Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

O'Donnell's victory signals new direction in Tea Party-GOP relations

I'm the first to admit that I'm far from an expert on the Tea Party. But I wanted to take a stab at making a couple quick points about Christine O'Donnell's victory last night.

First, it's the clearest sign yet that the Tea Party has the potential to severly damage the GOP's prospects, as opposed to functioning primarily as an energizing and rebranding force. Until now the jury has been out on the Tea Party's real significance within the Republican Party.

Dems, of course, have been arguing for months that the Tea Party is hurting the GOP. But there's been no real evidence that this is true in any meaningful sense. The Tea Party isn't viewed overwhelmingly as a negative by the broader electorate, and -- despite what you read in Dem press releases -- it has been as much a force for good as for bad within the Republican Party. It has galvanized the base by providing an outlet for anti-Obama sentiment. And it has helped -- with the assistance of Fox News -- to rebrand the GOP as representative of some sort of genuine populist uprising in reaction to Obama's liberal overreach.

Now, though, the Tea Party has proven itself willing to throw its energy behind a candidate who has all but demolished the GOP's hopes of winning the Senate.

Also key: O'Donnell is the first candidate in a major race who genuinely wants to operate independent of the GOP establishment. Candidates like Rand Paul and Sharron Angle have the Tea Party to thank for their primary victories, and they may be ideologically off the reservation, but both are mostly comfortable operating as candidates of the GOP establishment in Washington. What's more, despite their eccentricities, both candidates have a very good shot at winning their races, and thus don't pose a threat to the GOP's overall chances.

In O'Donnell's case, however, the Tea Party has backed her even though she clearly has almost no chance at winning. And judging by the broadside she unleashed at the GOP establishment on Good Morning America today, O'Donnell herself plainly has no interest in engaging in the usual post-primary healing process. She's the first major candidate to actively encourage the Tea Party-GOP rift.

Until now, when Tea Party leaders have threatened to go their own way, it's sounded like self-aggrandizing bluster. Now it's actually happening -- and for the first time, it's inescapably obvious that the Republican Party's prospects will suffer for it.

By Greg Sargent  |  September 15, 2010; 10:57 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: Internal poll: Kentucky Senate race a dead heat

Comments

I think I found a comment on another site that encapsulates what some on the right feel about O'Donnells win.

"Teabagging4Jesus

Oh my tea bags are warm and fuzzy for her."

But Greg, not only that. Dick Armey came out for Castle right? So there is also an FreedomWorks which is the establishment astro-turfing org and Tea Party Patriots, which is more the Ron Paul types.

You've got tea-party vs. tea-party vs. establishment GOP. They've decided to unleash 2dn amendment remedies on each other. It's a bloodbath.

Don't be confused, there's isn't one tea party. There are two groups. The original types and those that tried to hijack it, the Dick Armey types. You really think O'Donnell voter types would get excited how the Dick Armey tea party people did for Scott Brown?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

This wacko can easily hurt Democrats by distracting attention from the other extremists the Republicans are running and making them look more "reasonable" by contrast. I am not sure this is an unmitigated blessing for Democrats -- or even a clear harm to Republican prospects overall. Again and again, Democrats are handed chances to nationalize the debate -- over taxes, over overall Republican extremism -- and they are not doing it. They remain confused, divided, and cowardly in their message, especially on the economy. The real prize in this cycle is the Nevada seat.

Posted by: skocpol | September 15, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

I disagree with your entire premise: The tea party, imo, IS the GOP.

After the Bush years the GOP needed a way to rally their base, only the GOP brand was tattered. So along came the "Tea Party" which was made up of, you guessed it, Republicans. It was led by the perfectly named Dick Armey and funded by the same people who usually fund such rightwing groups (the Koch brothers.) I don't care what they are calling themselves; they are Republicans through and through.

It is hardly unusual for politicians of either party to try to distance themselves from the party they belong to.

Posted by: nisleib | September 15, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Well, if the democrats are looking for someone else to hate, it isn't going to work.


Democrats should be looking at the Fenty race - for information - more than other other ones.


At this point, Obama should hire someone like me - this is ridiculous how many mistakes Obama has been making - and how out-of-touch Obama appears.

Is this the sign of more bashing from the democrats ?

Well - the same amount of bashing that the democrats do against the Tea Party - that amount is legitimate about Obama. This is a post-partisan era, right?


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 15, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

If the Republicans and the Tea Partiers don't compromise and pull together, there will be a split vote like in 1992 when Ross Perot came in like a bang and created the Reform party. That was the year George Bush was defeated by Bill Clinton. I remember it vividly - it was an uprising happening like it is today with the Teaparty activists. I hope they are sensible.

Posted by: jasullivan2 | September 15, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Mike Castle


He wasnt REALLY running for election - he was acting like he had ALREADY been annointed - and he was just going through the motions.


This is how BOTH parties are - if they can bypass the voters through gerrymandering, fundraising, ballot position, whatever other advantages they have - THEY DO IN A SECOND.


The parties are entrenched - and the minute the voters can throw one out, they do - once the people sense they can throw someone out, they do.


This is how it is.


It speaks more about the establishment - how they are only in it for themselves - and they really don't like the elections anymore.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 15, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I don't see it here, but Dick Armey/FreedomWorks refused to endorse her over Castle.

This is fun:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/conservatives-trash-karl-rove-after-he-insists.php

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

I have a suspicion that the pundits have Delaware a bit wrong.


Delaware is not really what you think it is.


Delaware is a small state - with only three counties - and it is relatively isolated.


