Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Christine O'Donnell is just...wow... [updated]

Christine O'Donnell is that person who thinks she can say things she doesn't really know as long as she does it without a hint of doubt. That person in high-school debate who manipulates her audience with stage presence and an inventive approach to fact.

The Delaware Republican Senate candidate debated her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons, live on CNN Wednesday, and I'm disgusted. It wasn't just her surprisingly aggressive and tellingly vague claims that Coons is a Boss Tweed-style cronyist, or her dismissive, mocking laughter during Coons's answers, or her frequent interruptions. No, what really upset me was the content -- if you can call it that -- of at least half a dozen of her answers. Here are just a few:

Moderator Wolf Blitzer asked O'Donnell about how she would cut federal spending -- with specifics beyond just saying she'd slash "waste, fraud and abuse." She talked about things such as canceling what hasn't been spent of the stimulus, halting federal hiring, freezing domestic discretionary spending -- that is, proposals that, realistically, don't get anywhere close to fixing the country's long-term fiscal outlook. But that's okay, because then she talked about cutting, uh, waste…fraud…and, um, abuse.

Her lack of a credible plan, though, didn't stop O'Donnell from attacking the Democrats on the deficit, making the wild claim that the deficit "is almost becoming equal to our national GDP." Alarming, if true. But, yeah, not at all, even remotely, even a little bit true. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the national debt could reach 90 percent of GDP by 2020. The deficit is something like 10 percent of GDP.

O'Donnell also claimed that not repealing the death tax is a tenet of Marxism. Huh?

I've read a lot of Marx. Lenin, too. (And in case I'm ever debating you, Christine, I'd like to point out that, no, this doesn't make me a Marxist -- I majored in Russian studies.) Frankly, it does their intellectual ambitions a disservice to imply that they didn't have rather more grandiose visions than adjusting the margins of modest tax laws affecting multi-million-dollar estates. Even their bankrupt social design deserves more credit than what conservatives such as O'Donnell give it these days. As if Marx would have cared about the details of a tax structure he would have considered fundamentally contrary to his political philosophy.

Either O'Donnell's astonishingly cynical, or she's really that oblivious. Whichever is the case, I think it's clear why CNN awkwardly broke away from the debate after less than an hour, instructing viewers to visit CNN.com if they'd like to continue watching that farce.

Update, 11:42 a.m.: On Facebook, Sasha Volokh encourages me to examine the nuances of my point about Marx:

"On Marxism and the death tax, see Ch. 2 of the Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm): '3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.' Of course, this was just advocated as one of the transitional measures 'which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.' But, still, M&E did advocate it as a reform which, 'in most advanced countries,...[would] be pretty generally applicable.'

"Obviously, pointing out that this was a measure advocated by Marx is fairly weak, since he also, in the same place, advocated free public education for children. And one can quibble over whether everything advocated by Marx, even as a transitional measure, is a 'tenet of Marxism;' I could see going both ways on this. Anyway, Marx did technically advocate it."

A fair point, as far as it goes. But there's a distinction -- not just in scale, but in kind -- between advocating for the abolition of all rights of inheritance and wanting to maintain an inheritance tax on a relatively small number of very large estates, the beneficiaries of which would still get quite a lot of money or property. It's hardly fair to call the latter anything close to a "tenet of Marxism" -- Marx wanted inheritance not to exist! And even that wasn't nearly sufficient for him! He would have found found America's inheritance tax policy fundamentally exploitative, because it allows heirs to inherit anything at all.

Even if you could argue that favoring a narrow inheritance tax is a Marxist tenet, using some very tenuous definition of "tenet," it's still inane name-calling to claim that advocating for one means a candidate has Marxist views. Marx's skepticism of inheritance isn't really what distinguishes his political philosophy from lots of other people's. If you believe O'Donnell, then the vast majority of Americans hold Marxist views of varying kinds. Fundamentally, Marx's was a much more radical critique of capitalism, and it's those views that O'Donnell wanted to associate, unfairly, with her opponent. Put another way, my mom believes that roads make it easier to move goods around. So did Idi Amin. Does this mean my mom is a cannibal?

By Stephen Stromberg  | October 13, 2010; 9:31 PM ET
Categories:  Stromberg  | Tags:  Stephen Stromberg  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: George Clooney yells 'fire!' about Sudan
Next: Valerie Jarrett is no Tony Perkins

Comments

While I'm not surprised by her style of "debate", I am still shocked that Christine O'Donnell is in the position to participate in a senate debate on a national news network. It's an embarrassing day, not only for Delaware but for all of the US, when someone that ignorant represents a piece of American politics.

Posted by: jenbaseball | October 13, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Stromberg, stick with posts on global warming, it's what you are best at.

Posted by: gmfletcher12 | October 13, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Coons is a less than desirable candidate, O'Donnell is dynamic.
Does it really matter what either one promises. They are only one vote out of 100. With no seniority.

The federal budge is what, 9000 pages? Easy to fix. Just randomly remove 1000 pages.

Robert Byrd is no longer with us, so we might get an honest page removal process. Nah!

Posted by: dcorley | October 13, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Coons came across as a condescending, arrogant, elitist, and with the help of the two absolutely worthless moderators, managed to avoid answering any controversial questions. If I heard the old "There just isn"t adequate time to answer that, Wolf (because I am so smart and use such big words one more time), I think that I would have had to hurl.

O'Donnell came across as an energetic, intelligent young woman who takes essentially mainstream conservative positions and is not afraid to articulate her positions. I also thought she was polite but firm about not spending a lot of time on rehashing her televison panel days.

I keep looking for what is is that liberals like Stromberg so despise O'Donnell for-it's like it has become a personal vendetta to bury this candidate!

She did a nice job, and Coons was truly awful. But, if CNN and its pollsters are right, it probably doesn't matter. Delaware will get what it deserves,one of the most out-of-touch liberal senators imaginable who will vote the party line and continue in Delaware's proud tradition of sending politicians to DC that contribute to the country's problems rather than work towards solving them.

