Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* As if House conserva-Dems didn't already have enough power: Read of the morning: Jonathan Weisman looks at the national map and concludes that House Dems who have bucked the Obama/Dem agenda are far more likely to remain in office than swing-district Dems who have voted with the president.

Result: Even if Dems hold the House, the conserva-Dem bloc could hold even more sway, and the House won't have a "functioning liberal majority," with untold consequences for the Dems' agenda and ability to govern.

* And: The final stretch of the midterms begins today as Congressional Dems leave the Capitol to head home to their districts.

* The media ain't buyin' Christine O'Donnell's LinkedIn denial: The New York Times weighs in with an appropriately skeptical piece on her claim she had nothing to do with the Oxford-hyping LinkedIn profile. And the Associated Press piece on this is good, too.

* Also: When TPM pressed O'Donnell's spokesman as to why the campaign didn't disavow the profile as unauthorized when given the chance last week, he was unable to answer.

* Special bonus O'Donnell intrigue: In the above link, an anonymous O'Donnell aide hints her enemies might have posted the profile hyping her education to damage her. Or something.

* Powerful special interests betting on Speaker Boehner: Insurance companies, drug manufacturers and Wall Street firms are all putting their chips on House Speaker John Boehner, judging by the massive amount of cash they're dumping into Boehner's fundraising coffers.

* And: Expect Dems to seize on the above story to target Boehner, who is giving a big speech today on reforming government. Mike Allen previews:

An aide says Boehner's speech "will be his personal vision of how we need to reform Congress to restore trust in 'the people's House.'...He will say that Congress has become rightly known over the last decade for its fiscal recklessness. The current congressional rules are rigged to make it easy to increase spending and next-to-impossible to cut it. We must change that."

Over the last decade? Didn't Boehner play a minor role in there somewhere?

* The right's massive midterm money advantage persists: Big lefty donors aren't stepping up to the plate to match the massive amounts of corporate cash Karl Rove's group and others are raising to flood the midterms. Big unions are still vowing to step up...

* But the "professional left" is busting its butt: I don't know why this keeps getting lost in the discussion, but as E.J. Dionne notes, high-profile liberal bloggers and other professional lefties are already hard at work fundraising and turning out the base, even if they also criticize Obama on occasion.

* Is Rubio running away with it? A new Quinnipiac poll shows him up double digits among likely voters over Charlie Crist, 46-33, with Kendrick Meek a distant third at 18 percent.

Key point, illustrating the "Charlie Crist crunch" I noted yesterday: Crist is splitting Dems with Meek -- and splitting independents with Rubio. The latter is winning almost all Republicans.

* This day in right-wing media buffoonery: Jon Chait has been doing nice work skewering Tucker Carlson's increasingly ludicrous and ham-handed effort to appeal to know-nothing conservatives with its "exposes" on National Review.

* Elizabeth Warren begins making her move: If anyone still wonders whether Elizabeth Warren will be constrained in her new gig as Obama's top Wall Street consumer cop, her first speech to bankers, in which she extended an olive branch but told them the fun and games are over, should put that to rest.

* And boy is this guy a piece of work: New York GOP gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino, after accusing Dem Andrew Cuomo (with no evidence) of infidelity, verbally assaults a New York Post reporter:

"You send another goon to my house and I'll take you out, buddy."

What else is going on?

By Greg Sargent  | September 30, 2010; 8:34 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, House Dems, House GOPers, Morning Plum, Political media, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: LinkedIn responds to O'Donnell
Next: Sharron Angle Republicans

Comments

Big shocker that the lamestream media ain't buyin' the truth. The campaign has more important things to do than worry about "national media" as she said already.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 30, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

The Senate will schedule 'pro forma' sessions during the 'adjournment' break to November 15. Reid bows to McConnell's demand to block Obama's recess appointments.

http://senatus.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/democrats-agree-to-block-recess-appointments/

Posted by: grooft | September 30, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent hasn't denied posting the fake O'Donnell bio.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 30, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

"but as E.J. Dionne notes, high-profile liberal bloggers and other professional lefties are already hard at work fundraising and turning out the base, even if they also criticize Obama on occasion."

Well jeebus, it was nice of someone to say something positive about progressives for a change.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 30, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

"The campaign has more important things to do than worry about "national media" as she said already."

Agree - like the fact that she's 16 pts down and may soon be facing a criminal investigation for using campaign donations for personal expenses.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 30, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs:

@Reuters:

New claims for unemployment benefits plunged by 16,000 last week to 453,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday, a steeper fall than had been anticipated in a sign that labor markets may be strengthening modestly.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast that claims would come in at 460,000. The government revised the prior week's figure up to 469,000 claims.

The four-week moving average of claims, considered a better measure of underlying labor market trends, fell 6,250 to 458,000, its lowest level since July 24

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 30, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs:

@Reuters:

New claims for unemployment benefits plunged by 16,000 last week to 453,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday, a steeper fall than had been anticipated in a sign that labor markets may be strengthening modestly.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast that claims would come in at 460,000. The government revised the prior week's figure up to 469,000 claims.

The four-week moving average of claims, considered a better measure of underlying labor market trends, fell 6,250 to 458,000, its lowest level since July 24

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 30, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

@clawrence: "Big shocker that the lamestream media ain't buyin' the truth."

O'Donnell position on this is not credible. If it turns out to have been a hatchet job, I'll be the first to offer a mea culpa, but given everything else about her, her testimony is not credible.