People in the big Eastern cities see a map, they see Delaware in the East, and they think it is just like New England or Pennsylvannia.

However, Delaware is not like that at all - the northern tip is on the 95 corridor - but the rest of it is on the penisula with the Eastern Shore of Maryland -


Wilmington is the big city - but most of the State is in the south - small towns that are far from the big cities.


Until the Bay Bridge was built, the only way out was north toward Philly.


My point is that Delaware is different from what you might think - and the election this November is up for graps.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 15, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Christine O’Donnell, the new GOP nominee for Senate in the state of Delaware, made the rounds this morning on the talk shows. She was on CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS, and NBC, but she refused to go on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. Host Joe Scarborough — a former Republican member of Congress — explained that O’Donnell’s campaign lied to him about their reason for not appearing. She told us that “she couldn’t come on the show because she’s busy…and she wants to be with her family,” he said, proceeding to list the various other shows she did appear on. He then sarcastically remarked, “Maybe we can get her after she wins that Senate campaign. Oh wait…”

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 15, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

If I were Dems, I'd stick all sorts of needles into this friction between the factions.

Make it clear that Freedom Works/Americans For Prosperity aren't real tea party patriots. They are front groups for the wealthy GOP elites pulling the strings in Washington.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

It's not about the parties - it's an anti-establishment/anti-incumbent thing.

There are obviously more than a few people out there who are willing to vote for a dingbat over a career politician. What's different this year is that that group of people is now approaching a majority.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 15, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Tea Party Cognitive Dissonance.


The TeaBaggers are against blaming Bush, while they keep blaming all the rest of the Republicans, that helped him destroy the Middle Class, and keep ousting them.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

LOOK AT THAT SMILE


Let me be clear: look at that smile - who doesn't WANT to vote for Christine O'Donnell ???


I had enough rasins in my cereal this morning, I don't need to vote for Castle. That was mean, but his commercials were pretty mean too.

Chritine O'Donnell is a young, fresh face - one we need in the Senate.


I think we should send a bunch of fresh, new people to the Senate.


AND that includes Alvin Greene - we need someone in the US Senate who understands unemployment - and I am being serious here - Alvin Greene would ADD something to the US Senate that it needs - and I don't mean dance moves.

We need new, fresh faces.

Christine O'Donnell was OK for the GOP when they wanted a nominee a few years ago - so WHAT is the big deal now? Apparently they want sacrificial nominees to spend their time and money - but if they actually WIN, there is a problem.


Well.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 15, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Well, Ayotte's lead is expanding ever so slightly....darn.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

The GOP created the O'Donnell/Paladino wing through their support of the Tea Party. They have unleashed a field of Frankenstein monster-like freaks and mutants. What short term gains they get in November are going to be offset when the indies come to the polls in 2012 and the GOP will be trounced.

Posted by: filmnoia | September 15, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

O'Donnell's victory is clearly great news for John McCain, and illstrates the deep divisions within the Democratic Party.

...

...

...Anything?

...

...

...high-five to Mark Halprin!

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | September 15, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

"What's different this year is that that group of people is now approaching a majority."

....in the Republican party. (You forgot to add that at the end of your thought.)

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 15, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

"....in the Republican party."

Largely - I *do* recall the primary victory of Lamont and Kos's charging of the gates or something or other. In this morning's plum Greg mentioned something about a progressive win over an establishment type. If you think that it's only conservatives whoa re upset with politics as usual then you are sorely mistaken.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 15, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"O'Donnell's victory is clearly great news for John McCain, and illstrates the deep divisions within the Democratic Party."

That sounds like Ben Smiths analysis that Paladino's win spells big trouble for Cuomo because of the momentum of Paladino or something like that.... :/

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

The population of Delaware is 885,000.


The population of Wilmington is 72,000.


The question is - does Christine O'Donnell have the ability to put the resources together to get her message to these people?

The answer is yes.

Delaware is much different than you think - it is NOT a state full of suburbs like most other Eastern States -


Most of the State is right next to the Eastern Shore.


It is relatively isolated - people live there to be away - it is full of small towns.


The point is: Delaware is probably much more Tea Party-friendly than anyone is believing right now.


The people of Delaware don't want to pay for Obama's health care plan either.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 15, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

t's not about the parties - it's an anti-establishment/anti-incumbent thing.

There are obviously more than a few people out there who are willing to vote for a dingbat over a career politician. What's different this year is that that group of people is now approaching a majority.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 15, 2010 11:29 AM |
..................

A majority of a whacked out minority.

With all the votes counted: Christian O'Donnell received 29, 882 votes.


Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

You're right SaveTheRainforest, this is one face I'd love to rub one....I mean vote for.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/09/long-odds.html

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

scat, my thoughts exactly.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"A majority of a whacked out minority."

We might also look to Nevada and Kentucky where folks you believe to be literally insane are either ahead or tied amongst likely voters.

Vote the Ins Out!

Posted by: sbj3 | September 15, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Independents swarming towards the Tea Party.

Posted by: corebanks1940 | September 15, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

"My point is that Delaware is different from what you might think - and the election this November is up for graps."

