil O'Donnell, Identity Change Lunatic.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

leichtman1 thinks all Delaware voters should "admit" that O'Donnell is going to repeal Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance. No doubt he joins with Ethan2010 in "admitting" that 48% of Americans who oppose same-sex marriage are suffering from mental disorders too ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Um, how do you get "psychological disorder" from "identity disorder"?

Posted by: ninjapirate | September 20, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

here's the voice of denial:
"He decided to hide his radical views from the public and will try and slip by voters as are the other right wing cooks trying to get elected. See, their game plan is run and hide your views, get elected, then bend the public over while you have your way and the labor forces continue to not have anyone fighting for them."

Permit a simple translation: the only way that Rand Paul can get elected is by duping the voters, all of them. All lefties KNOW that Mr Paul is unfit for the senate and the info they base this on is readily available. Therefore the ONLY reason Mr Paul continues to prosper in his campaign is because he's a crook and the voters are ignorant and stupid.

Did I get that about right? It certainly seems like it.

This is good old denial. CD counselors would probably term the above "intellectual Denial" but it is denial all the same.

Isn't possible that these candidates' words are resonating with an America that is increasingly unwilling to accpect failed liberal "solutions"?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 20, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Joke, I admit that I think that people who think that homosexuality is an "identity disorder" themselves have a mental disorder where they cannot distinguish between fact and ideology.

So, Joke, do YOU think that homosexuality is an "identity disorder"?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

'No doubt he joins with Ethan2010 in "admitting" that 48% of Americans who oppose same-sex marriage are suffering from mental disorders too ; )'

Only 48%? Please, it's much higher than that... more people oppose gay marriage than support it...

Posted by: ninjapirate | September 20, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Uh oh.

"Christine O'Donnell Witchcraft" being #4 on the current top ten Google searches right now isn't very good news for the GOP.

I guess that's why Palin is such a big fan, both of them believing in witchcraft and all.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Yea, but then in the other clip from 1999, Christine O'Donnell appeared to say she had gone on "dates" with witches - meaning she was engaged in lesbian relationships.

I would be careful with this one.

Mimi is 100% right - all these social issues are sucking up all the oxygen in the media air - and the voters care about ECONOMIC ISSUES. The democrats are not going to be able to gain much ground with these issues.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 20, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Because she claims that homosexuality is an "identity disorder", which means that it is all in the minds of those people.

Christine is practicing Pseudo Psychology without a license, or a job in the field, or in any other field either. She is a freeloading chronic Welfare Queen, and a habitual Grifter.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

So, Joke, do YOU think that homosexuality is an "identity disorder"?

It's a yes or no question.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"Only 48%? Please, it's much higher than that... more people oppose gay marriage than support it..."


* Majority Support Gay Marriage *

A new AP-GfK Poll finds that 52% of Americans support the rights of same-sex couples to marry. It's the second national poll to have found majority support for gay marriage in the last two months.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/09/20/majority_support_gay_marriage.html

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 20, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Ethan2010:

Darn, I would have loved to answer your present question to me on this thread, but you pointed refused to answer my past question to you on an earlier thread. Should have thought through the consequences a little better. Hope you can learn to live with the disappointment.

ninjapirate:

I'm just going with the figure posted above by someone claiming that 52% support same-sex marriage (even though it's LOST every referendum vote taken and can only be instituted by activist judges and liberal legislatures ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Oh great, SaveTheRacists is here again.

Hey simpleton, explain to everyone here how Obama is an affirmative action President so we can all point and laugh.

And skipsailing28 thinks Kentucky voters are fine with eliminating SS, leave civil rights in the hands of private industry, criticizing BP is un-American and that Kentuckians daughters should carry the baby of rapists to birth.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

"Um, how do you get "psychological disorder" from "identity disorder"?"

Yes, I'm pretty sure when she said "disorder" she was referring to the entropy of a thermodynamic system or possibly the Joy Division song.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 20, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"People are created in God's image. Homosexuality is an identity adopted through societal factors. It's an identity disorder."

So, according to Christine Sybil O'Donnell;

God has both a penis and a vagina.

Is Christina Sybil O'Donnell claiming that her God is an Hermaphrodite? It sure sounds like she must be, because how else can both she and Carl Rove be each "created in God's image"?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still seems to have missed the fact that Ethan2010 is practicing Pseudo Psychology without a license, or a job in the field, too.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

P.S. Karl spells his first name with a "K" as in Marx.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Bennet is another possible $$ bomb candidate I've been looking at. Looks like Buck agrees with O'Donnell somewhat that being gas is a lifestyle "choice". Of course it doesn't matter to them that this characterization flies in the face of all research to the contrary.