Posted by: rhgibson | October 13, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

And did Blitzer challenge her on the deficit=GDP claim? No excuse if he didn't because anyone who is at all informed on the subject would know she was wrong.

Posted by: mxyzptlk1 | October 13, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

And, what prescriptions does Coons advocate for cutting the deficit? Y'think it might be raising taxes (on the rich, of course)? It - saying what one wishes to cut - is a losing proposition. It is the equivalent to "When did you stop beating your wife." EVERY sort of spending has a constituency, so every proposal loses one some segment of the community, so every politician says "waste, fraud and abuse."
Imagine the furor if she had said "eliminate the Department of Education" or "eliminate NASA" or "eliminate the Department of Agriculture" or "eliminate the DEA". The screams would reverberate around the world.

Posted by: danny70000 | October 13, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

So I guess Christine O'Donnell is the first politician to be vague about what she would cut. I have never heard a single politician ever state what he or she would cut in the federal budget sufficient to actually balance the budget. How will Chris Coons balance the budget? I might have been impressed if you had contrasted Coons' specificity to O'Donnell's evasions.

Your second point is that she misspoke and said deficit, when she meant debt. The point still stands. We have not had a national debt approaching 100 percent of GDP since the World War II. If the debt has ever been a risk to our country's viability in our lifetimes, it is now. If you plan to condemn people for mispeaking, then let's note that President Obama thinks there is an Austrian language and there are 52 states.

Finally, while Marx would not have wanted to tinker with tax codes, one Marxist strategy for achieving their ends was to move toward Communist "utopia" by incrementally eliminating private property. Marx certainly wanted to eliminate inheritance of wealth, and one way to eliminate inheritance is for the incrementally increase the taxes on it. O'Donnell is arguing that Marx wanted to destroy inheritance and taxing it at confiscatory rates is a step in that direction.

If you are really concerned about a politician out of his depth and untethered to reality, you might consider a certain chief executive who has this fantasy about the Chamber of Commerce using secret foreign money to corrupt our elections.

Posted by: chazmull | October 14, 2010 12:02 AM | Report abuse

So I guess Christine O'Donnell is the first politician to be vague about what she would cut. I have never heard a single politician ever state what he or she would cut in the federal budget sufficient to actually balance the budget. How will Chris Coons balance the budget? I might have been impressed if you had contrasted Coons' specificity to O'Donnell's evasions.

Your second point is that she misspoke and said deficit, when she meant debt. The point still stands. We have not had a national debt approaching 100 percent of GDP since the World War II. If the debt has ever been a risk to our country's viability in our lifetimes, it is now. If you plan to condemn people for mispeaking, then let's note that President Obama thinks there is an Austrian language and there are 52 states.

Finally, while Marx would not have wanted to tinker with tax codes, one Marxist strategy for achieving their ends was to move toward Communist "utopia" by incrementally eliminating private property. Marx certainly wanted to eliminate inheritance of wealth, and one way to eliminate inheritance is for the incrementally increase the taxes on it. O'Donnell is arguing that Marx wanted to destroy inheritance and taxing it at confiscatory rates is a step in that direction.

If you are really concerned about a politician out of his depth and untethered to reality, you might consider a certain chief executive who has this fantasy about the Chamber of Commerce using secret foreign money to corrupt our elections.

Posted by: chazmull | October 14, 2010 12:02 AM | Report abuse

That's the problem with uneducated life forms like the tea partiers, they don't distinguish politeness from gutlessness and rudeness from gutsiness..... not to talk about ignorance for decisiveness and thoughtfulness for indecisiveness....
but maybe I'm using too many words for you....

Posted by: biglio | October 14, 2010 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Stromberg, stick with posts on global warming, it's what you are best at. Posted by: gmfletcher12 | October 13, 2010 10:08 PM _________________________________________________________

Looks like someone else like Christine O'Donnell who still needs to (a) evolve and (b) needs an education.

Posted by: chris30338 | October 14, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

must have her whole staff commenting here. RHGIBSON and CHAZMULL ought to make it just a tad less obvious.

Posted by: summicron1 | October 14, 2010 12:52 AM | Report abuse

You gotta love the Republican/Tea Party talk about tax cuts for the rich when it's a proven fact that its Middle & Lower Middle Class spending that drives this country's economy because it gets SPENT which produces jobs. Every economist agrees on that fact! Where do most tax cuts for the rich go? Into savings, investments, property........none of which produce many jobs. (NOTE: Most of the folks arguing for tax cuts on the rich are RICH or idiots!!!)

Marginal income tax rates on the rich from 1950 to 1963 stood at 91%. They averaged about 74% from 1964 to 1970. In the 1970's to 1980 they averaged 70%.

Note that our debt started spiraling from the 1980s. Why? Tax cuts, especially on the rich which resulted in an income gap between rich and poor that is not equaled unless we go back to the Great Depression. Our country's infrastructure is crumbling and we are also falling rapidly behind in education. About education....who are we losing out to? China, India, Finland, Norway, Japan, etc. Their governments invest heavily in it. Very "socialist" of them, right? All these countries also offer some form of "socialized" medicine and "socialized" childcare. Wow, they must be doing something right, ya think???

And all the Republican Party /Tea Party want to do is cut more services, repeal any kind of controls and regulations on health insurance (and everything else) and cut education/childcare spending even further (or even eliminate it altogether). Wow! When we see countries that are getting it right, why are we not emulating them instead of doing the complete opposite???

When in a hole, see how your neighbors got out of their hole instead of blindly digging further down. Easy enough to understand but commonsense is obviously a rare commodity in the Republican / Tea Party.

Posted by: chris30338 | October 14, 2010 12:57 AM | Report abuse

It is alarmingly hilarious to hear these ignorant teabaggers who just can't see past their hatred for Obama - that they will grasp at straws to support their community college, below average intelligence, evolution denying brethren fool of a candidate. My god people stop the inbreeding!!! So she has nice boobs and is cute! So is Snooki – I’m sure if she ran on your platform you’d be defending her just as energetically.