You're quite correct about Kent & Sussex being a different world than New Castle. Kent & Sussex are the northernmost part of Old Dixie, while New Castle is part of the Boston-Washington megalopolis. Kent & Sussex are Coastal Plain while New Castle is Piedmont. Kent & Sussex are Eastern Shore while New Castle is metro Philadelphia. However, having lived there, and having grown up on its border, I disagree that the state is up for grabs. Here's another who does as well:

"I see a lot of conservatives arguing tonight that Christine O'Donnell's victory shows that she can upset the establishment and win this seat. These conservatives are not from Delaware. O'Donnell won a slim majority in a race with around 58,000 Republican voters. She won Kent and Sussex counties, the conservative parts of the state. But even in scoring a massive upset, she lost New Castle County. That's where 2/3 of the state lives, and where, in the past, I saw yards with Obama/Biden and Castle signs, Kerry/Edwards and Castle signs, Gore/Lieberman and Castle signs -- you get the picture. There are tens of thousands of Delawareans who were expecting to vote for Mike Castle who are now given a choice between their workmanlike county executive, Chris Coons, and a woman who spent two weeks on the cover of the [Wilmington] News Journal for stories about her trouble paying college fees, her lawsuit against her former employer ISI, her appearance in a MTV special about abstinence, etc, and etc, and etc."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/09/the-senate-race-for-the-302.html

Posted by: akaoddjob | September 15, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Tea Partiers ARE Republicans. They are Republican base voters who are mad at their party.

Delaware is a CLOSED primary state. All the people voting for O'Connell were registered Republicans--independents are prohibited from voting in the primary. I'm sure most of these "I'm independent Tea Party, not a Republican" voters were actually long-time registered Republicans--unless there's been some massive surge or shift in Delaware Republican voter registration that I've been unaware of.

I find it incredible that when this happens to Democrats, it's "Democrats in disarray, with a factionalized base, incapable of uniting," whereas when the EXACT same thing happens to Republicans, it's somehow seen as evidence of a genuine grassroots uprising from independent voters in support of "less government" so long as that doesn't mean cuts to the massive, massive government programs that benefit them. All because Dick Armey heard someone say "Tea Party" and professionally branded it in an attempt for his organization to make money off of it.

Unreal.

Posted by: theorajones1 | September 15, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Mike and all, there's a great takedown of Ben Smith's version of NY state politics, and the Paladino momentum (or not) at Balloon Juice.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/09/15/the-first-cut-is-the-deepest/

Politico just sucks. Headline wh*res, with few exceptions.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 15, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

"Largely - I *do* recall the primary victory of Lamont and Kos's charging of the gates or something or other. In this morning's plum Greg mentioned something about a progressive win over an establishment type. If you think that it's only conservatives whoa re upset with politics as usual then you are sorely mistaken. "

No, you specifically said "this year" and "dingbat". Lamont's primary victory was 4 yrs ago.

And besides, what makes you think that Kuster is some sort of a dingbat? Just because she's progressive? You think opposition to the Iraq war and being pro-choice are equivalent to crusading against doing the five finger shuffle and the color black?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 15, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Delaware is much different than you think - it is NOT a state full of suburbs like most other Eastern States -

BUT TWO-THIRDS OF ITS POPULATION IS IN EXACTLY THOSE SUBURBS, NOT IN ITS RURAL SOUTHERN TWO COUNTIES.

O'Donnell lost the Republicans in New Castle County. She's far, far, far less likely to win New Castle in the general election.

Delaware's next new senator will be a Democrat.

Posted by: akaoddjob | September 15, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, that's where I found the Smith article. Smith is usually fairly on target but it's almost like Rove sneaked in and typed on his computer while he was AFK.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Health care costs are going WAY up -


Obama and the democrats PROMISED that health care costs would go down if they passed their bill.


Performance matters - for the first time in Obama's life - his job performance is getting measured - and on this Obama fails.

Christine O'Donnell just has to campaign against the health care increases.


I think Christine O'Donnell has a chance to win.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 15, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

To those who remember Mrs. Palin's comment about the Statue of Liberty:

"This Statue of Liberty was gifted to us by foreign leaders, really as a warning to us, it was a warning to us to stay unique and to stay exceptional from other countries. Certainly not to go down the path of other countries that adopted socialist policies,” Palin said to cheers from the crowd."
--------------------------------

In case you've forgotten, on the Beck show's first interview with Mrs. Palin as a Fox Newser, she told him she was sure he would ask her questions about the Statue of Liberty. So she had done research on it.

Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

David Dayen has a slightly different take away from the O'Donnell victory.

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

"I’m told by some Dem-leaning pundits that I’m supposed to feel bad that the GOP has gone to crazytown, that this portends unwell for progressive politics. I just don’t really agree. All Christine O’Donnell does is rip off the mask of conservative ideological purity, a mask that had already fallen off and was being stomped on for years. You may remember the Republican caucus in the House and Senate voting against pretty much every Democratic agenda item for the past two years, mostly in unison. Or a little thing called “the impeachment of Bill Clinton.” The only difference between O’Donnell and the “establishment” GOP is that she doesn’t hide her ideology. People should stop pining for some golden version of the Republican Party, a conciliatory, collegial team of problem-solvers. They’re not coming back. They haven’t been around for a decade and a half.

UPDATE: As if to underline the essential sameness between the “establishment” GOP and the Tea Party faction, the NRSC, fearing a revolt from the base, reversed themselves and sent a $42,000 check to O’Donnell’s campaign, along with a wider-ranging statement of support. A pittance, and this will probably end up the last communication between the NRSC and O’Donnell, but duly noted."

http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/09/15/de-sen-gop-deserts-primary-victor-odonnell-as-coons-takes-big-lead/

Posted by: lmsinca | September 15, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Some fascinating polling from PPP (9/15).

This is the same poll that gave us the recent numbers re: O'Donnell vs. Castle and Coons vs. O'Donnell.

Check it out:

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

Do you consider yourself to be a member of
the Tea Party?