But I'd also argue to my fellow conservatives and right wing hate mongers that Christine O'Donnell is more of flim-flamming sociopath--or grifter, if you will--than a conservative. Just because she puts on a long black robe doesn't make her a Supreme Court Justice, and just because she puts on scrubs doesn't make her a doctor. Similarly, she is fudging on her ideology--at least to some extent--just as she did her LinkedIn resume. My point is, if you want a more conservative country, and you want lower taxes and deregulation and a smaller government, Christine O'Donnell is not your standard bearer.

While not a wolf in sheep's clothing, she might be . . . I dunno, a giraffe in elephant's clothing. In many cases, for rock-ribbed conservatives, the Tea Party has driven out milquetoast RINOs for solid conservatives--and sometimes extremely right wing folks, which is certainly a net positive if you're significantly right of center. Christine O'Donnell is not one of those people. Check out that sexual discrimination lawsuit.

Also, she hasn't retracted her position on onanistic delights of self-pleasure, so she's clearly a fruitcake, or just anti-male.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 30, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Former Governor Palin was right about the MSM going after O'Donnell. Too bad they didn't do the same to Obama.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 30, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

"While not a wolf in sheep's clothing, she might be . . . I dunno, a giraffe in elephant's clothing."

If you're hinting at what I think you're hinting at here, let it be known for the record that we sure as h*e*l*l don't want her.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 30, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Kevin, with friends like you who needs enemies?

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 30, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

A little insight into the Rubio and O'Connell elections . . .

National unemployment, as of June? 9.6%. Rate in Delaware? 8.7%. Rate in Florida? 11.6%.

Compare that to New York, with an unemployment rate of 8.2%.

You wanna see where Democrats are going to lose, look to the states with unemployment rates higher than the national average.

Not a hard and fast rule, but not a bad indicator.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 30, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps the Democrats should make it clear that the success of the new consumer protection agency is riding on this election. Speaker Boner will make sure it isn't funded and will keep it tied up with investigations so that it can't focus on protecting consumers. Then they will campaign against it saying, "see, we told you an agency like this would be ineffective"....

Posted by: soapm | September 30, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Kevin, I don't know about that, CA is one of the hardest hit, ground zero for Countrywide, and Dems are hangin' in so far. Brown and Boxer both have leads, Boxer more so, legalization looking good and it appears the voters are not impressed with Koch and friends trying to turn back the clock on emission targets. With a month to go it could still change but the momentum has swung our way.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 30, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, but I don't believe a thing put out by the media anymore. Regarding candidates, what is usually put out this time of year is ridiculous,meant to inflame, pathetic crap. I used to be one of the UAW union goons out for the dems, I know all of the inside baseball. Probably a good 90% of what has been "helpfully" sent to the "media" about O'Donnell by her foes is pure , trumped up bs. The sad thing is that the media and their all knowing pundits just can't seem to grasp that this is an election year like no other- all the "tried and true" will not work out and will most likely backfire. I have received no less than twenty emails regarding the 10-2-10 rally as well, they started out as just a notice and then in the last week or so morphed into a "we'll pay your bus fare,provide a t-shirt, a boxed lunch, a flag and or placard to wave,etc" next I'm expecting a "you will be there as your place of business email" - that ain't grassroots-people. That's exactly what the left has supposedly fought against,myself included, all of these years. It's astroturf at it's very naked best, paid for by corporate interests. Take a look at the list of sponsors- COMMUNIST PARTY USA? I'll be damned if I will be a part of that. Thank God I don't have to deal with this crap anymore, yeah we are definitely struggling and getting food on the table has been very challenging but at last I don't have that damned yoke on my neck anymore. They do however, still send out the emails. Having been an insider and participant in the past, i see thru all the bs- that they would have to provide all of that just to get people there shows what a pie crust saran wrap see through endeavor it is. I have little doubt that the "media" including Greg, will paint this as a "game changer" LOL- someday you will break out of this alternate universe and regret deeply all of the years you have wasted in "fighting the man" when you realize the democratic party has BECOME the man and absorbed all of the things it used to fight against. BTW,my niece goes to school in Madison, her boyfriend was given class credit at the U to attend Obama's rally- so much for the youth being energized- even they had to be bribed, how pathetic.

Posted by: sayoung809132001 | September 30, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

The Virgin Mary stuck with her story too.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 30, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

@clawrence: "Kevin, with friends like you who needs enemies?"

I'm telling you the truth, as I see it. I've been following O'Donnell closely, just as I did Palin. Palin may have many imperfections, but she's also the real deal, and a great deal of the attacks on her were scurrilous at best and fiction at worst. And let's not even get into Andrew Sullivan's bizarre Palin-Oedipal complex, or whatever his strange womb-based obsession with her was/is.

I was discussing my support of Linda McMahon recently, and for a good reason--she's a good candidate, a thoughtful (for a politician) politician, she's got reasoned positions, and I think she can get things done. As far as you can say this for any politician, she is the real deal. I can understand why liberals want to lump Linda McMahon and any number of powerful conservative women in with Christine O'Donnell, because they'd love it if Palin, and McMahon, a Fiorina, et all, were as messed up as O'Donnell really, objectively is. Why conservatives want to do that as well, I do not know.

You can say "with friends like you", and that's fair enough, but with standard-bearers like O'Donnell, it isn't going to matter what I say.