The reason this has become a campaign issue is because they have made it one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Buck and his opponent, Democrat Michael Bennet, engaged in a "lively" debate on Friday, hosted by Colorado Springs affiliate KOAA and the Colorado Springs Gazette. Although the primary focus of the debate was economic issues -- with Bennet saying he supports "extending the middle class tax cuts" and Buck stating that extending the Bush tax cuts would "pay down the deficit" -- the two men also touched on social policies."

BUCK: "I do not support the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I think it is a policy that makes a lot of sense. It's not whether an individual is gay can serve in the military, the question is whether that individual can be openly gay in the military. It's one thing to deny someone access to the military and to a career in the military, it's another thing to -- for morale purposes and other purposes -- make sure that we are as homogeneous as possible in the military in moving towards the common goal of the security and the military action, as opposed to the distractions that are caused by allowing lifestyle choices to become part of the discussion."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/17/ken-buck-homogeneous-military-dadt_n_721804.html

Posted by: lmsinca | September 20, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

An "identity disorder" - that is what Christine O'Donnell said.

There are degrees of psychological disorders - and to say that a mild form is "just like" a more severe form is just not right.

ALSO, to a layman - an "identity disorder" can be seen as extremely mild - and simply mean that a person doesn't know what they are - there is confusion. Many young people who believe they are bisexual report feelings of confusion.


Again - the democrats think they are going to blow this comment up - and get votes out of it ???


The democrats are running the risk of a backlash - just like the reports that Obama will attack the Tea Party - an overreaction from Obama, attacking the opposition, will NOT work.

The democrats have to approach the Tea Party with the SAME RESPECT that everyone else gave Obama in 2008.


If Obama and the democrats do not do that, there will be a reaction


AND that is exactly the problem with the health care debate last spring - the False Charges of Racism simply did not stack up well on the "respect scale" compared to what Obama got in 2008. In addition, the democrats were pretty obnoxious about Obama's skin color in 2008 - so the whole thing really does not work.


Obama was not vetted properly in 2007 and 2008 - he was treated carefully because of his skin color - and then the Journolist people came in and distorted the whole process.


NOT good.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 20, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

jeebus, edit: gas=gay. I really need to slow down and use the preview button.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 20, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington - On the witchcraft thing...

I knew Bill Maher would deliver, but I had no idea...

And according to Maher this is just the tip of the iceberg. If she refuses to go on his show he will keep releasing the tapes one at a time.

I think Maher feels guilty. According to him he "created" her. I'd guess that he needed a real wack-job (pun intended) to say crazy things on his show and along came this loveable little psycho O'Donell. Now his "creation" has a chance of winning a senate seat and he must be saying to himself, "Her? She could be a Senator? She's a joke people! I wanted you people to laugh at the crazy monkey girl, not elect her!"

Posted by: nisleib | September 20, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

jake believes that 48% of the nation agree with Joe Miller about SS and Medicare))

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Miller said Washington has overstepped its constitutional authority by enacting unemployment compensation, Social Security and Medicare programs that have bankrupted the nation."

By the way since you believe that federal social policies should be decided by polling then you would have sided with those in 1964 like Strom Thurmond and Jessie Helms who told us that Civil Rights Open Housing and integrating our military was not polling well and was bad public policy.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 20, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Apparently Joke agrees with O'Donnell that homosexuality is an "identity disorder"

That's just CRAZY.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Greg

There are several hostile posters here


Everyone is trying to keep the discussion civil.


But when a few people come on - and start off with the hostility right off - there is a problem. These people are inviting a fight - they are looking for people to respond to them in an equally nasty way.


Comment:

mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 11:59 AM


Comments like this - which start the name-calling - invite name-calling in return. I think everyone wants civil discussion.


IN addition there is another poster 12barblues - who has been recruiting her friends to come over to this blog - and she is encouraging them to make nasty comments and to start fights on this blog.


There is a difference between issue discussion - and hostile comments aimed at other posters.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 20, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca

I never understood the concept of it is OK for some one to be gay in the military, just as long as they do not tell anyone that they are gay.

What about equal rights for all people, and demand that those who want to keep DADT, make it apply to all members of the armed forces. If any one asks about someone's sexual orientation, regardless of if they are gay, or straight, or if anyone reveals that they are gay or straight, or engages in conduct that would reveal their sexual identity, then they will be discharged.

As things stand now, a lot of people who want to retain DASD, say that it is not about someone being gay. Well, if that is the case, then let us call their bluff, and insist, that under the equal protection clause, DADT must be applied to all members of the armed forces. If anyone says anything about someone else's sexual identity, or if any member, reveals their sexual identity, they must be discharged,at once.

Of course we will be left with just a pool of eunuchs,(and Christine O' Donnell) to recruit from, but so be it. The supporters of DADT will only have their selves to blame.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

nisleib (and Maher, I guess, too):

Ms. O'Donnell certainly made her share of mistakes in life. However, after she became a born-again Christian, she's definitely been a lot less judgmental of others than you are of her.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

"The supporters of DADT ..." including Bill Clinton.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest - You are a rightwing spambot troll, if you don't like it here then go away.