Yes 15%
No 71%
Not sure 14%

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

Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who was endorsed by Sarah Palin, or would it not make a difference?

More Likely 18%
Less likely 52%
Doesn't make a difference 29%

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

O'Donnell / Coons / Undecided

Overall 34% / 50% / 16%
McCain 2008 64% / 21% / 15%
Obama 2008 12% / 74% / 14%

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

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_DE_915424.pdf

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/09/coons-up-big.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

This is delicious. Just so unbelievably karmically perfect.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/conservatives-trash-karl-rove-after-he-insists.php?ref=fpblg

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 15, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

From your Sullivan link, Mike:

"I wonder if this doesn't represent some kind of tipping point for the right, the moment their asinine, vacuous Palinist blather really did meet the reality of this country's profound problems and the need to confront them rather than escape into a fantasy world of cultural paranoia, religious extremism and neurotic nationalism."

I disagree with Sullivan here and I'm going with John Cole at BJ: peak wingnut is a lie.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 15, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

I don't know anything about Kuster or whether s/he is a dingbat. My point was that there is an anti-establishment storm brewing out there. It perhaps started when the Dems were out of power and their progressive base stormed the gates. It continues now with the GOP out of power and its progressive base engaging in tea parties. I do believe that lack of faith in our elected leaders is at an all-time high this year.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 15, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Here is the entirety of the AP headline (with her picture) on Yahoo right now.

"Tea party celebration: O'Donnell wins Delaware (AP)

AP - It's tea time in America."

That's F*UCKING outrageous. FAIL.

What does it even mean? That "tea time" is loser time?

The stupid virus is on a rampage.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 15, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

@nisleib: "I disagree with your entire premise: The tea party, imo, IS the GOP."

Well, almost nobody in the tea parties consider themselves in the GOP. In fact, it's my understanding that many of them feel that, if the GOP wasn't so out of touch and so inside-the-beltway, there would have been no "need" for the tea parties.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 15, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

SBJ,

Charlie Rangel and Chris Coons say you're full of it.

And that's just two examples, and only from last night.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Vote the Ins Out!

Posted by: sbj3 | September 15, 2010 11:57 AM |

...............

Another fine example of Cognitive Dissonance, by TeaBagger Nut Jobs, such as yourself:

The TeaBaggers keep saying that they want to vote the Ins, Out. But they are all in favor of reelecting every sitting Republican Congress member that is running for reelection.

We will treat that TeaBagger BS more seriously, after you have voted John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan out, this November. They are amongst the long term Ins, of Washington. I thought you might appreciate being informed of that fact. Now go vote them out.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

@jasullivan: "If the Republicans and the Tea Partiers don't compromise and pull together, there will be a split vote like in 1992 when Ross Perot came in like a bang and created the Reform part"

The difference is, this is happening at the midterms, and at the congressional level. Simply put, the Tea Party Party isn't going to field 3rd party candidates in every race, or be a spoiler in every case where a rock-ribbed tea partier ousted the more milquetoast Republican in the primary.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 15, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

But I thought O'Donnell was the tea party candidate, KW, and this was a closed primary. If teabaggers are not registered GOP, how did she win?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 15, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Are TeaBaggers Republicans?

Yes, because they only are active in Republican primaries.

Are TeaBaggers Republicans?

Is Mr. Armey a long time Republican Congressman, and a big Dick?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Here's some old footage of O'Donnell discussing with Fox n Friends on if the GOP benefited more from Bhutto's death. Seriously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7MhR0dTCFM

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Mr Sargent, I believe that you should delay the publication of your pre prepared obit for the GOP until after the general election.

the liberals here seem, well, jealous. Often I have read anguished comments deriding those democrats who were'nt sufficiently liberal.

now the GOP is facing a purge. The boys and girls who don't measure up to the conservative benchmarks aren't getting the votes anymore.

Castle is just the latest example of the lack of patience that the American people have with the old line GOP.

On this very blog I have said that I have no trust in the McConnel style leadership, for the same reason that the liberals have: they spent too much. Few liberals recall the withdrawal of conservative support that propelled the Democrats to majorities. I suspect that this is more a function of a delusion that liberalism was finally accepted by the Americans.

We now know that this is simply not true. GOP suffered in 06 and 08 because conservatives showed no energy in support of their spendthrift candidates. The Democrats benefited from that, as one would expect in a two party system.

Now the conservatives are serving notice to the GOP that the rules have changed. We are still willing to support Republicans, but not the RINO's. I'm frankly glad that this is happening. I like the idea that the GOP power elite faces a challenge to its authority and credibility. This can only help the conservative cause.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 15, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

WOW...

Republican plan to permanently extend tax cuts for the rich would ADD $4 TRILLION to the deficit over the next 10 years.

That's MORE THAN FOUR TIMES the deficit impact of the stimulus bill and HCR... COMBINED!

Check out the wapo lede:

"""Even as they hammer Democrats for running up record budget deficits, Senate Republicans are rolling out a plan to permanently extend an array of expiring tax breaks that would deprive the Treasury of more than $4 trillion over the next decade, nearly doubling projected deficits over that period unless dramatic spending cuts are made.

[...]

the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently forecast that a similar, slightly more expensive package that includes a full repeal of the estate tax would force the nation to borrow an additional $3.9 trillion over the next decade and increase interest payments on the national debt by $950 billion. That's more than four times the projected deficit impact of President Obama's health-care overhaul and stimulus package combined. """

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/14/AR2010091406838_pf.html

Literally, what in the H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks is WRONG with these Republicans? I just don't get it.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

"Well, almost nobody in the tea parties consider themselves in the GOP. "

I guess that's why their candidate won the GOP nomination in a closed primary. Makes sense.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 15, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

But I thought O'Donnell was the tea party candidate, KW, and this was a closed primary. If teabaggers are not registered GOP, how did she win?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 15, 2010 12:20 PM
...............