Stop making my country a laughing stock! Go to school, read a frickn book! Put down the Schlitz and just do anything that involves thinking and you may just see the light yet. Or, you may just hate all black people and liberals and in that case then you can just turn that 12 gauge on yourself and raise the collective IQ of this once great nation.

Posted by: ahchad | October 14, 2010 12:59 AM | Report abuse

I do not understand why people are criticizing O'Donnell who seems to be quite reserved and capable of speaking honestly comparing to her opponent. It is the typical liberal left media who cannot be honest to the public. She seems to be genuinely sincere to the people and will do better job in DC then her opponent. It is time for the Delaware establishment to open up to her rather then being manipulated by the liberal media.

Posted by: chaemoondriver | October 14, 2010 1:04 AM | Report abuse

I feel sorry for Delawarians.

They have a choice between a Marxist and O'Donnell.

Posted by: Benson | October 14, 2010 1:11 AM | Report abuse

Oh ya the liberal media and all of their "witchcraft" and "evolution isn't real"....ya, that liberal media really out to get such a poor educated young woman who has repeatedly lied about where she went to school and misused campaign funds. Are you frickn serious? SHE DOES NOT HAVE A DEGREE!!! Do you get that?? Chaemoondriver - are you truly that big of a moron? Or do you just play one on the message moard? Bring it on pal!! Cite a liberal media bias example with her? Something she did not do or say that they are claiming? Come on brotha? Otherwise go the fk away!

Posted by: ahchad | October 14, 2010 1:17 AM | Report abuse

Oh ya the liberal media and all of their "witchcraft" and "evolution isn't real"....ya, that liberal media really out to get such a poor educated young woman who has repeatedly lied about where she went to school and misused campaign funds. Are you frickn serious? SHE DOES NOT HAVE A DEGREE!!! Do you get that?? Chaemoondriver - are you truly that big of a moron? Or do you just play one on the message moard? Bring it on pal!! Cite a liberal media bias example with her? Something she did not do or say that they are claiming? Come on brotha? Otherwise go the fk away!

Posted by: ahchad | October 14, 2010 1:17 AM
_______________________________________________________

Exactly! Everything that the "liberal" media has pointed out has come out of Christine O'Donnell's mouth herself. These guys blamed the "liberal" media when Sarah Palin couldn't name a single newspaper that she read! You can't hide ignorance.........

Posted by: chris30338 | October 14, 2010 1:26 AM | Report abuse

I do not understand why people are criticizing O'Donnell who seems to be quite reserved and capable of speaking honestly comparing to her opponent. It is the typical liberal left media who cannot be honest to the public. She seems to be genuinely sincere to the people and will do better job in DC then her opponent. It is time for the Delaware establishment to open up to her rather then being manipulated by the liberal media.

Posted by: chaemoondriver | October 14, 2010 1:04 AM |
_____________________________________________________________

The homeless guy around the corner from me seems sincere too. But would he do well in the Senate? NO. " It is the typical liberal left media who cannot be honest to the public". EXCUSE ME???

Point me one thing "typical liberal left media" has said about O'Donnell that has been untrue? One thing? Heck, during the debate she couldn't even name one recent Supreme Court ruling she objects to although she claims she objects to more than a few. All this talk about witchcraft, mast****tion, evolution (why aren't monkey's evolving in front of our eyes? LMAO), her taxes, income, education, etc are all stuff SHE HERSELF has talked about and drawn attention to. Did someone put a gun to her head to force her to say all these things???

So give one example of where the "typical liberal left media" has not been honest about Christine O'Donnell or lied about her claim??? I won't hold my breath.


Posted by: chris30338 | October 14, 2010 1:37 AM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell is Sarah Palin. Seriously... ever seen them together?

Posted by: savalou | October 14, 2010 1:45 AM | Report abuse

Delaware's voters have rejected Christine O'Donnell twice before. By enormous margins.

She has given the people who rejected her previously not a single reason why they should change their minds about her.

Indeed, she has confirmed their prior wisdom.

As the Delaware state Republican Party chairman said, "She is unelectable."

Posted by: WhateverHeSaid | October 14, 2010 1:57 AM | Report abuse

The Witch vs the Witch Hunter

Welcome to the Salem Witch Trial, the great Delaware Inquisition.

Coons the witch hunter and Democrat witch hunters are following the great feats of their English, Spanish and Salem predecessors who had burnt the witches Joan of Arc and the Salem gals. Coons the witch hunter is sending all these Delaware witches to the death panel of Obama, the chief witch hunter.

Washsinton Post is following the great footsteps of their English, Spanish and Salem lamestream media predecessors in sending a message to all political dissidents who dared to oppose Obama the Witch Hunter : "We'll label and mock you as witches, then we'll burn you."

Iranians and Talebans witch hunters, please attention and learn some new tricks from Obama the Witch Hunter so that they know how to deal with their witches.

Posted by: skponggol | October 14, 2010 2:02 AM | Report abuse

Christine is just a Sarah Palin- lite. Just a little Sarah mini-me. She seems to be a little nastier, though.

Posted by: lcrider1 | October 14, 2010 2:18 AM | Report abuse

Why have debates there is only one five word question that Republicans and the Tea Party care about.

Will you oppose raising taxes?

Posted by: cautious | October 14, 2010 4:01 AM | Report abuse

If you are a serious investor interested in business and finance then you should check Investor's Business Daily http://bit.ly/aHFAp3

Posted by: donnaadamo | October 14, 2010 4:07 AM | Report abuse

I watched the debate. I am a moderate to conservative Republican. I have to say O'Donnell absolutely made me cringe. While Coons is a liberal tax and spend Democrat, I would nevertheless be highly uncomfortable voting for a woman unfit not just for the Senate, but a local school board or even a job mowing lawns for parks and rec.