As I said, if the LinkedIn thing really is a hatchet job, provably so, I won't make excuses. I'll offer my mea culpa. If there's something I'm missing about that sexual discrimination lawsuit that makes it seems less frivolous and opportunistic and quasi-sociopathic than it looks at a distance, I might revise my opinion.

If there's some nuance to the mice-with-human-brains comments, I'm open to it. I would even be open to some better explanation of the absolutist "lying is never acceptable no matter what even if it means turning Jews over to Hitler", but I have a hard time seeing that. I understand that "the ends justifies the means" is a bad philosophy to operate under, but sometimes moral choice rest in a hierarchy, and are not a single black-and-white. Yes, lying is wrong--but not if the Nazis are asking you if Anne Frank is in your attic. Then lying is unambiguously the moral and courageous choice.

Also, if there is something not inherently anti-male in her anti-m@sturbation position, then I'll be a monkey's uncle. Combine that with her sexual discrimination lawsuit, and you're seeing a person who, once in power, is not going to be on your side if you've got a dinglehopper. I'm just sayin'. /snark

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 30, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

"Also, she hasn't retracted her position on onanistic delights of self-pleasure, so she's clearly a fruitcake, or just anti-male."

LOL! You rock.

By the way, I mentioned your comment about women being able to go without m@sterbating (paraphrase) to a female friend of mine. She said that if you said that to her face she would beat you to death with her d*ldo. snark/

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

@lmsinca: "Kevin, I don't know about that, CA is one of the hardest hit, ground zero for Countrywide, and Dems are hangin' in so far. Brown and Boxer both have leads, Boxer more so"

Well, as I said, it's not a hard and fast rule, and clearly California has a lot further to go. But I believe, even with those leads, those are much harder fought contests, and the outcomes less of a fate accompli, because of California's ver high unemployment rates.

"legalization looking good"

Just as a caveat, I'd like to say that I am in the good company of no less of an august conservative than William F. Buckley in also supporting legalization and, if I lived in CA, would show up to vote against every Democrat running and vote for legalization. Plus, I think the Democrats--especially at the national level--have been abysmal regarding any form of legalizing anything, even the most innocuous and beneficial of illegal drugs, marijuana. This is true of even most progressives in congress, who are, as it turns out, not even as progressive as Ron Paul on the issue.

"but the momentum has swung our way."

It would take a lot more than 12.2% unemployment for there to be a Republican route in California. No doubt about that--as I said, an indicator, not a hard and fast rule.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 30, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

What else is happening?

Check it out, we've now found another hunk of rock in this universe that MAY be able to support human life. Though why it would want to is anyone's guess.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/09/could_goldilocks_planet_be_just_right_for_life.php?ref=fpblg

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

"Result: Even if Dems hold the House, the conserva-Dem bloc could hold even more sway, and the House won't have a "functioning liberal majority," with untold consequences for the Dems' agenda and ability to govern."

I'd rather have the conservadems hold some sway than have people like Issa who are hellbent on getting their name in the annals of history heading committees.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 30, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

@nisleib: "By the way, I mentioned your comment about women being able to go without m@sterbating (paraphrase) to a female friend of mine. She said that if you said that to her face she would beat you to death with her d*ldo. snark/"

Yes, but did she promise? Because lots of times, women say they'll do something, but then . . .

There are always exceptions but, as a general rule, I stand by that statement. ;)

And a sublimated anti-male position is inherent in a lot of O'Donnell's surface whackiness. Which would be consistent with her incipient Old Maidish spinsterhood. /snark

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 30, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

@nisleib = "By the way, I mentioned your comment about women being able to go without m@sterbating (paraphrase) to a female friend of mine. She said that if you said that to her face she would beat you to death with her d*ldo. snark/"

What you bet Christine has a collection that would make your friend seem abstinent? Generally, people that consumed about something probably has a little secret in their closet (or drawer)...

Posted by: soapm | September 30, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

"Check it out, we've now found another hunk of rock in this universe that MAY be able to support human life. Though why it would want to is anyone's guess."

Hopefully Branson figures out a way to get there so if Palin puts a spell on Murika and gets voted in, I don't want to be here when she launches missiles at Putin for rearing his ugly head across the Bearing Straight.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 30, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Kevin - Do you honestly believe she is "chaste?"

I don't really care, but she has fibbed about so many things I don't take anything she says at face value.

She makes money by preaching virtue, haven't we seen enough George Rekers and Tedd Haggards to instantly be wary when anyone preaches virtue?

And given her adversarial relationship with the truth... Let's just say I'm less than certain.

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Can anyone explain this:

McDonald’s Corp. is threatening to drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new health care law requirement. Sending “one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers’ health plans,” McDonald’s claims the requirement to spend 80% to 85% of premiums on benefits would be “economically prohibitive” to continue offering coverage.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/30/thinkfast-september-30-2010/

How does requiring that premiums actually get spent on care become economically prohibitive? What does McDonald's want to spend the premiums on?

Posted by: pragmaticstill | September 30, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

"The Vatican goes green "

Use this link to either download or view the podcast report.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-climate-desk/audio-the-vatican-goes-green/3882/

"The Holy See has embarked on a new mission: the fight against climate change. In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI announced that Vatican City would strive to become the first carbon-neutral state. Although the Vatican’s plan to purchase carbon offset credits fell through, the sovereign city-state has harnessed the power of the sun with solar panels and a solar generator, and has also made progress with energy conservation efforts. Pope Benedict has added a religious element to the climate change debate by framing the issue as a moral imperative.