By Sexual Absentee Votes? When you are pure, you can just mail it in.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

@ethan: "SBJ, Charlie Rangel and Chris Coons say you're full of it."

I think the reelection of Rangel would prove my point that folks are willing to vote for a dingbat.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 15, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

When does Michele Bachmann, as the self appointed leader of the Tea Party Caucus, demand that John Boehner step aside for her?

Can this be long in coming?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

@cmccauley60: D'oh! Great minds and all...

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 15, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Hey, remember how O'Donnell claims she's going after Hillary voters.

The following clip should help loads. Spread this one around. :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k1SKIj94TM

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Skip, does O'Donnell endorse McConnell's plan to permanently extend the Bush Tax Cuts?

Because if she does, then the Tea Party is just as bad -- actually worse -- than the establishment GOP.

WaPo reports that to do so would be a bigger deficit impact than the Stimulus and HCR COMBINED.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/14/AR2010091406838_pf.html

Does she support the permanent extension?

I'd actually be interested in knowing.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

All, new internal poll shows Kentucky Senate race a dead heat:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 15, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, edit:

WaPo reports that to support a permanent extension of the Bush Tax Cuts would be a bigger deficit impact than FOUR TIMES the Stimulus and HCR COMBINED.

Does she support the permanent extension?

I'd actually be interested in knowing.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60: dissatisfied with the GOP establishment and being a registered Republican are two different things. I've never been happy with the GOP, and I've always been a registered Republican. But I'd probably have voted for O'Donnell (if she had agreed to walkback that anti-m@sterbation position).

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 15, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

@Liam: "We will treat that TeaBagger BS more seriously, after you have voted John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan out."

I live in California, but I will gladly vote against Boxer and Brown. (Not Rohrabacher, though - he's cool.)

Posted by: sbj3 | September 15, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

It appears that Ms. O'Donnell is much like her mama grizzly mentor, Sarah Palin. She's never met a spotlight she doesn't love. She appears to have just as much, or more, of the crazy arrogant hubris in her as Palin. I wouldn't be surprised if she'll attempt to out-Palin Sarah Palin herself.

Perhaps the Tea Party Republicans have not been viewed negatively yet by the overall electorate because they hadn't yet fully come into their own. But when the overall electorate starts paying attention to candidates like O'Donnell, they will have the same reaction as they have to Sarah Palin -- that she is categorically unqualified for any leadership role. To put it more simply, she's nuts. Bonkers. WAY out on the fringe.

It doesn't matter how "fresh" their faces are -- hahaha -- or how good their dental work may be -- these candidates are small-minded and petty, and their tactics are ugly and vicious.

I mean, come on now -- when someone gets called out by Karl Rove as Ms. O'Donnell did last night......well, when you're considered lower on the humanity scale than Mr. Rove, you're about as low as you can go.

These tea partiers may score successes in small pockets around the country but the overall American electorate will reject this new incarnation of the GOP.

Posted by: elscott | September 15, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Will The Tea Party vote for the Democrat, in order to oust long term insider, David Vitter? After all, he does not even pass the Concerned Women For America's Purity Test

And where do all The Unconcerned Women For America stand on all the great issues of the day?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

I can feel it already. No one is defending Christine O'Donnell's views--no one. Again, her defenders are comparing her to other "dingbats". Already, the symantics battle has been lost.

When will we hear from her defenders: "well, we know she is a flawed candidate, but ... "

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

(Not Rohrabacher, though - he's cool.)

Posted by: sbj3 | September 15, 2010 12:33 PM
.........................

Thanks for confirming what I pointed out. You TeaBagger Nuts are a bunch of Right Wing liars, who have no interest in voting out long term Republican Congress members. If you really wanted to "vote the ins, out" as you keep claiming, then you would not be voting for that guy,

and the TeaBaggers should be voting for the opponents of every Republican, this November. You either want to get rid of the Ins, all of them, or you are just a bunch of hypocritical Republican supporters, trying to pass as something else.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

When will we hear from her defenders: "well, we know she is a flawed candidate, but ... "

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 12:41 PM
............

What you will soon see them doing, is what they always do, in such circumstances; they will start blaming the media, for the way they have reported on her.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

This is getting ridiculous.

* O’Donnell So Fervently Pro-Truth That She Wouldn’t Lie To Nazis Asking If She Were Hiding Jews In Her Home *

Izzard asked O’Donnell whether or not she would lie to Nazis who showed up at her door during WWII and demanded to know if she were hiding any Jewish people in her house. O’Donnell refused to even entertain the notion of concealing the truth from Nazis in that scenario because “you never have to practice deception”:

O’DONNELL: A lie, whether it be a lie or an exaggeration, is disrespect to whoever you’re exaggerating or lying to, because it’s not respecting reality.

MAHER: Quite the opposite, it can be respect.

IZZARD: What if someone comes to you in the middle of the Second World War and says, ‘do you have any Jewish people in your house?’ and you do have them. That would be a lie. That would be disrespectful to Hitler.

O’DONNELL: I believe if I were in that situation, God would provide a way to do the right thing righteously. I believe that!

MAHER: God is not there. Hitler’s there and you’re there.