Yes, I understand the local Delaware Tea Party's argument - she is just so cute and spunky and will vote however Jim Demint tells her to vote. And not nominating Mike Castle "sent a message" to those who only vote Republican 90% of the time.

Pity they basically will end up sending a guy to the Senate likely to vote on the Republican leadership's/ Tea Party side of bills Zero% of the time. Wouldn't want to be a Delaware Tea Party official at a national meeting. Probably try saying they hail from one of the Dakotas...but when pinned down to Delaware, other Tea Party people will accept them but presume they need to talk extra slooowly to them.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | October 14, 2010 4:18 AM | Report abuse

She should know that the next senator from Delaware won't be in a "lame duck session."

And she should know that she won't be a "congressman" if she wins but a senator.

Oh my God. She has NEVER been elected to ANYTHING, people!

Posted by: MadamDeb | October 14, 2010 4:19 AM | Report abuse

Chris Coons shows that he is a complete ignorant, intellectually incompetent when he often stated "there's just too much to respond to" during the debate.

"Can you believe I have to actually have to respond to this woman? She's beneath me, after all."

Again, Chris Coon exposes himself to be an arrogant male chauvinst looking down upon common Delaware electorate who are beneath him after all.

Posted by: skponggol | October 14, 2010 4:38 AM | Report abuse

What's more amazing than this woman being allowed to debate on CNN is the fact that there are people actually defending her!

Posted by: tristesse27 | October 14, 2010 5:20 AM | Report abuse

O'donnell charming but factually incorrect.


From the WSJ

"WASHINGTON—The federal government recorded a budget deficit of just slightly less than $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2010, the second-worst mark since 1945, the Congressional Budget Office said Thursday.

The congressional scorekeeper said the total deficit recorded in the just completed fiscal year was only $125 billion less than the record high of $1.4 trillion set in fiscal 2009.

The federal government's fiscal year ends on Sept. 30.
The deficit in fiscal 2010 was equal to 8.9% of U.S. gross domestic product.."

That' right 8.9%. Less than the near 100% O'donnel, I commend Stromberg for raising this issue.

Also there are more troops and more border arrest now than during the Bush years.
Remeber it was Reagan that granted amnesty.

Posted by: uniteusnow | October 14, 2010 5:40 AM | Report abuse

Have you seen the the U.S. Dollar lately? Hint, on a graph it's pathway is from upper left to lower right. Christine O'Donnell represents another vote against debt creation, crony bailouts and sweetheart deals. Seen the sweet story of Barney Frank taking a private flight on a billionaire hedge fund owner's jet? Seems the flight was to said billionaires Virgin Island home and said billionaire got a 200 plus million dollar pass though AIG bailout courtesy of guess who? If you guessed Barney Frank, you would get a bingo. Christine O'Donnell represents a candidate who won't be endorsed by either the NYT's or Washington Post. and in case you don't get it that is a positive. Christine O'Donnell represents a vote to investigate why military members are having their votes disenfranchised in Illinois and NY State. Christine O'Donnell represents a vote to investigate Eric Holder's Justice Department and Joe Seatakgate. So Mr. Stromberg, the next time you see the price of gold rising and the purchasing power of the dollar declining think of debt levels the rest of the world knows America is going to default on most likely by inflating the currency. So as George Soros benefits from hundreds of millions in gold holdings the average American will be paing $5.00 a gallon for gas and double the grocery bill. Christine O'Donnell represents another vote against Nancy, Barney, Harry, and Barack.

Posted by: pauldia | October 14, 2010 5:45 AM | Report abuse

The GOP's foreign masters require puppets.

Posted by: walker1 | October 14, 2010 6:07 AM | Report abuse

Nobody is going to mistake O'Donnell for Eleanor Roosevelt, but nobody can mistake Chris Coons for Winston Churchill either. O'Donnell comes across as a little bit goofy, rough edged, but likable. Coons on the other hand comes across as a total scum bag, a condescending jerk, a smug know-it-all who will fit in perfectly with the arrogance of the Obama White House. O'Donnell is an easy target because of the nutty things she said on TV over ten years ago. But is that any different from Coons boasting in college that he was a follower of Karl Marx? It's not, and the media should cut O'Donnell some slack. It is probably a good idea if O'Donnell wins in November, if, for no other reason, than to drive a truck up the liberal elitist establishment's back end.

Posted by: nobleone | October 14, 2010 6:09 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin's younger, dumber sister.

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | October 14, 2010 6:28 AM | Report abuse

I do not understand why people are criticizing O'Donnell who seems to be quite reserved and capable of speaking honestly comparing to her opponent. It is the typical liberal left media who cannot be honest to the public. She seems to be genuinely sincere to the people and will do better job in DC then her opponent. It is time for the Delaware establishment to open up to her rather then being manipulated by the liberal media.

Posted by: chaemoondriver |

Chae...you can now collect your $50 blog posting fee from the ODonnell campaign. And take a shower--we all know how dirty you must feel now.

Posted by: opinionatedinfairfax | October 14, 2010 6:28 AM | Report abuse

To defend O'Donnell is to be as clueless and out of touch with reality as you can possibly be. The conservatives and tea party members have no plan other than to discredit the current administration, which while certainly not blameless has inherited a monumental mess and is trying to against difficult odds and zero help from the right to come up with answers.

Posted by: Denny_98 | October 14, 2010 6:43 AM | Report abuse

Really how daft is the Delaware GOP when they allowed the Tea Party Express to choose Christine O'Donnell over Mike Castle. The Tea Party Express snatched defeat from the hands of victory.

Posted by: waxtraxs | October 14, 2010 6:43 AM | Report abuse

O'Donnell, recommended by....... you betcha....Sarah Palin.
So, why would there be the slightest surprise that she, like
Sarah is a complete idiot!

If this comment offends, I'm sorry for you.

Posted by: wisacriminal | October 14, 2010 7:22 AM | Report abuse

great suggestion dcorley:
"The federal budge is what, 9000 pages? Easy to fix. Just randomly remove 1000 pages."