We love intelligent righties like Kevin, but people like you don't belong here.

If it seems mikefromArlington and 12Barblues are being mean and hurting your fee fees, that is because you are an annoying troll that spouts brainless Mark Levin style nonsense 24/7.

Go away, you don't belong here. You are only here to "hippie punch" in any case.

Posted by: nisleib | September 20, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"she's definitely been a lot less judgmental of others than you are of her."

Really?

She's implying in her rhetoric that Democrats aren't real Americans.

I'd say that's VERY judgmental.

And insulting.

Joke, how would you like it if I suggested that YOU aren't a real American? Would you say that I'm not being judgmental?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest became slightly, well lets not kid ourselves, totally unhinged last night and started talking about Obama's birth certificate and how Obama is an affirmative action President and now he's asking for me to be civil.

Crazy talk is not civilized. I'm not sure what planet you grew up in but in this country, civilized mentally stable people don't speak gobblygook and unhinged individuals such as yourself deserve no civil tone.

If Greg decides to punish me so be it but I'm not giving your kind an ounce of respectful consideration on anything.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Greg

Another hostile comment from someone who is not interested in civil discussion

nisleib | September 20, 2010 12:22 PM


Clearly - no one knows who these people are - but there are rules to the civil discussions.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 20, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

BTW: Barack Obama is also among the 48% of us against same-sex marriage who, according to Ethan2010, therefore suffer from mental disorders ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

All, my take on how Dems should nationalize the elections:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/white_house_and_dems_have_alre.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 20, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

I watched a debate on ABC between Hillary and Obama, where Wee Georgie, Charile Gibson, and Hillary spent forty minutes beating then Senator Obama over the head, because he was not wearing a lapel flag pin.

Senator Obama's skin color did not deter those three White People one bit. They just beat up on him, for not wearing a lapel flag pin.

No one ever asked those three White People, who were castigating Senator Obama for not wearing a lapel flag pin, where were their flag pins. They were not wearing them either, but of course they were not wearing label flag pins, while being white, so of course they were born with the right color to be assumed to be loyal and patriotic Amurkins.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010:

Again, you are asking me questions; I wish I could help you.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I'll admit that when I clicked over, I thought the item was going to be about O'Donnell having an identity crisis.

I'm still looking for context of the witch remark. I'm guessing it was Dungeons & Dragons or Arduin Grimoire.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | September 20, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest - Just go away troll

Posted by: nisleib | September 20, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"Barack Obama is also among the 48% of us against same-sex marriage who, according to Ethan2010, therefore suffer from mental disorders"

Here's the difference.

He doesn't support laws banning it. He's not shoving his religious beliefs down American's throats as the right wants. The left (at least I don't) doesn't have a problem with religious people. It's when they want to push their stoneage beliefs down the throats of others that the problem happens.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"SaveTheRainforest became slightly, well lets not kid ourselves, totally unhinged last night and started talking about Obama's birth certificate and how Obama is an affirmative action President and now he's asking for me to be civil."

STRF just likes to change the subject and go "SQUAWK!!! SQUAWK!!! SQUAWK!!!! SQUAWK!!!!" when confronted by inconvenient truths.

When that fails, he/she will go running to hide behind Mommy's skirts. (No offense, Greg).

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 20, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

OK, can we all agree that CLOSETED gays suffer from "identity disorder" at least?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

So Buill Maher has something to do with this? yet another reason why Americans should kill thier TV's now.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 20, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat 12:31 PM


You lost on every point


You start to quote dictionary definitions - which worked against you.

Seriously - the ECONOMY is the most important thing

Are we going to have civil discussions or not?


SchrodingerCat - you have proven to be overly sensitive - and immediately getting nasty when a discussion is taking place - so please just be an adult.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 20, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

"Clearly - no one knows who these people are - but there are rules to the civil discussions."

Yes, first among them being that you have enough respect for the people with whom you're having a discussion that you don't just repeatedly tell lies and make things up.

You're not here for discussion; you're here to stage a *performance*. A rote and annoying one, to boot.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 20, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington:

"Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights."

That sounds like a BAN on the "marriage" part to me at least.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

52% of Americans support the rights of same-sex couples to marry

Joke, that must burn in your brain.

Sizzle sizzle.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." (Barack Obama, Interview with Chicago Tribune)

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Asked to Define marriage:

OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me -- for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix. But --

WARREN: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?

OBAMA: No, I would not.

WARREN: Why not?