O’DONNELL: You never have to practice deception. God always provides a way out.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/15/odonnell-lie-jews/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Any time you hear people who are SUPPOSED to be defenders, resort to "she/he is not as bad as your gal/guy", you know they have already conceded the point.

I was going to say it was damning with faint praise, but it doesn't even rise to that level.

Just a tip to experienced debaters.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

@liam: "You TeaBagger Nuts are a bunch of Right Wing liars."

Not only am I not a tea party member but I was a nut long before they came along. Rohrabacher is so far out there that no one should consider him an establishment politician.

http://gawker.com/5331541/barney-franks-recess-promises-to-be-100-pure-adrenaline

Posted by: sbj3 | September 15, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Ethan,

You should repost that on the new thread.

This women said that she would help exterminate people, because it would be the truthful thing to do.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Uh, Kevin...

O'Donnell needs to walkback *more* than the anti-mast@rbation schtick. Did you miss her creationist/anti-evolution fetish? Tell me you don't agree with that-you seem like a smart, funny and balanced man...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 15, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

O’DONNELL: You never have to practice deception. God always provides a way out.
----------------------------------
How can I tactfully and respectfully say this? 6 million Jews found a way out. I don't think God would appreciate being credited with the way.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

sigh,

When will liberals come to understand that the issue with taxes and the deficit revolve around spending?

Yeah, if the CBO assumes that spending stays steady and receipts to the treasury decline, the deficit will soar.

Wow, what a great revelation that is! Glad to see that the CBO and Ethan haven't lost their iron grip on the obvious. Eat your heart out Howard Cossel, whereever you are!

The liberals would do themselves a favor by shutting down the condescending babble for a few days and actually listening to their political opponents. For many of us, the issue is SPENDING. It was pork and earmarks in 06 and 08, and it is out of control Democrat spending now. It is the spending, Ethan. Get it? I didn't think so.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 15, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

She wouldn't lie to save people from the gas chambers, but she was willing to lie about her education.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

The very conservative Ace of Spades makes the case as to why he's against Out of Nowhere (i.e., many of the current crop of tea party) candidates.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/305721.php

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 15, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

@Chuck: "O'Donnell needs to walkback *more* than the anti-mast@rbation schtick. Did you miss her creationist/anti-evolution fetish? Tell me you don't agree with that-you seem like a smart, funny and balanced man..."

No, I don't agree with anti-evolutionist, but . . . priorities, man. Priorities!

Being anti-m@sturbation is, like, being anti-lol-catz, or anti-Bettie-Page or opposed to looking forward with great enthusiasm to Cinemax After Dark back in the mid 1980s. I'm mean, I'm just sayin'.

I'll worry about her opinions on the validity of carbon dating after we get her mind right about the importance and, indeed, necessity of little Johnny polishing the magical brass knob of wonder.

:)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 15, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

KW - First you said:

"Well, almost nobody in the tea parties consider themselves in the GOP."

Now the teabaggers are just:

"dissatisfied with the GOP establishment."

uh ... OK ... so they are all republicans, right?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 15, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Hey skip, if it's all about spending, then why doesn't the GOP propose sufficient spending cuts to cover the revenue they want to eliminate through tax cuts for the wealthy?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 15, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

I will defend Christina O'Donnell (I also just donated to her campaign per Rush Limbaugh ; )

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 15, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

The deficit is down 8% after President Obama's first year in office.

Repeat....the deficit is down 8%, thanks to President Obama.

Posted by: elscott | September 15, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I will defend Christina O'Donnell
----------------------------
When will you do that? I need to pop the corn.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence,

Also, I need to have time to sell tickets.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent's hatred of Conservatives has completely clouded his little version of reality.

Yes, the Tea Party will hurt Republicans insofar as there will be fewer people with a letter "R" after their name, but from a policy perspective, the Tea Party will drive Congress further to the right.

In my lifetime, I cannot remember a political movement form this fast and have so much success in so little time. If I were a liberal on Capitol Hill, I would take the Tea Party victories as a cue to start working on the resume.

Posted by: diehardlib | September 15, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

The O'Donnell/Castle race was no different than the Spector/Sestak race: Sestak won the Democratic Senate race in PA and O'Donnell won the GOP race in DE. The only apparent change is that the GOP is getting more conservative. The remaining question is whether the Country is more conservative? In hard economic times, this Country gets more conservative, more insular, more mean-spirited; just human nature.

Posted by: dozas | September 15, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The GOP made a deal with the Devil, drawing in bigots and right wing extremists. Now that Devil is going to extract its price, dragging the GOP down into Hell.

Posted by: thomasmc1957 | September 15, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

to cmccauley60

I fully expect them to and I will be disappointed if they do not.

that's the essence of this, the conservatives are demonstrating to the old guard republicans that we aren't stuck on the reservation. The old boys need to reckon with an angry electorate that is moving toward reduce spending which is tantamount to reducing the size and scope of the federal government.

Ruth Marcus has her rather ample undies in a bunch over the loss of a "moderate" which translates into: We lost a guy with an R after his name that was a reliable vote for much of the liberal agenda.

Boo hoo kids. Is this a test of ideological purity? You betcha it is. And about time. Don't even try to opine that the liberals wouldn't jump at the chance to do the same thing to the Democrat party.

I would welcome that. A very polarized and dysfunctional congress suits me fine. Gridlock is one easy way to halt the expansion of government.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 15, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

The GOP made a deal with the Devil, drawing in bigots and right wing extremists. Now that Devil is going to extract its price, dragging the GOP down into Hell.