To discuss these unprecedented efforts, Need to Know’s Alison Stewart spoke with Mark Hopkins, an energy expert with the United Nations Foundation who has 30 years of experience in energy policy and program development. Hopkins toured the Vatican’s new energy efficient facilities last year."

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Watch GOP NY Gov candidate melt down, freak out and threaten a journalist, video at the link:

* NY Gov candidate threatens to ‘take out’ reporter *

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100930/el_yblog_upshot/ny-gov-candidate-threatens-to-take-out-reporter

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 30, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Who knew McDonald's sells its own health insurance?

Posted by: DDAWD | September 30, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

* Stocks pop at the open *

U.S. stocks rallied out of the gate Thursday after better-than-expected government reports on the economy and jobs front.

[...]

The Labor Department reported that jobless claims totaled 453,000 in the week ended Sept. 25, which was slightly better than expected.

A consensus of economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast a total of 457,000 claims.

Meanwhile, the Commerce Department released its final reading on second-quarter gross domestic product, raising it slightly to a gain of 1.7% from the previously reported 1.6%.

Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had expected the figure to remain unchanged.

Investors are also mulling over AIG's plan to repay taxpayers and Congressional bill to impose tariffs on China because of its currency controls.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/30/markets/markets_newyork/

* Stocks edge up on economic data *

U.S. government data showed economic growth was higher in the second quarter than previously estimated. GDP growth was revised to 1.7 per cent from 1.6 per cent, the Commerce Department said. Analysts had expected a revision of 1.6 per cent for the quarter.

Also Thursday, the Labor Department said new U.S. claims for jobless benefits dropped 16,000 last week to 453,000 — below analysts’ forecasts of 460,000 claims.

“Employers remain reluctant to hire in droves. No debate there. But the labour market is improving, albeit modestly,” said Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets. Now if the pace can just be picked up a little more...”

http://www.financialpost.com/m/story.html?id=3602802

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 30, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Looks like clawrence handles the teabaggger early shift before Joke clocks in.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 30, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

"I'll take you out, Buddy". To dinner? To a movie? To the woodshed? Sadly, no.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 30, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Hey so, Nate Silver is highlighting the polling that states Murkowski has a chance at a write in. I'd like the Dems to approach her in the event a McAdams win seems unreachable. I wonder if this is why Republicans didn't strip her of her leadership role in the Energy committee.

Things should get pretty nasty up there.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 30, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Kevin - Do you honestly believe she is "chaste?"

I don't really care, but she has fibbed about so many things I don't take anything she says at face value.

She makes money by preaching virtue, haven't we seen enough George Rekers and Tedd Haggards to instantly be wary when anyone preaches virtue?

And given her adversarial relationship with the truth... Let's just say I'm less than certain.

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 10:10 AM
................

I am starting to feel that she might have always being just putting on an act, when making attention grabbing statements on The Bill Maher show. After all, why on earth would she have ever been invited on his show so many times, if she did not say stuff that almost no one else would say?

She was not in show business, or a person of great accomplishment in any field, so how did she make it on to the Bill Maher show, for the very first time. What did she do or say, that brought her first to that show's attention, so that they invited her to appear on the TV show.

Bill Maher said something intriguing when he released the first video clip of her. He said that she was a good friend of his, and he said: "I made you". I wonder was he friends with her before she appeared on his show, for the first time, and was her attention getting controversial comments, mostly scripted, ahead of time, and Bill was in on the plan, from the start?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Liam-still - I wouldn't at all be surprised to find O'Donnell and Maher had a relationship that involved more than just O'Donnell saying stupid things. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if she gave him certain... liberties in order to get on his show.

But maybe I read too much Garth Ennis.

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Who knew McDonald's sells its own health insurance?

Posted by: DDAWD | September 30, 2010 10:20 AM .

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

It is rather ironic that one of the largest purveyors of unhealthy diets, is also providing health insurance coverage.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Liam-still - I wouldn't at all be surprised to find O'Donnell and Maher had a relationship that involved more than just O'Donnell saying stupid things. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if she gave him certain... liberties in order to get on his show.

But maybe I read too much Garth Ennis.

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 10:37 AM
................

I just do not know the history of how she came to be discovered, and what she did that made her even come to the attention of The Bill Maher show people. It is all very strange and mysterious. That is why, I would not be at all surprised if she was just cast to play the reoccurring part of the whacky Christian guest, who says stuff that riles up most of the other guests. It seems like too brilliant a piece of theater, to have been just accidentally stumbled into, after this young women, with no claim to fame, got invited to appear on a show that never before had such unaccomplished and unskilled unknowns, on it's guest panels.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis:

If you've been following O'Donnell closely, then you would know that there's a reasonable explanation for EVERY alleged "lie". Instead, you gladly jump on the bandwagon, throwing stones that cannot be unthrown with some feeble "mea culpa" after the election. Here's WHY it matters what conservatives say: she can withstand the attacks from the left, media, and even establishment Republicans, as that all fits her narrative. If she loses the CONSERVATIVES, however, she has no chance. Why not give her the benefit of the doubt? Did you have a troubled childhood and seek acceptance? Do you have the need to feel welcomed here that much?

BTW: what "better" explanation "lying is never acceptable no matter what" can there be than "God will always provide a way to get through it without lying"? You say that you've followed her so closely, so you must know that was indeed her explanation.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Liam - Point taken. There have always been media wh*res. These days they line up for reality TV shows, but media wh*res predate Mark Burnet by quite a bit.