OBAMA: Because historically -- because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution. It's been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a Constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that -- about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view." (Barack Obama, Saddleback Civil Forum)

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

"You lost on every point"

Sure thing. Can you tell us again where in the Presidential Oath of Office it says "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 20, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

"You're not here for discussion; you're here to stage a *performance*. A rote and annoying one, to boot."

Amen Jenn! Very annoying! And a poor performance at that!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 20, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

So, yes, Barack Obama is against DADT and a Constitutional Amendment re: marriage -- not everyone can agree on that -- still sounds like he is personally among the 48% of us suffer[ing] from mental disorders because we are against the word "marriage" being used by gays.

BTW: I remember when even the word "gay" just meant happy ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 (from the prior thread):

"Women aren't capable of service in the Armed forces and their admission to the Military Academies would ruin those institutions".

Idjit (now SENATOR) Jim Webb: "Women can't fight"

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/mediapolitics/2182.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

jake is a "Christian" who felt that it was just dandy to hold the so called Values
Convention for his friends on my holiest of days, Yom Kippur. He likely would have been silent had they decided to hold their convention on Easter Sunday as well. Apparently he and his Tea Party friends believe that Jews should be thought of as second class citizens in this country. Please don't try and lecture us on religious values; mine was totally insulted by your crowd on saturday.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 20, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

@ss28:Therefore the ONLY reason Mr Paul continues to prosper in his campaign is because he's a crook and the voters are ignorant and stupid.

Such sweeping generalizations. Paul is not a crook, he is a politician. He is a put a finger to the wind and say what he needs to to win kind of a guy, from his actions. So cutting the military and ending foreign military adventures (previously, a strongly held position) is now off his talking points. Gold standard? Pot legalization? Repeal SS and Medicare? To the back of the rhetorical bus. Its clear that he still believes civil rights legislation in the 60's to be unconstitutional, and that private establishments should be able to discriminate against whoever they want to. But since these are not (and mostly never were) mainstream positions, he is avoiding his previous advocacy for these issues.

Not sure that is being a crook. But he is overtly and consciously avoiding and trivializing views that defined him as a public person, before he became a statewide federal candidate, based on his letters to the editor, talk show appearances, etc.

People don't have to be stupid to vote for nutty candidates, just inattentive which they are for 95% of the time. Its only 45-90 days before elections when the majority of people start tuning into political campaigns. This is pretty clear from the pathetic % of the population that show up for primaries. Did even 10% of delaware residents support odonnell at the polls?

As for ignorant, that depends on your level of expectation. First, many (probably a majority) of people can't name their representatives in congress (unless there is an election looming), the roles of the branches of govt, more than 3 members of the supreme court, etc. People foolishly believe that majority rules in the senate, FGS! Poll after poll shows that people are easily misled by concerted propaganda campaigns. I wonder how many people still believe that Saddam was colluding with Al Qaeda and was involved in 911...How many people believe that HCR contains death panels which will pull the plug on grandma...How many people believe that the ARRA was a failure that failed to create jobs, even though a consensus of economists believe that it boosted GDP and substantially cut unemployment...Biggest middle class tax cut? never happened.

There are probably some willfully ignorant people, but most people are engaged 16 hours a day trying to survive the economic crisis and trying to get their personal finances in better shape. Paying attention to millionaire reporters harassing blovating millionaire candidates, both of whom talk about how they care for the common person gets a bit tiring when you are scrambling for a job or working 2 to try and save your underwater house...When elections loom, people do attend more, but most of the coverage is the horse race and not issues and positions, (media would say that they did cover positions earlier.) But earlier is before people were paying attention.

Posted by: srw3 | September 20, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Oh, please, leichtman1 -- you and your friends have so many holy days, it would be hard to throw a dart at a calendar and not hit one.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

"Oh, please, leichtman1 -- you and your friends have so many holy days, it would be hard to throw a dart at a calendar and not hit one."

Classy, Jake. I'm completely flabbergasted as to why people would think you and your ilk are bigots...

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 20, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

"Please don't try and lecture us on religious values; mine was totally insulted by your crowd on saturday."

Hear hear!!!

Republican pseudo-Christian fundamentalists quiver and shake and rend their clothes and tear their hair when anyone disagrees with THEIR religious views.

But they have no problem offending every other religion.

It's truly pathetic.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

The APA was correct in 1973 but now it is wrong?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 20, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Thaks for the long winded example of denial srw3. It fits perfectly into the narrative I've already provided.

There are any number of "nefarious" reasons why candidate the left doesn't like are prospering. All of them are simply hillarious.

and I love the prevarication: people don't have to be stupid to vote for a nut, they have to have some other grave problem!! Yeah, right.

It could never be, no its impossible, that perhaps Mr Paul's positions resonate with the people who must elect him. No way. The only way that American politics moves away from liberalism, at least according to liberals, is for the entire electorate to vote out of stupidity or ignorance. Kinda like they did with Obama, right? We have the journolist to thank for Obama. Who will you thank for Paul?