Oops! that was the entire budget for the armed services and highways.

Oh well, next year we'll have a national defence. Maybe next year the 1000 pages will be for some other useless programs like NASA or Social Security or USDA.

Is random thinking and budget by lottery the new Republican proposal? CB

Posted by: chrisbrown12 | October 14, 2010 8:03 AM | Report abuse

great suggestion dcorley:
"The federal budge is what, 9000 pages? Easy to fix. Just randomly remove 1000 pages."

Oops! that was the entire budget for the armed services and highways.

Oh well, next year we'll have a national defence. Maybe next year the 1000 pages will be for some other useless programs like NASA or Social Security or USDA.

Is random thinking and budget by lottery the new Republican proposal? CB

Posted by: chrisbrown12 | October 14, 2010 8:04 AM | Report abuse

Liberals are the last to challenge intellect. I remember a liberal congressmen thinking an island would tip over if too many people went to one side. Biden isn't the brightest bulb in the box either.

The sad fact is most of our leaders are selfish and without a clue if you really challenge them on details.

All O'Donnell needs to do to be superior to any liberal candidate is to say "NO" to spending and increased Gov't involvement in our lives. Anything after that is just icing on the cake.

Posted by: asdf9876 | October 14, 2010 8:07 AM | Report abuse

The U.S gross debt to GDP ratio is 93 %. If you believe that the money owed to social security in bonds will not be paid back the ratio drops to 63%. Therefore, Odonnel was correct. If you are refering to the yearly deficit which is 1.3 trillion then it is about 10% of GDP. Please look at the U.S. debt clock for the numbers.

Posted by: jham1 | October 14, 2010 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Whether she wins or loses the election,I think that Christine O'Donnell be named the new titular head of the Tea Party.

I have always considered myself a loyal Palinite, but even I have to admit that Sarah has lost a lot of her zip since she went throught the change. Christine is younger, prettier, and every bit as smart.

Posted by: jake555 | October 14, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

The most troubling aspect of O'Donnell is that she does not know how to behave like a grown-up. Eye-rolling and smirking can only get you so far. Sarah Palin is in the same boat. It's very easy to be the opponent and criticize everything with a strong dose of sarcasm and sass. But these qualities are not leadership qualities, and thus should disqualify O'Donnell -- and Palin for that matter -- as being considered for serious positions in government.

Posted by: motogp46 | October 14, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

What a dumb c**t.

If DE actually elects this broad we're doomed. Like Sista Sarah she's an ignorant know-nothing and proud of it.

Posted by: dcp26851 | October 14, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

You idiots still don't get it. ANYTHING would be better than more of the same legislature that we've had for the last four years...ANYTHING. Coons is same-ole, same-ole: more spending money we don't have, more debt we can't afford, more printing money to cover checks we can't cash. Pro-big government smart guys got us into this mess. What does it matter if Coons is whip smart...so were those other guys right? Time for somebody with just a little common sense. No whip-smart Democrat possesses that because you can't argue with the track record...and the track record is heinous. All Democrats out in 2010...all of them. I'd vote for a fire hydrant before I'd vote for a Democrat.

Posted by: PanhandleWilly | October 14, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

@chaemoondriver .... your love for O'D's being "quite reserved and capable of speaking honestly" reminds me of a professor's description of the mental state required for certain parts of the Uniform Commercial Code -- "a pure heart and an empty head."

O'Donnell personifies the empty head --- I leave it to you to judge her heart, IMO she's a delusional and manipulative dimwit.

Posted by: fendertweed | October 14, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell.

Michelle Bachmann.

Sarah Palin.

Rand Paul.

Joe Miller.

Carl Paladino.

This is the best the Republican Party has to offer.

Pathetic.

Posted by: trippin | October 14, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

"Liberals are the last to challenge intellect. I remember a liberal congressmen thinking an island would tip over if too many people went to one side."

That is perhaps the dumbest reason to justify the support of yet another stupid person that I've heard my entire life: "Don't criticize my right wing extremist dummy because I remember seeing a dummy who wasn't a right wing extremist."

This is undoubtedly the product of a mouse with a human brain.

Posted by: trippin | October 14, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

I saw portions of the debate this morning. Chris Coons was very condenscending and disrespectful towards his opponent. It really shouldn't matter how you feel about your opponent; you should still show the proper deference and respect anyhow.

Posted by: forgetthis | October 14, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Rich people save which gives more money for banks to lend to companies to hire. Rich people invest which gives companies more money to hire. Rich people buy property which will raise the value of homes and put the contruction industry to work. EVERYONE needs to have their taxes remain the same for at least two years in order to truly be free from this recession.

What I'd worry about are the democrats talking so much about helping the middle class that they also forget about the poor which includes those that are unemployed. The best way to help the poor is to create a job for them to become a part of the middle class.

Posted by: phatter1 | October 14, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Nobleone said:
"But is that any different from Coons boasting in college that he was a follower of Karl Marx?"

Of course, Coons never boasted being a follower of Karl Marx. But don't let facts get in the way of a good Red Scare tactic.
--------------------------------------
Chazmullp said:
"Marx certainly wanted to eliminate inheritance of wealth, and one way to eliminate inheritance is for the incrementally increase the taxes on it. O'Donnell is arguing that Marx wanted to destroy inheritance and taxing it at confiscatory rates is a step in that direction."

By that twisted and tortured logic (if you can call it that) anyone who has ever raised taxes or suggested it, is a Marxist. Unfortunately, this sort of argument is now completely accepted. It's essentially the same as the following: Obama has two legs...You know who else had two legs? Hitler....now I'm not saying Obama is Hitler. I'm just saying the two had some similarities. It's simply mind boggling that people can make these sort of arguments.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 14, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

I hope the republicans win. This country needs to hit rock bottom before it admits it has a problem.

Voting GOP will hasten that realization.