Posted by: thomasmc1957 | September 15, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

OK, skip, let's see what they propose to cut. Don't you think they should make their proposals for spending cuts BEFORE the election so everyone can decide for themselves if they are reasonable.

Also, don't forget skip, gridlock means there won't be any spending cuts either and that the GOP has already scheduled tax increases for January.

You're OK with that too?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 15, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Right here, right now. What do you consider her most "outrageous" statement?

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 15, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Naw, clawrence--let's hear about her record, accomplishments, education. You know, just like any other candidate.

Wait, don't start yet. I want to gather a crowd.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60
no I don't. You may desperately want them to give you and your echo chamber in the media to give you a bunch of quotes that you can turn into misleading sound bites, but I suspect that the Republicans will decline the honor.

If the best we can get is gridlock, I'll take it. It is really that simple, at the very least no new taxes will be levied on the citizens. Of course I would prefer a conservative house cleaning that resulted in a serious shrinking of the federal government, but I will take the half a loaf if that's all that's available.

I seriously doubt that taxes will rise. It is just not a sound political or policy move in this environment.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 15, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

ok, clawrence, you can start now. I put out the word.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I said that I would defend her, against any and all charges, so you choose which you want to start with. How about "anti-masterb@tion" or creationist theory?

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 15, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I seriously doubt that taxes will rise. It is just not a sound political or policy move in this environment.

But, skip, it will be up to the ... wait for it ... DEMOCRATS ... to save you from the GOP tax increase in January.

Do you really trust us to make a "sound political or policy move?"

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 15, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence,

I though I was throwing you a softball, asking you to describe her accomplishments, record and education. Surely she's got some of those things, right?

But if you'd rather start somewhere else, I'll just let you choose. Up to you. But, if you want to keep the audience, better get started. Just a friendly reminder.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

12bar, if he's not going to say anything I want the price of admission back. I'll keep the popcorn though.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 15, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

@lmsinca,

Don't give up just yet. Maybe he's a little slow to get started because there is so much to choose from. I'd hate to think I organized this party, and there was no one to watch and learn.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Here's a novel thought. Why don't we wait for the actual elections to see if the tea party helps or hurts the GOP.

Posted by: kchses1 | September 15, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Google must be slow today.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 15, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Hold on, everyone, quit pushing. There's room for all.

We've been told, and told again, that we need to listen to conservatives and not just go on blathering our liberalism.

This is clawrence's chance to set us all straight.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"some sort of genuine populist uprising in reaction to Obama's liberal overreach."

Ah, you guys never miss the opportunity to throw in an inaccurate label, do you? Yeah, I really saw that liberal overreach in the public option and single payer health care plans that were passed by Congress....yup, yup, liberal overreach, there, yeah buddy.

My favorite still is the "America is a Center Right" country - I think everyone got THAT memo!

If America is center-right, I'd love to hear an explanation of how Vice President Gore got more votes then President Bush in 2000, Senator Kerry got more votes than any Democratic candidate prior to him, and President Obama was elected by a fairly nice majority. Yup, yup, we're all a center right country.

Why don't you center right folks start to try find some common ground with us center left folks and see if we can move this country forward? You ain't all right, and we ain't all right, but if we work together, maybe we can accomplish something.

I find hope in the fact that my children's generation finds most of this Tea Party stuff the relative claptrap that it happens to be.

Posted by: JohnDinHouston | September 15, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

You, the guy with the gong, put that thing away. We're not done yet. Good things come to those who wait.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

This request goes out to Christine O'Donnell.


Pagan Love Song. By the Irish Band: Virgin Prunes.

At forty one years of age, and still never having been made love to by either a man or by herself; the name of the band is suitable, for her victory celebration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgoJn5SUa_4

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

by all means, make a proposal to increase the taxes on those who Obama claims are "rich". It should be a political winner for the Democrats.

Haven't you read Mr Sargent's other blog post about the blue dog?

Please, please, please, go ahead and demand that the most productive among us fork over more of their money to the likes of Geithner, Pelosi, Reid and Obama. yeah baby, go for it.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 15, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

clawrence, can I borrow your invisible ink sometime? I love that stuff.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 15, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence,

Well, this is what happens when you are not prepared. Maybe sometime you'll get around to defending C. O'Donnell, but apparently not today.

My credibility is shot now--I'll never be able to raise an audience next time. Sorry, man.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence,

Well, this is what happens when you are not prepared. Maybe sometime you'll get around to defending C. O'Donnell, but apparently not today.

My credibility is shot now--I'll never be able to raise an audience next time. Sorry, man.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

But, skip, it was the GOP that scheduled the tax increase that's going to happen in January. Remember, they did that way back in 2001. Now it's up to the Democrats to fix it.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 15, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

"If the best we can get is gridlock, I'll take it. It is really that simple, at the very least no new taxes will be levied on the citizens."

Thank you for finally admitting that, despite your prior claims, it isn't about spending at all....it's all about taxes.
That's why we rarely hear people on the right call for cuts in defense spending or why all the hand wringing over the deficit immediately stops the moment tax cuts are on the line.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 15, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I don't care about the left-wing "audience."

First, any private citizen can go on MTV and urge teens to abstain from all forms of sex before marriage. You guys weren't upset when Jimmy Carter admitted to "adultery" because of lust in his heart. Why the big deal when Christine O'Donnell points that out?

Second, the Feds should be OUT of the State education business completely. Local governments get to teach what the community wants taught, whether that's sex education or alternative theories to evolution. As look as the Constitution is not violated, there are plenty of secular reasons behind both. There's nothing that I've seen from Christine O'Donnell that would violate the Constitution.