Just too funny.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 20, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Yes.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

"Oh, please, leichtman1 -- you and your friends have so many holy days, it would be hard to throw a dart at a calendar and not hit one.

Posted by: JakeD2"

The latest from the biggest bigot on the board.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 20, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

@JD2: However, after she became a born-again Christian, she's definitely been a lot less judgmental of others than you are of her.

Really? Did she state that masturbati0n is a form of adultery before or after her conversion? Sounds pretty judgmental to me. Or is adultery a value neutral term nowadays? And what about the Castle is secretly gay campaign? Isn't she making a judgment about him?

Posted by: srw3 | September 20, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

What we really need is not generic “reform” (or regurgitated “Change That Matters”), but “reformation,” a reshaping of our politics according to its original moral standard. The best alternative to Obamaism is the heart of the Declaration of Independence (the founding principle of the Republican Party) and the defining ideal of its first president: equal justice for all.

The growing power of political insiders is a gross offense against this principle. The AARP, the pharmaceutical companies, and the American Medical Association were at the top of the President’s list of health care “stakeholders” with whom deals were cut on the road to Obamacare; the American people who will pay the bill and be at the mercy of the newly-minted federal bureaucracies were not. Lobbyists and staffers write bills that suit their interests and favorite constituencies which Congressmen, in turn, approve without even reading. In such a political world, opportunities for the well-connected abound — and there is every indication that few are being squandered.

It does not require a phony sort of populism to point this out or to find it troubling. There is nothing more destructive to the spirit of equal justice and the morale of a republic than the belief that cultivating close ties to the present governing class is the surest and fastest way to prosperity and influence. While all this may seem to be nothing more than business as usual, it is important to realize that, with the present administration, there is a lot more of this business than usual.

The conservative response is simple: connect the case for equal justice to the case for limited government. What is a point of philosophical conviction for conservatives can be a point of practical application for others. This, however, will only be plausible, especially in light of the spending record of the Bush-era Republican congresses, if it is built upon explicit promises to end earmarks and related spending practices, simplify the tax code, repeal Obamacare, and reduce the scope and discretion of regulators.

A fuller conservative commitment to equal justice in the upcoming congressional and presidential contests would not only respond to prevailing public concern, but begin to demonstrate that it is the strong, but modest, government the Founders designed, not our ever-growing Washington Leviathan that is the real friend of the people.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/09/20/equal-justice-limited-government-and-the-2010-election/

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

What's interesting about O'Donnell's smears that Castle is really gay is that there is a 100 percent chance that the Republicans would accuse a 41-year-old single Democrat of being gay.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 20, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

srw3:

Democrat and PRESIDENT Jimmy Carter said the same, exact thing about "adultery", so was he judgmental? No, I didn't think so. As for "the Castle is secretly gay campaign" she never said that (Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Observer691:

Welcome to our "civil" discussion (leichtman and I go way back).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

To the 48% of Americans:

Donate to Christine O'Donnell's campaign today!

https://secure.piryx.com/donate/ObyCSaw9/Friends-of-Christine-ODonnell/primary-victory

Or, send a check to "Friends of Christine O'Donnell" • PO Box 3987 • Wilmington, DE 19807

And, vote for Bristol Palin tonight on DWTS ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Jake, but I go back a long way with you guys too -- just under a different name 8<D

Posted by: Observer691 | September 20, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Oh, great. Chris Fox is back from Vietnam?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of 52% of likely U.S. voters, they say that their own views are closer to Sarah Palin’s than they are to Barack Obama’s, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Just 40% say their views are closer to Obama's. LOL!!!!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/september_2010/52_of_voters_say_their_views_are_more_like_palin_s_than_obama_s

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Then why won't Palin run for president? I'm sure Obama would relish the challenge.

She's a gutless grifter.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 20, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Let me sum up the responses thus far:

Apparently it is perfectly acceptable for the Democrats in DC to elect a convicted felon, but it is wrong for Republicans in Delaware to elect someone who has a dispute with the IRS.

I also really admire the demand that republicans only elect people who have held RE jobs. Yeah, like community organizer?

Just too funny.

Radical for me, but none for thee it seems.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 20, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Who said that Gov. Palin is NOT running for President?

Are you Chris Fox, or not?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

@ss28:and I love the prevarication: people don't have to be stupid to vote for a nut, they have to have some other grave problem!! Yeah, right.

I never said that. I said people were too busy surviving the bush recession to pay attention to politics until 45-90 days before an election. I guess you could say that it is a grave problem to be poor or unemployed or underemployed and it can inhibit one's desire and ability to stay informed. I think that is the only reason I gave for many people mostly being uninformed or misinformed, which they clearly are.