So how did O'Donnell first become known to Maher?

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

P.S. are you going to go along with Garth Ennis / nisleib's sick innuendo too? Next up, Andrew Sullivan discovers that Christine O'Donnell is Trig's REAL mother!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Jake, how is God getting her through her lying about her LinkedIn account? Is he going to forgive her?

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 30, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I'm assuming that she is NOT lying about "her" LinkedIn account. I could easily fake a similar account for Chris Coons.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Like a good lawyer should, Joke has several alternative explanations for each and every one of McDonnell's lies. Sadly, they're all losers.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 30, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse


Liam - Point taken. There have always been media wh*res. These days they line up for reality TV shows, but media wh*res predate Mark Burnet by quite a bit.

So how did O'Donnell first become known to Maher?

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 10:56 AM

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

Especially when you take into account, how very pretty she looked, when she first started making her appearances on the Bill Maher show. If some plainer looking woman was claiming that they were celibate, it would not have had nearly the same impact. It all appears too perfect, from a role casting perspective, to not have been an intentionally scripted character.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Joke, when are you going to start creating these fake accounts you claim you can create so easily?

Posted by: Observer691 | September 30, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

JakeD2 - What is so sick about my innuendo?

Rightwing paragons of virtue tend to be hypocritical, two-faced, moral-free degenerates. There is a very long list of examples of such. Do the names Tedd Haggard and George Rekkers mean anything to you? How about Newt Gingrich?

The rule these days seems to be that the more strongly a wingnut vilifies a certain behavior the more likely that wingnut is to be engaged in such behavior.

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

According the news reports, McLiar's campaign has still not decided whether it's going to ask LinkedIn to investigate who created this account.

Now why is that? If there's no chance McWingnut created the account, why are they hesitating?

As the good lawyer Joke knows, it's because you don't ask a question if you don't want the answer.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 30, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

nisleib:

Lies about someone having sex outside of marriage is libel "per se" (look it up, if you don't believe me ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

"How does requiring that premiums actually get spent on care become economically prohibitive? What does McDonald's want to spend the premiums on?"

I'm pretty sure that McDonald's sefl-insures. Meaning, the company pays healthcare costs, and has an insurance company administrer it. They may re-insure for high cost claims. I think WalMart (Peace be Upon Them) does the same.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 30, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

At least our gracious host is not posting daily Sharron Angle threads any more ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

LOL that should be O'Liar and O'Wingnut. Mea culpa.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 30, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

All, check this out, a House GOP candidate who is a nurse who opposes mandates for coverage of prexisting conditions and maternity leave:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 30, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

"Rightwing paragons of virtue tend to be hypocritical, two-faced, moral-free degenerates "

You forgot to include me. And it's exhausting, by the way.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 30, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse


nisleib:

Lies about someone having sex outside of marriage is libel "per se" (look it up, if you don't believe me ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:10 AM
..................
Christine O'Donnell has stated that while in College she had sex on several occassion with men that she met at parties. She said that sometimes she woke up, after being drunk the night before, and could not recall if she had sex or not, while drunk.

This will make a precedent setting libel case. O'Donnell sues O'Donnell for having libeled herself.

You are one hell of a lawyer JakeD2. Stanford Law School must be feeling very proud.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

"The fast-food restaurant chain McDonald's Corp. has denied a report that it's considering dropping health care coverage for some employees in response to a health care reform provision."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20100930/us-mcdonald-s-health-care/

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 30, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Jake - I'm not lying, I'm just asking the questions, and making the observations, anyone familiar with right wing paragons of virtue should ask.

I'm not saying she is a skank who spread for Maher to get ahead; I'm just saying that it wouldn't surprise me a bit if that were the case. That is the pattern with people like her.

If you really were a lawyer you would realize that.

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Interesting. clawrence seems to have vanished as soon as Joke appeared.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 30, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Some of the comparisons the wack jobs on the right choose to make are simply mind boggling. If it's not Hitler, or Stalin in a negative sense, it's Lincoln or George Washington in the positive sense. I have yet to see when one of these extreme comparisons have ever came close to working.

And so today we have Christine O'Donnell and....

"The Virgin Mary stuck with her story too."

Holy freaking Batman...now we're comparing Christine O'Donnell to the Virgin Mary?

12BarBlues and other avowed Catholics please let me apologize for the ignorance of that poster. Comparing someone with O'Donnell's lack of veracity and achievements to the Virgin Mary? We really do have some idiots posting here don't we?

Well I would NEVER compare myself to Jesus Christ, but I certainly would use his words to make a point...
"Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 30, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

So, you think that she's LYING about having sex in college now too? LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

@Observer..."Interesting. clawrence seems to have vanished as soon as Joke appeared."

Yes a very interesting "observation." I hate to say it Jake but you are beginning to appear just as fraudulent as the person you blindly support. A Korean vet? And a graduate of Stanford? Your posts increasingly make that very hard to believe.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 30, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

@Observer..."Interesting. clawrence seems to have vanished as soon as Joke appeared."

Yes a very interesting "observation." I hate to say it Jake but you are beginning to appear just as fraudulent as the person you blindly support. A Korean vet? And a graduate of Stanford? Your posts increasingly make that very hard to believe.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 30, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

nisleib:

And I'm just saying that it wouldn't surprise me a bit if Greg Sargent was the one who faked "her" LinkedIn bio.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Most lawyers question everything. Joke accepts everything he hears as true, if it comes from the right of the political spectrum.