If anyone else has a specific problem with her education, qualifications, positions, let me know.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 15, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60, that's the way the law reads, unless you are fine with "reconciliation" being used for healthcare reform but not the tax cuts?

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 15, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Since Christine O'Donnell does not believe in Evolution, but instead believes in Creationism, then she must be blaming God for all those diseases that human babies are born with.

She must now accept, that her position requires that her God take the blame for creating all those babies, born with physical or mental defects. Her God created them that way, and therefore she should be campaigning to block all medical efforts to alter the will of her God. Right?!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

when all else fails, mischaracterize the position of you opponent. yeah, right.

As I've stated several times now, all government spending is a tax on the citizens. The government has no other source of funds but its citizens.

Therefore spending and taxes are inextricably intertwined. I should think that this would be obvious to a bunch of folks who have such a high opinion of themselves that they hurl condescencion and insults at all and sundry with whom they disagree.

You've lost your grip on the obvious. Better not let Ethan know.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 15, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

"all government spending is a tax on the citizens."

Really? ALL? You want to try that again?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 15, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Kevin-

Youmakamelaugh. Nice one :)

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 15, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Yet another liberal who is just too "nuanced" to understand basic facts.

I'll try to put this in simple terms, so that you don't fake yourself out again:
All spending by government is a tax on the citizens.

the only source of money that any government has is its citizens. Ultimately every dollar spent by a government must be paid for by the citizens. When the citizens pay for spending done by the government they are being taxed.

Another condescending liberal with absolutely no grasp of the obvious. Why am I not shocked?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 15, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Does this mean that clawrence12 has nothing to tell us about Christine "The 41-Year Old Virgin" O'Donnell's qualifications? Bummer.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 15, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

No, Liam, God created a perfect world without death, disease or even birth defects, but man chose to sin and usher the Fall of Creation. You are correct IF you are saying that God still went ahead and created man knowing that he would sin.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 15, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1, at least she was born in the United States.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 15, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

clawrence12,

So you are an idiot birther? Figures.

Being a citizen by birth is not a qualification for the United States Senate. Or are you that unfamiliar with the Constitution?

Now, what qualifications does she have to be a United States Senator? You can do this. Come one. People are counting on you.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 15, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

As I was saying, Christine O'Donnell was born in ____ AMERICA on August 27, 1969.

Hide Early life, education and career


She graduated from Fairleigh Dickinson University with a B.A. in English literature. She was a successful businesswoman (you know, actually making a living running a company, not in government or academia) as a marketing consultant.

She founded and was the president of the Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth (SALT) in 1996, which lobbied the U.S. Congress on moral issues and which focused on advocating chastity and other Christian values in the college-age generation.[8] O'Donnell also served as a spokesperson for Concerned Women for America, a Conservative Christian political action group which seeks to apply biblical principles to issues of public policy.[9] She was granted a Lincoln Fellowship from the Claremont Institute in 2002.[3][10]

She also ran a respectable campaign against Joe Biden in 2006. More than qualified to be a U. S. Senator.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 15, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Very funny, bearclaw. I am tracking down her birth certificate nonetheless.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 15, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

clawrence12,

If Christine O'Donnell is a successful businesswoman, I would hate to see the unpaid bills run up by an unsuccessful businesswoman.

As for "SALT," it is interesting that she was parading herself as the "President" and "Founder" of this group through the 1990s, but it wasn't formed as a 501(c)(3) until 2000, and does not appear to ever have received much in contributions. In other words, Ms. O'Donnell seems to have done quite a job of creating the impression that she was the head of a real organization, which actually amounted to not much more than Ms. O'Donnell. SALT received a humungous $2,000 in contributions in 2006, according to the 990-EZ form available through NCCS.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 15, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

That's strange, I just spent 10 minutes searching for WHERE in New Jersey she was born. Does anyone else know? If we can't find out, are you guys sure that you don't want to see her birth certificate.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 15, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw, she's received more than $2000 just today (based on Rush Limbaugh pointing out that she wouldn't need a dime if every listener just sent her one dollar ; )

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 15, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

clawrence,

The point, dimbulb, is that her "group" was in reality little more than Christine O'Donnell. It was her vanity "cover" for getting on programs.

And one of her employers said they fired her for using company time to work on a separate for-profit business of her own. Now that's integrity.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 15, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Look up George Soros's business past some day.

Back to "defending" Christine O'Donnell, I also dispute that she has "all but demolished the GOP's hopes of winning the Senate." Before the establishment GOP started attacking her, she was actually LEADING the Democrat in Rasmussen polling. Let's at least see where things shake out in the next few weeks before declaring her candidacy DOA.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 15, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

clawrence12,

Oh, the Soros distraction . . .

"I can prove Christine O'Donnell is qualified to be a U.S. Senat . . . SQUIRREL!!!"

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 15, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Ha ha.

The IRS Form 990-EZ requires the organization to list all "officers, directors, trustees and key employees." SALT only had two -- Christine O'Donnell as President, and Sara Lockwood as Secretary. Yes, Christine was the head of a really big "group" there . . . all two of them.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 15, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

O' Donnell has raised over a half-million dollars in less than a day, since last nights defeat of the RINO Castle.

For all of you progressives who think that O'Donnell can't win, you had better start figuring out how to spin the fact that Coons is a self-described Marxist, in to something positive.
LOL

http://thewaronprosperity.com/senate-seats-to-watch/will-delaware-voters-elect-self-proclaimed-marxist-chris-coons/

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 15, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Good one, MrMeaner.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 15, 2010 7:41 PM | 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