"There are any number of "nefarious" reasons why candidate the left doesn't like are prospering." Which UNTRUE reasons did I cite? Do you dispute the polling data on American political knowledge (or lace thereof)? Do you dispute that the public was misled to believe that Saddam was involved in 911 and that the belief persisted even after being proven false? Do you dispute that people believed (and probably still believe) that HCR has death panels out to kill your granny?

"It could never be, no its impossible, that perhaps Mr Paul's positions resonate with the people who must elect him. No way. "

Well we won't ever know if people believe that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate or or we should go back to the gold standard, or if pot should be legal because he refuses to talk about these issues in the press. Since he skipped out on MTP, won't go anywhere but Faux News and rightwingnut radio, and hides in his libertarian bunker from scrutiny, its hard to know if all of his supporters actually know his views on these issues. Kentucky is a pretty conservative state. Almost any republican state candidate has pretty much a cakewalk there. Note that the senate minority leader is from there. The previous senate majority leader is from there. It must be a pretty red state. The surprising thing is that Conway is even within striking distance. If Paul wasn't a fringe candidate, he would be up by 30. Just like Angle in Nevada. Any non-kooky candidate would be murdering Reid in the polls. In an election cycle not dominated by the biggest economic hemorrhage since the great depression, candidates that regularly shun the press (angle tried to keep the press away from her CAMPAIGN RALLIES) and cancel national TV appearances would pay a heavy political price for their stunning desire to avoid free media coverage, a chance to present themselves and their views to the voters, and boosted name recognition. I wonder why the tea partier candidates are afraid of the mainstream media (certainly no friend of progressives)?

Posted by: srw3 | September 20, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28:

The delicious irony is that Ms. O'Donnell takes the BIDEN seat which had been "reserved" for his son, Beau!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

@ss28:and I love the prevarication: people don't have to be stupid to vote for a nut, they have to have some other grave problem!! Yeah, right.

You are misquoting me. I said people were too busy surviving the bush recession to pay attention to politics until 45-90 days before an election and even then people are not always well informed about a candidate's positions. I guess you could say that it is a grave problem to be poor or unemployed or underemployed and it can inhibit one's desire and ability to stay informed. I think that is the only reason I gave for many people mostly being uninformed or misinformed, which they clearly are.

"There are any number of "nefarious" reasons why candidate the left doesn't like are prospering." Which UNTRUE reasons did I cite? Do you dispute the polling data on American political knowledge (or lace thereof)? Do you dispute that the public was misled to believe that Saddam was involved in 911 and that the belief persisted even after being proven false? Do you dispute that people believed (and probably still believe) that HCR has death panels out to kill your granny?

"It could never be, no its impossible, that perhaps Mr Paul's positions resonate with the people who must elect him. No way. "

Well we won't ever know if people believe that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate or or we should go back to the gold standard, or if pot should be legal because he refuses to talk about these issues in the press. Since he skipped out on MTP, won't go anywhere but Faux News and radio rightwingnutistan, and hides in his libertarian bunker from scrutiny, its hard to know if all of his supporters actually know his views on these issues. Kentucky is a pretty conservative state. Almost any republican state candidate has pretty much a cakewalk there. Note that the senate minority leader is from there. The previous senate majority leader is from there. Hell Bunning is no great shakes as a candidate and he got elected. It must be a pretty red state. The surprising thing is that Conway is even within striking distance. If Paul wasn't a fringe candidate, he would be up by 30. Just like Angle in Nevada. Any non-kooky candidate would be murdering Reid in the polls. In an election cycle not dominated by the biggest economic hemorrhage since the great depression, candidates that regularly shun the press (angle tried to keep the press away from her CAMPAIGN RALLIES) and cancel national TV appearances would pay a heavy political price for their stunning desire to avoid free media coverage, a chance to present themselves and their views to the voters, and boosted name recognition. I wonder why the tea partier candidates are afraid of the mainstream media which is certainly no friend of progressives?

Posted by: srw3 | September 20, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

So much for Sarah Palin being the one who didn't know what the job of Vice President was:

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Screen-shot-2010-09-20-at-12.00.14-PM.png

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

There is no "Gov. Palin," Jake. There's former Gov. Palin, or ex-Gov. Palin, both perfectly accetable and respectful terms (whether she deserves any respect is another story, of course).

Posted by: Observer691 | September 20, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

I didn't misquote you. I got it exactly right, as your "defense" proves. Just too funny.

All those words just prove my point. Liberalism is being repudiated and liberals will convince themselves that all manner of incorrect reasons are behind this trend.But they won't face the fact that liberalism has failed and Americans don't want it.

My point remains: The effort to damage paul with gotcha crap from the liberal media FAILED. it is just that simple.