Very poor lawyering by Joke.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 30, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Greg, I'm surprised that you haven't brought up the Andrew Shrivell case yet. I'm sure you've heard of it in which an obviously self-loathing closet bisexual Michigan assistant attorney general goes after the openly gay student body president at the University of Michigan. He is so obsessed with this young man that he writes blogs about him, defaces his facebook page, stalks/pickets the young man's house, and calls him "Satan's representative". His boss calls the behavior "immature" If you haven't seen it yet, checkout Anderson Cooper's on camera interview with Shrivell. I would LOVE to be a defense attorney now in a case being prosecuted by Shrivell. Can you say Eddie Long?

Posted by: 54465446 | September 30, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

rukidding7:

I couldn't care less what you believe.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

JakeD2 you are the one who said that claiming that a person had sex outside of marriage was libelous. O'Donnell claimed that she had such sex, so she should sue herself for making such a "libelous" claim about herself.

She should mention how the claim she made about her own sexual promiscuity, caused her to become depressed and caused her to not be able to obtain a Masters Degree from Princeton. She should ask to have the court award her at least six million dollars, for the mental anguish that she caused herself.

Yup Yup. You Becha!!!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 30, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Joke, if you really think Greg would do that, why are you on his blog for hours every day? You truly are a joke.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 30, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I took down Weigel, and changed Cillizza's comments to nothing more than a Twitter feed, so it can't hurt to try it again.