Posted by: Please_Fix_VAs_Roads | October 14, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

That's what I love about the LEFT. They're so GODD*MN STUPID.
You have a MARXIST, Islam Loving, White Hating, Jew Hating, America Hating, Narcissistic, In Over His Head, ex Coke Head Street Hustler as your President. And the Stupidest guy on the Planet, as your Veep. And you've got the NERVE to call other people names?
The JACK*SS symbol for this Party, is certainly well deserved.

Posted by: GoomyGommy | October 14, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Way to go chris30338 you put it in a nutshell and it brings to mind the old quote from Churchill "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities." phatter1 reread chris3033 comment and rethink what you wrote. Whats wrong with people today can't we look at the history and FACTS and use some common sense to figure out that things are getting worst in this country not because of higher taxes but because the rich are owning disproportionally more of the pie and if the trend continues we will look more and more like a third world nation with two classes of people the rich and the poor.

Posted by: jvesely | October 14, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

"Rich people save which gives more money for banks to lend to companies to hire. Rich people invest which gives companies more money to hire. Rich people buy property which will raise the value of homes and put the contruction industry to work."

That must explain all the job creation and wage increases we've experienced since the Bush tax cuts were enacted. Was the lack of job creation and lack of wage increases following the Bush tax cut simply the exception to the "rule" you cite above?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 14, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

How anyone with an open mind and a modicum of intelligence can claim that O'Donnell is "smart" or "intelligent" or defend her as some rising star savior is concerning. Those who see her in such light come across as salves to dogma.

Her ignorance is encyclopedic. Her less than tactful interruptions and childish facial expressions belie her own cluelessness.

Everyday that I read, see or hear what comes out of the mouths of these clowns has me laughing, then embarrassed for our country and then concerned for our country.

If our our country truly has a population that not only buys into such willful ignorance, dogma and alienated sensibilities, we are in serious trouble as a society, world power and thought leader

Posted by: erthdog | October 14, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

When I was a kid our preacher sincerely told his congregation that dinosaurs were a hoax and the earth is only 6,000 years old. I believed him. He was our pastor, my parents believed him, so it must be true.

When I got older I realized he was nuts, but the congregation believed him because they wanted to believe. With just a little bit of work on their part they woud have know it was not true.

I see the same thing going on with the right. O'Donnell is counting on three things: the voters are not very knowledgeable about government, that they want to believe the worst about the Democrats, and that they are willing to let her lie as long as it reinforces their dislike of smarty-pants, lefty, college-educated, elites.

Basically a lot of voters are sick and tired of having politicians and the "lefty media" point out that their myths are stupid, untrue, and even dangerous (e.g., "global warming is a hoax"). They will vote for anyone who tells them their myths and fairy tales are right and that the educated experts are wrong.

Posted by: Trakker | October 14, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

"She talked about things such as canceling what hasn't been spent of the stimulus, halting federal hiring, freezing domestic discretionary spending "

I think O'Donnell is a complete flake, but does Coons object to any of these proposals? No, by themselves they will not rectify our situation, but each provides non-theoretical reductions in in deficits and debt, and they do no harm to anyone.

Posted by: NNevada | October 14, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

WOW. That this lame brain is even running for the Senate stuns me. What ARE the people of DE thinking??? Just when you think there can't possibly be a dumber, ditzier half wit than Palin, here comes O'Donnell. What is more alarming is that people are equally or more stupid in that they actually vote for her. Wow, again. What swamp was she dredged up from?

Posted by: mooncusser | October 14, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Right on Trakker!!

Posted by: jvesely | October 14, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Boy these media pundants really go after these white women types. Remember when the media popped a roid when a man stood to close to hillary clinton during a debate.It seems the republican women have forced real equality into the male dominated pit of media.Now thats the kind of equality we desire not mandated by law but by respect.

Posted by: jmounday | October 14, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

love the arrogant condescending conservatives on here. So O'Donnell's backwards thinking is just "nutty" or "eccentric?"

She's a theocrat with no deductive reasoning skills, a liar, a tax cheat, and a dismissive sarcastic b|tch.

When you red-stater pickup truckers go to the doctor, do you demand that the doc NOT have a medical degree because you don't want some uppity "elitist?"

You t-baggers are so full of sh|t you squeak going into a turn.

Posted by: Please_Fix_VAs_Roads | October 14, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

We all love her; dontcha know.

Posted by: bilmul83 | October 14, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Dear chris30338: You are probably too young to remember this, but our nation was in a "national malaise" in the 70s. Those 80s tax cuts helped generate economic activity and significantly raise revenue. The problem of the rich getting richer happened during the Clinton years as well. None of it was perfect, but it was a lot better than it is now. And that's the point, government can never achieve perfection, the best it can do is manage not to screw things up too badly. That said, Christine O'Donnell is a mistake borne out of anger at spending. Too bad.

Posted by: longbow1 | October 14, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Your first sentence is the definition of Obama and add a teleprompter

Posted by: john1513 | October 14, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure O'Donnell has no idea what the difference between "debt" & "deficit" is, just like most teabaggers seem to have no clue what the difference between "Socialism", "Stalinism", "Communism" and "Marxism" are. They are just big words to be tossed around as insults.

In the 17 years it to her to finally get her BA from Fairly Ridiculous University in English Lit and Communications (the same degree as Sarah Palin), I'm sure she has never taken a course in economics, accounting, international relations or a history course beyond the bare minimum GE requirements. She has no experience for the challenges of governing a nation and is clearly completely unqualified for the US Senate.

When contrasted with Michael Castle, who has a BS in economics, a JD from Georgetown, served as a US attorney, served as Governor of the State and is currently the at-large representative, it's amazing that DE Republicans chose a vapid, giggly middle aged school girl over a man of deep substance and experience.

Republicans don't deserve to govern the US if she represents their ideal of qualifications. As they say in Texas, this woman is all hat and no cattle.

Posted by: AxelDC | October 14, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Seems we have another ignorant pretty face trying her best to capitalize on the American public's shallowness.