If Mr Paul demurs from the conversations you demand and wins anyway then I guess your point was beyond moot, no?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 20, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Observer691:

I assume that you would refuse to address Bill Clinton or GWB as "Mr. President" too. Last time I will ask: are you Chris Fox?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28 @ September 20, 2010 11:49 AM wrote "Permit a simple translation: the only way that Rand Paul can get elected is by duping the voters, all of them. All lefties KNOW that Mr Paul is unfit for the senate and the info they base this on is readily available. Therefore the ONLY reason Mr Paul continues to prosper in his campaign is because he's a crook and the voters are ignorant and stupid."

It must have escaped your notice that Paul disappeared after his comments became public. Even when he 'came back', he has avoided talking about Social Security, MediCare, or Civil Rights for that matter.

You must think it is a coincidence. I don't. Afterall, many of his future constituents wanted to keep the government off their MediCare, if you recall!

Posted by: AMviennaVA | September 20, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

@ss28:

Let me sum up the responses thus far:

Apparently it is perfectly acceptable for the Democrats in DC to elect a convicted felon, but it is wrong for Republicans in Delaware to elect someone who has a dispute with the IRS.

Let me reply that Marion Berry is not a candidate supported by the Democratic party and that DC mayor is not the same as US Senator. Now if you are advocating for DC to have representation in the Senate, and Berry was running that would be different. In fact, "disputes" with the IRS were high crimes when some Obama appointees were caught with their pens down or don't you remember those heady days after Obama took office?

"I also really admire the demand that republicans only elect people who have held RE jobs. Yeah, like community organizer?"

No like U of Chicago law professor, best selling author, state senator and US Senator.


@ jd2:Democrat and PRESIDENT Jimmy Carter said the same, exact thing about "adultery", so was he judgmental? No, I didn't think so.

Absolutely he was making a judgment about himself and his beliefs not trying to convince young people that masturbati0n = adultery. Carter didn't say anything about masturbati0n as adultery to my knowledge.

As for "the Castle is secretly gay campaign" she never said that (Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness ; )

NO a political consulting firm that she previously hired made video making the gay accusation and went out of her way to repeatedly reinforce the charge while ostensibly distancing herself from the charge. "I never said Castle was gay." is not the same as "I don't believe Castle is gay."

I believe Odonnell said something about Castle having to put his "man pants" on...

"You know, I released a statement today, saying Mike this is not a bake-off, get your man-pants on. (Laughs)"

Dog whistles?

Posted by: srw3 | September 20, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Not Chris Fox.

If Palin were in the room with Gov. Parnell, would you call her Gov. Palin? Of course not. She's not the governor. I'd call Bush Mr. Bush and Clinton Mr. Clinton.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 20, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe?

Yes, I would.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

@ss28: I didn't misquote you. I got it exactly right, as your "defense" proves. Just too funny. All those words just prove my point.

Such statements are all the better for a little proof, you know like a DIRECT QUOTE where I say that "There are any number of "nefarious" reasons why candidate the left doesn't like are prospering." thing. You can't because I didn't write it.

Liberalism is being repudiated and liberals will convince themselves that all manner of incorrect reasons are behind this trend.But they won't face the fact that liberalism has failed and Americans don't want it.

I guess that is what elections are for. I am amazed at your innate ability to know what American's do and do not want. I happen to know that those bastions of liberalism, social security and medicare people are extremely popular and that Paul and Angle oppose continuing social security and medicare.


My point remains: The effort to damage paul with gotcha crap from the liberal media FAILED. it is just that simple.

Having a candidate for federal office cancel an appearence on MTP (are you seriously proposing that MTP is some bastion on liberal orthodoxy? REALLY?) is a failure in character and keeping one's word for Rand Paul. No one else failed here.

If Mr Paul demurs from the conversations you demand and wins anyway then I guess your point was beyond moot, no?

No that makes my point. Paul and his tea party cohorts only succeed when they avoid talking about their previously held, nay publicized, promoted, restated, disseminated, views. They can win only if they avoid their repeated public statements (and apparently still strongly held) about their beliefs (on social security, medicare, taxes and the deficit, military spending, etc) on issues in a traditionally unfavorable environment for the party in the white house (midterm elections while the effects of an economic crash --the bush recession-- are still being being felt by working people.)

Posted by: srw3 | September 20, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I fear for my country. Have we sunk so low that voters are actually taking this nut job seriously as a candidate? We would fair better if we just randomly nominated candidates from American Idol.

Posted by: cdp326 | September 20, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I fear for my country. Have we sunk so low that voters are actually taking this nut job seriously as a candidate? We would fair better if we just randomly nominated candidates from American Idol.

Posted by: cdp326 | September 20, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

"Gays get away with so much"? O'Donnell sounds like a preteen protesting her parents' alleged favoritism toward a sibling.