Posted by: JakeD2

~~~~~~~~

Really, how did you do that? I'm not saying you are lying, but you have shown that you are reality impaired to the point where you don't think there is any "lie" in "lies".

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

"The right's massive midterm money advantage persists: Big lefty donors aren't stepping up to the plate to match the massive amounts of corporate cash Karl Rove's group and others are raising to flood the midterms..."
---------------------------------------------

must... resist... temptation!

Posted by: CalD | September 30, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Just ask Chris Fox.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

nisleib, Joke is a sick man. That should be obvious by now.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 30, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Who is Chris Fox?

Posted by: Observer691 | September 30, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

BGinCHI:

Do YOU have any more questions for me?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

I took down Weigel, and changed Cillizza's comments to nothing more than a Twitter feed, so it can't hurt to try it again.

Posted by: JakeD2

Jake do you have enough intelligence left to realize just HOW FREAKING ANTISOCIAL you've become. In other words because this is a progressive blog and you don't like Greg's opinions you are trying to take it down?
You are BRAGGING about taking down Weigel and messing up the Fix.

You are by defintion Jake a domestic terrorist. The sooner folks like you move to Iran or some other authoritarian place the better off we would all be.

You attempt to FORCE YOUR BELIEFS down our throats and brag about disrupting our ability to share thoughts and communicate.

I truly cannot find the words to describe what a cowardly scumbag you are...you are truly SHAMEFUL! You embarrass Christians everywhere with your behavior because you have LIED and told us you were a Christian. You are no more Christian than Al Qaeda is Muslim. You are no better than Al Qaeda. It's simply disgusting, you are a traitor to all values that are American. You Jake are a traitor not a patriot. You HATE American values and accept only the values that are yours. Why don't you infect some other blog your scummy parasite. BRAGGING about taking down blogs and intimating that is why you are here...that is a threat and for the first time ever I DO believe Greg should just run your sorry arse!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 30, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

rukidding7 - Just email Greg and then, for good measure, click on the report abuse button and do the same.

Greg likes the trolls though, so don't expect anything to change.

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Our gracious host is free to do whatever he wants (I am not doing anything illegal, nor am I the one lying).

Using rukidding7's definition, however, our Founding Fathers were "domestic terrorists" too ; )

Lucky for me, the FBI uses the real definition.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

@Jake...yeah you're not legally a terrorist...but you are still a terrorist and you are pathological. You are a sick sic individual.

No more name calling...I feel sorry for you. I SERIOUSLY hope you can get some help...no snark intended.

I also advise our regulars to just avoid this person. Observer has posted the truth about Jake and 12Bar a veteran of the Fix as warned us repeatedly as well..

"Joke is a sick man. That should be obvious by now."

His illness and antisocial ways truly void any credibility he might have and so responding and picking on him may entertain us but it's really not right.
He is truly a sick puppy it responding with all of our barbs and comments and laughing at his luncacy is no different than picking on the village idiot.
I say all of this sincerely and without snark. He HAS A PROBLEM!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 30, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

@Jake: "If you've been following O'Donnell closely, then you would know that there's a reasonable explanation for EVERY alleged 'lie'."

This is very often the case with MSM and left-wing accusations of lying of conservatives. However, in this case, I have to disagree. There's something rotten in the state of Denmark here.

To me, something smells to high heaven. But I know better than to trust someone who puts on my daddy's shirt and tie and then tells me, "I'm you're daddy now, son." Just because she's labeling herself a conservative Republican does not mean that she is, per se, or that it's meaningful her to her. If it is, she makes a lot of mistakes, in my opinion.

"Instead, you gladly jump on the bandwagon, throwing stones that cannot be unthrown with some feeble "mea culpa" after the election."

I'm not jumping on the bandwagon. I don't think most of the folks who are attacking her care if she's a very bad standard-bearer for conservative and will be a blemish on the GOP; however, that's my complaint. If it was unacceptable to have Mike Castle as a Republican from Delaware because he was too much of a RINO squish, then it's not acceptable to have (or, at least, overtly support) someone who is an equally poor representative, if for completely other reasons. I doubt you'd be accepting of O'Donnell if you knew, beyond reasonable doubt, that she was a "sleeper cell" liberal, like a plant at a tea party rally, just waiting to confirm every liberals worst (and most hoped for) suspicions of backwards, racists tea partiers. Well, if she's a sociopath in conservative clothing, it's not that much different, to me.

O'Donnell is not Sarah Palin, in my opinion. I understand that liberals can't tell the difference, but I'd hope that conservatives could. ;)

"Here's WHY it matters what conservatives say: she can withstand the attacks from the left, media, and even establishment Republicans, as that all fits her narrative. If she loses the CONSERVATIVES, however, she has no chance. Why not give her the benefit of the doubt?"

I can't vote for her or against her. But I think Republicans gave up a sure thing in Delaware--a RINO in the Biden seat--for a PPC (p*ss poor "conservative"), and I did give her the benefit of the doubt, at first. But when a candidate, no mater what label she applies to herself, keeps doing and saying things in public that send up all sorts of red flags, I'm not going to ignore them. And, in the end, I think it's better than a bad Democrat (a bearded Marxist, for example) get the seat vs. a bad "conservative", so that, come the next cycle, a superior Republican can run against her.

"Did you have a troubled childhood and seek acceptance? Do you have the need to feel welcomed here that much?"

I assume you recognize the irony in that approach: pressuring someone to seek acceptance from you by insisting they are seeking acceptance from others.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 30, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Yes, avoid me, PLEASE (that makes my job here even easier ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis:

What "better" explanation of "lying is never acceptable no matter what" can there be than "God will always provide a way to get through it without lying"?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

@JakeD2: "BTW: what 'better' explanation 'lying is never acceptable no matter what' can there be than 'God will always provide a way to get through it without lying'?"

That perhaps God expects you to make rational moral decisions without using completely human-constructed arbitrary excuses to justify irrational or immoral behavior. It's like saying because you can crack somebody's skull in with a hammer, God would never require me to use a hammer. So, there's no way to hammer in these nails, because hitting things with a hammer is absolutely immoral, because it can be used to do something bad . . .

"You say that you've followed her so closely, so you must know that was indeed her explanation."

Yes, I do. And it's a terrible explanation. I'm sure you're familiar with this old story:

A devout Christian heard an urgent news report on his radio that a flash flood was within minutes of entering the peaceful valley where he lived. Immediately he went to his knees and prayed for safety. The words were still on his lips when he became aware that water was gushing under his door. He retreated to the second floor and finally onto the roof of his house.

While he sat on the roof, a helicopter flew by and the pilot asked over the loudspeaker if they could lift him off.

"It's not necessary since I have the Lord's protection," he replied.

Moments later the house began to break up and he found himself clinging to a tree. A police boat, braving the waters, approached him for rescue, but he assured them that the Lord would save him. Finally, the tree gave way and the man went to his death.

Standing before the Lord, he asked, "Lord, I'm glad to be here, but why didn't You answer my prayer for safety?"

The Lord responded, "Son, I told you over the radio to get out of there. Then I sent you a helicopter and a motor boat!"

What God has given the gentile hiding the Jews from the Nazis was the ability to lie for a greater good. Not understanding that there are judgements that we can (via free will), and are morally required, to make is serious red flag. The fact is, in no rational way of looking at things is lying absolutely morally wrong in every circumstance, any more than using a hammer to hammer a nail, vs. break a neighbor's arm, morally equivalent.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 30, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Yes, avoid me, PLEASE
-----------------------------
Post.of.the.Day

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 30, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