Posted by: aorj | October 14, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

"it's amazing that DE Republicans chose a vapid, giggly middle aged school girl over a man of deep substance and experience."

Yeah except...it's the men of deep substance and experience that have brought us to the brink of ruin...so it's amazing to me that anyone still trusts the men of deep substance and experience to be county dog-catchers.

Posted by: PanhandleWilly | October 14, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

There is something seriously wrong with any political party that would put her any where near a senate seat. All this talk about patriotism and they torpedo the country.

Posted by: SarahBB | October 14, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

It is impossible not to see some of the candidates the GOP is putting forward these days, O'Donnell being just one example of many, and not experience a sense of fear for the future of our republic growing in one's gut.

Posted by: tunkefer | October 14, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

There are so many well informed, educated voters in the Great State of Delaware, I am sure they were truly dismayed by the hideous performance of Ms. O'Donnell...or rather, she, like water, "seeks its own level"...hers is very low (in the intellectural thought arena).

Posted by: fairness3 | October 14, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

You keep focusing on O'Donnell. Is this on purpose so we will ignore Coons. Now, Coons is a flat lunatic. Watching this self absorbed, clueless hick on CNN last night was enlightening. A voter so dense as to support for this clodhopper would need intellectual training wheels - a radish would do a better job of governing. The real question should be "how did we end up here, with a choice between these two cripples?". O'Donnell has her faults, but she isn't a crook and Coons seems to want to flaunt that part of his resume. At least a vote for O'Donnell sends a message that we wont tolerate cockroaches like Coons any longer.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 14, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

I had to turn off the debate 30 minutes into it....O'Donnell is enough to make any thinking person puke. She is a ditz, an Oh My God genuine ignorant know-nothing. She is, like Sarah Palin, only in it for the money. Her questionable financial situation, her lies about her education, her complete lack of experience relevant to the position she is seeking, makes her totally unsuited to be a United States Senator.

The fact that there are people who support her, despite her performance last night, makes me despair for the future of our country. People like O'Donnell and her supporters are more dangerous to our freedom and democracy than any group of foreign terrorists.

Posted by: Chagasman | October 14, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

I'd vote that O'Donnell is more oblivious than cynical. She seems like a pretty well intentioned idiot.

Posted by: JPRS | October 14, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

O'Donnell's charisma does not equal education or intelligence. I'm sure she's quite bright, but she is remarkably like Sarah Palin and if she has intelligence, she doesn't display it. She's a charming, dynamic personality with a pretty face. Great if you're a spokesperson for a product, not if you want to run for US Senate.

Posted by: SW6Blues | October 14, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Would it be too mean to say that I like her moustache?

Posted by: nyskinsdiehard | October 14, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark: Please elucidate the rest of us by listing all the jobs that were created when Bush cut taxes for his friends. Here in the rustbelt we must have missed that little burst of prosperity.

Posted by: elkofan | October 14, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

"All hat and no cattle"... that may be the best description of this O'Donnell dimwit (and her patron saint, Palin) I've heard! Thanks for that.

Posted by: Orsalia | October 14, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Thanks a lot Sarah Palin, for ruining the Republican chances in Delaware. Now, go away!

Posted by: impeachemall | October 14, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Big deal, Stromberg, you majored in Russian studies. Paul Krugman is Nobel Prize winning economist and look at the garbage he has been spewing!!!

Posted by: Veridico | October 14, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark: Please elucidate the rest of us by listing all the jobs that were created when Bush cut taxes for his friends. Here in the rustbelt we must have missed that little burst of prosperity.

Posted by: elkofan
___________________________________________

You misread my post. I was disputing the other poster's claim that tax cuts for the rich trickle down to the middle class and poor. Bush's tax cuts didn't create jobs and didn't lead to higher wages. They did lead to economic growth, but a rather small portion of our country benefited from that growth.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 14, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Wow..the level of discourse in these comments is pretty low. I will say that the commentator is the pathetic one when he attacked her on not specifying which budget cuts she would vote for. Name me one who will?! That is the enduring irony of our nation, we seem to give endless lip-service to cutting spending but NO ONE (both parties) will step and make the cuts that actually matter...entitlements, entitlements, entitlements. The fact is this woman might be ditzy enough to actually break the mold of perpetual spending increases in Washington DC and people are actually desperate enough to consider her for that reason alone. The 'business as usual' status quo must be utterly changed or we will continue our inexorable descent into bankruptcy.

Posted by: dsmflood_guy | October 14, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Here's the irony:

O'Donnell, the penniless deadbeat, is against estate taxes.

Coons, who has wealth (W.L.Gore), isn't.

It costs O'Donnell nothing to take her position.

She's simply a mindless blatherer -- a Sarah Palin mini-me, trying to feed at the public trough.

Posted by: WhateverHeSaid | October 14, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

I watched.

She said she opposed BIG Government, Obamacare, and taxes like well MOST Americans ! She said she supports charter schools and empowering teachers NOT bureacrats !

Coons said he supports Teacher Unions and Obamacare unlike MOST Americans and even MOST House Dems running for re-election as Christine pointed out.

Christine may well be the 51st Senator.. the needed and necessary 51st vote to STOP Obama's agenda.

She'll get my vote for sure !

Posted by: pvilso24 | October 14, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Ha Ha Ha! This O`Donnell girl is a freaking joke!!!!!

Posted by: wts1574 | October 14, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Big deal, Stromberg, you majored in Russian studies. Paul Krugman is Nobel Prize winning economist and look at the garbage he has been spewing!!!

Posted by: Veridico

_______________________________________

Krugman is also a professor at Princeton and a best-selling author.

And you, Festus, what do you do?

Posted by: WhateverHeSaid | October 14, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

O'Donnell isn't there to woo the ignorant, angry red state middle class with facts and logic. They don't respond to facts and logic. And one need only turn on Glenn Beck to see what they do respond to.