Posted by: Carstonio | September 20, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

cdp326:

SENATOR O'Donnell (R-DE) will vote much closer to how I would than any kid from American Idol.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

me and my friends jake? do you even understand how absolutely offensive that comment is?

So now we know that you are an antisemite
jake2 as much as being an illiterate when it comes to any religion other than Christianity. And you think my religion
and the holiest of days is a subject for you to ridicule? Its truly amazing in the 21st century that there are still biggots around like you. Curious what your comment would be if I ridiculed Easter (which I would never even contimplate). So your religious bigotry is reflective of the Tea Party sentiments; now we understand.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 20, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1 apparently has no problem making fun of MY "friends" though.

"[J]ake is a 'Christian' who felt that it was just dandy to hold the so called Values
Convention for his friends on my holiest of days, Yom Kippur ... [a]pparently he and his Tea Party friends believe that Jews should be thought of as second class citizens in this country. Please don't try and lecture us on religious values; mine was totally insulted by your crowd on [S]aturday."

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 20, 2010 12:56 PM

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

making fun? No my point was that their timing was totally insensitive to all
Jews, its truly pathetic that you can not even comprehend that, and instead choose
to play victim. Curious what Tea Pariers would be saying today if Ds chose to have a Values Convention on Easter Sunday?
I think we know that answer. Kind of surprised to read the name jake and friends together Why don't you email your friends remark to Congressman Eric Cantor, I am certain that he would be amused. I doubt Cantor, an orthodox Jew found the
timing of the Convention to be appropriate.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 20, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

making fun? No my point was that their timing was totally insensitive to all
Jews, its truly pathetic that you can not even comprehend that, and instead choose
to play victim. Curious what Tea Pariers would be saying today if Ds chose to have a Values Convention on Easter Sunday?
I think we know that answer. Kind of surprised to read the name jake and friends together Why don't you email your friends remark to Congressman Eric Cantor, I am certain that he would be amused. I doubt Cantor, an orthodox Jew found the
timing of the Convention to be appropriate.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 20, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"He doesn't support laws banning it. He's not shoving his religious beliefs down American's throats as the right wants."

So it's okay and not mentally disordered to oppose legalization of ssm so long as you don't support "laws banning it," but not okay and mentally disordered to support "laws banning it."

Very clear.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 20, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

All gay marriage opponents are unthinking bigots who only oppose gay marriage out of hatred of gays. There is no pracitcal argument against gay marriage and I can personally shoot down every one. Though given how many republicans are closet cases, I can't imagine it will be illegal for much longer!

Posted by: Kal-L | September 20, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Said mike:

"The left (at least I don't) doesn't have a problem with religious people. It's when they want to push their stoneage beliefs down the throats of others that the problem happens."

Said Ethan:

"These people are the ones suffering from mental disorders. The lack of any substance for their arguments ties them together, whether it's a belief that homosexuals are suffering from some sort of disorder, that homosexuality is akin to bestiality, or that "teh gay" can be "cured."

Their 'disease' is an ideological belief supported by zero credible evidence.

Have your religion in private, fine, but when you mix that religion with public policy there BETTER be hard EVIDENCE to back up your beliefs or you are walking a dangerous line, one that is anti-American in my view."

The left has no problem with religious people except that it thinks they have a mental disorder and are anti-American.

And yet you liberals all argue that the Bible somehow mandates your socialist and welfare state economic policies.

I don't whether it qualifies as a disorder, but you clearly have problems with basic principles of logic.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 20, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

I hate to tread on your dreams of grandeur, bible-thumpers and tea-baggers, but Delaware isn't the deep south, and statements like these have a way of turning off independents and cross-over Dems looking for socially moderate individuals. If the gems regarding stealing from her campaign continue to stream out, she loses by double digits easily.

Posted by: curtisjasper | September 21, 2010 4:12 AM | Report abuse

At one time it was 90%, then it was 70%, then 55% and now 48%.

If there is any "disorder" it's the belief that civil marriage = religious marriage and that gay Americans should be treated as second class citizens by the law.

Looking at those percentages above, it looks like some of these people with that disorder are getting better.

Posted by: paulflorez | September 21, 2010 4:15 AM | Report abuse

The Plum Line only makes sense if it is tied to objective truth, as opposed to new age or post-modern relativism, and that objective truth is the Bible, interpreted from a proper fee-will progressive dispensational perspective. The Bible clearly is opposed to the gay lifestyle as it is other sins, but the key is that the Bible has a gospel of love and forgiveness if people, like gays and other sinners, admit their sins and try to follow God's commands. Therefore, O'Donnel is correct, but she is leaving out the evil spirit connection. The Kingdom of God is in conflict with the kingdom of satan/lucifer (a real being) and evil spirits are behind much of the gay lifestyle as they are other sin problems (many in the church) and even false doctrine in the church.

Posted by: techsavvy777 | September 22, 2010 3:21 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company