re: Jake's brag he brought down the Fix. That is not true. He was long gone before the new software comments section was installed in response to troll attacks.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 30, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

The hammer, radio, helicopter and motor boat are not "sin" in and of themselves. I would hope you agree that God NEVER tempts us with sin -- that is ALWAYS Satan -- if nothing else, breaking one of the Ten Commandments IS sin. Read the Book of Job someday.

The much harder question, therefore, was the one Dietrich Bonhoeffer took to his grave.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

What God has given the gentile hiding the Jews from the Nazis was the ability to lie for a greater good.
--------------------------------
Kevin, this is a truly wise statement. Good for you and good on you.

Ms. O'Donnell may have meant well in her I-wouldn't-lie-even-if-Jews-must-die, but she is a VERY young soul.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 30, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

"God would never require me to make a movie, because a movie is a lie. Or write a book. Because a book is a lie." Absolutism generally slippery slopes into absurdity.

Fiction is, by necessity, a lie. But most people recognize a difference in that sort of "lie", and the "I did not have sex with that woman" sort of lie, vs then "I attended Oxford (but not really)" sort of mild embellishment, vs. the "no, I know nothing of the children you are holding captive and plan to murder, and have no intention of setting them free as soon as you are distracted" sort of lie.

Treating them as if they are all the same, and suggesting the God who gave us all free will would step in to prevent us from having to make a few relatively easy moral choices (while not stepping in to stop natural disasters, children dying from bone cancer, or, I dunno, the holocaust) is absurd. The sociopathic "lying is always wrong no matter what because God will rig the game for me so I would never have to make a moral decision to lie" is ridiculous. It suggests that God would put sparing you a moral dilemma above preventing natural disasters, man-made disasters, or something like the holocaust--or Word War II, in general.

I realize this is not the place for theological discussion, but I've seen no sign that God has constructed the universe in order to spare us from any and all sticky moral choices. It's an absurd (imho) assertion, and if there's some nuance there, I'd love to hear it.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 30, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Please God, don't anyone go down the rabbit hole with Jake and discuss Satan.

Please, dear God.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 30, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

Careful, or DHS is going to get you for "aiding and abetting a blog terrorist". It's right there in U.S.C. Annotated ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Kevin - You make me want to find the liberals in your art school who p*ssed you off and punch them in the nose.

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

kudos to Kevin, a voice of reason!!!!!!!!!!

In a way I understand Ms. O'Donnell. She is a young woman who has ambition above her bona fides. So she pads her resume, launches a lawsuit when she is fired from her one and only job, and in general is living in ego-land, scared people will find out she's not qualified. She gets on TV because she's cute and she has an angle, the Christian right. It all goes to her head.

Then she wins the primary. That was NEVER supposed to happen. She isn't prepared for the scrutiny. What does she do? The same thing--keep up with the coverup.

She's probably not a bad person, just a young soul who is in over her head. WAY OVER her head.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 30, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

@JakeD2: "The hammer, radio, helicopter and motor boat are not "sin" in and of themselves. I would hope you agree that God NEVER tempts us with sin -- that is ALWAYS Satan -- if nothing else, breaking one of the Ten Commandments IS sin. Read the Book of Job someday."

Yes, I have, and there are certainly some good lessons there. But, in general, I'm going to have to say we're just going to party company here. The ten commandments also say thou shalt not kill--so, as a soldier, what do you do in war?

And I can't imagine how a situation where you can lie, and save someone's life and the lives of their children in so doing, would be God tempting you to sin. If it's Satan, then it's Satan tempting you to do the right.

I'm not a gun owner, but if I were, and someone broke into my house and was attempting to hurt or kill my family, I'd shoot to kill. That is a sin, I assume, but I know there have been situations where folks have shot intruders to protect their families and property. Were these folks sinners? They broke a commandment, clearly. And if they weren't, then how can lying to save your family be a greater sin than killing to save your family?

Sorry. I remain completely unconvinced.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 30, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues - The other day Jake admitted to working for Satan. We've been over this, you are right, we don't need to go there again.

Posted by: nisleib | September 30, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

@nisleib: "Kevin - You make me want to find the liberals in your art school who p*ssed you off and punch them in the nose."

Hah! These were some serious lefties. At least, the ring leaders were. But I still might have ended up reading Hayek and Buckley and Friedman and Sowell eventually, anyway. It had already gotten to the point where some of the more liberal books I was reading were rubbing me the wrong way. One of them was about religion vs. science, and I don't recall the specifics, but even as a young liberal I remember thinking that some of those criticisms seemed very over the top, and behaving as if the people he was critiquing had no other motive than to be evil and, by the way, religion is very stupid--and though I was an atheist at the time, I just felt like the characterization of the other side was remarkably weak. So, I thought, I ought to look into what the other side really thinks . . . and hereI am!

And I still remember, with great clarity, ranting over the terrible failure of CNN who, while covering Reagan, didn't explain to the sheeple how evil and terrible he was, and how he was ruining the country with his hatred of the poor and his drive to inevitable nuclear armageddon. I'm thinking I was in 10th grade at the time? I can't tell you how bitterly disappointed I was by Mondale's loss, at the time.

Ah, how things change.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 30, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Great series of posts, Kevin.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 30, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis:

But, that Commandment is "Thou Shalt Not MURDER". Killing in the defense of others is legally not murder -- therefore, a "just war" can be reconciled with the Ten Commandments -- in addition, Genesis 9:6 provides for capital punishment, which obviously means that the State kills someone, but that's not legally murder either.

Let's take it out of this context by using a different "innocuous" Commandment: "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery". Do you really believe it's fine to commit adultery, just because you can't think of another way you can save Anne Frank and her family hidden in the attic?!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

@JakeD2: "Do you really believe it's fine to commit adultery, just because you can't think of another way you can save Anne Frank and her family hidden in the attic?!"

If called upon to make that brave sacrifice, I would. Especially if the chick was really hot. Two or three times at most, though. Even I have my limits. /snark

That being said, if killing someone in defense of others is not murder, the lying to save a life is not a lie.

Done and done.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 30, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

@Jake: And I repeat:

... how can lying to save your family be a greater sin than killing to save your family?

How could it be a sin at all?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 30, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Which is why I said that the much harder question was the one Dietrich Bonhoeffer took to his grave (he was, in fact, going to MURDER Hitler). If you don't know the difference between "justified homicide" and "murder" check with bearclaw1 sometime ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Lies. Deception. Karl Rove warned Republicans, but the Tea Party sided with Sarah Palin over Karl Rove. Now O'Donnell will bring down Whitman, Angle, and a variety of GOP hopefuls who could have won over moderates.

Thomas Chi
Author
Selling Sex with Sarah Palin

Posted by: thomaschiinc | September 30, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell really, truly planned to attend Princeton, Oxford, and Claremont Graduate University. But each time, when she was asked whether she was ready to matriculate, Christine the Chaste said "No, that's a sin."

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 30, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I still note that Greg Sargent hasn't denied posting the fake O'Donnell bio.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 30, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Kevin, thanks for your comments. I will be following Reagan's 11th Commandment personally.

schrodingerscat, are you still around?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 1, 2010 9:57 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