O'Donnell is there to bamboozle these simple folk with stage presence and canned code words that they've been conditioned to listen for, e.g., "Marxist", "Muslim", "Liberal", etc.

And if O'Donnell pulls off a long shot win, then the GOP gets a Senator. But if O'Donnell loses, the GOP still wins. In this case the GOP gets an effective new rube fooler with which to manipulate the simpletons in the south and mid-west.

Posted by: Miss_Fedelm | October 14, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

"it's the men of deep substance and experience that have brought us to the brink of ruin.."

-------

yeah, men of deep substance and experience like George W. Bush. Gotta love these republicans--they fell for Bush's hokey, regular guy, down-to-earth, one-of-us, common sense, ah-shucks con, and now their lining up to repeat their mistakes.

And "brink of ruin"--really? Is that because unemployment is 4-5% higher than normal or because the economy is growing a two percent more slowly than we would hope?

It took ten years and a world war to recover from the great depression. And it's going to take more than two years to recover from the great recession that Bush left behind. But, get a grip, the sky isn't falling.

(Yeah, there are some serious problems with the budget, but they didn't just appear in the last 2-4 years, and they won't be solved by sending people to congress just because we like the way they look or talk or because they are "one of us".)

Posted by: writinron | October 14, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Gee, where do you think she gets that technique from? I'll give you a hint:
wink wink.

Posted by: fmjk | October 14, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Look at Christine O'Donnell and see a person willing to sell our freedom to the first group that promised her a little fame and celebrity.

Posted by: 1EgoNemo | October 14, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Sarah the Quitter and Christine the Witch, 2012.

Two sides of the same coin.

Posted by: HillRat | October 14, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

First, the Republican party did not put O'Donnell "forward," as one commenter suggested. The party cringed. Go back and read Krauthammer's piece in this newspaper in which he warned of these developments.

Second, Coons was arrogant, disrespectful, and condescending. I watched the debate on C-SPAN in its entirety. Yet, O'Donnell did not help herself with her own brand of ignorant rudeness as exemplified in eye-rolls and interruptions.

Third, yes, O'Donnell misspoke on several occasions and revealed a lack of depth about several issues. Stromberg is spot one about this. However, one commentor's point about Obama, "note that President Obama thinks there is an Austrian language and there are 52 states," is valid as well. Worse, in some respects, was his repeated mistake using the word CORPSMEN. Remember that one? It appears that Columbia and Harvard do not guarantee no mispeak from graduates. That was as ridiculous as anything O'Donnell did or did not say. I mention it only in the interests of fairness. Neither side holds all the truth - ever.

Fourth, O'Donnell is categorically unqualified to be a United States Senator. Period. That continues to be more than a little obvious.

Fifth, the smug arrogance of candidates like Coons are a turn-off to both educated and uneducated voters alike (at least to open-minded voters).

Sixth, as is typical in these debates, some of the questions by Blitzer (or Brokaw in California's Brown-Whitman debate) are couched in simplistic terms when clearly complex answers are necessary (a nod to Coons here).

Seventh, for what it is worth - all of the above from a conservative Republican who actually, on the whole, engages brain, reads, analyzes, and votes based upon the issues, matching issues to the best candidates available. The sad truth, however, is that if I were a Delaware resident and believed in intellect and experience - I simply could not bring myself to vote for EITHER candidate. Something that is probably nearer the reality of our current politics in many parts of the country.

Posted by: jay_thompson | October 14, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

You are a hatchet man. pure!

Posted by: Shabahang | October 14, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell came across informed and sincerely dedicated to her constituents. Coons, on the other hand, was offering nothing more than his record, (more taxes, more taxes, more taxes!) rather than answering questions relevant to the election. No doubt riding the coat-tails of Obama and Pelosi doesn't give him much more to offer that would appeal to Delaware voters.
The most annoying part of the debate was his arrogance and condescending attitude to O'Donnell, starting almost every answer with a unnecessarily derogatory comment on what she had just asked him or argued. He gave a distinct impression of being very disrespectful of women. He gave NO impression of 'character,' which is something voters are finally demanding this mid-term election.
I'll take a witch over a Marxist any day!

Posted by: EMMAWHITESTONE | October 14, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

OK, so I don't live in Delaware, but I'm within walking distance of the state line, so I'm sort of interested. For those of you in DE who are despairing that your choice this year is between Sarah Palin Lite and Mr. Dull/Possibly Marxist, you do have another option.

http://www.jimrash.com/

Posted by: bucinka8 | October 14, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Conservatives will vote for anyone, no matter how stupid, as long as they can mouth the right talking points.

You need look no farther than the wingnut posts here to see that these people are bigots and slow learners, with a deep sense of inferiority, who resent anyone who isn't "like them"... in other words, they resent people who read, are well-informed, are educated, and who demand that a candidate have a command of the issues.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | October 14, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

I wish some reporter or commentator somewhere showed even a little interest in holding incumbents and their mainstream challengers to the standards implied by this criticism of Ms. O'Donnell. Has Chris Van Hollen laid out his plans for balancing the federal budget? Steny Hoyer? Donna Edwards? Or for that matter, John Boehner or Roscoe Bartlett?

I'm all for pointing it out when the emperor has no clothes, but we've got a lot of naked emperors strutting around and the press is pretty doggone selective about when it will deign to notice.

By the way, I'm running against Chris Van Hollen (on the Libertarian ticket), and I have proposed a balanced budget for 2012. See http://www.grannisforcongress.org/blog/fiscal-responsibility-now. It's an extremely austere budget, and a lot of people won't like it, but it's a serious proposal to make ends meet. If making serious budget proposals doesn't generate any interest from the news media, can you blame Ms. O'Donnell for making unserious budget proposals?

Posted by: mgrannis | October 14, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

"Conservatives will vote for anyone, no matter how stupid, as long as they can mouth the right talking points...bigots and slow learners, a deep sense of inferiority...they resent people who read, are well-informed, are educated, and who demand that a candidate have a command of the issues."

losthorizon10:

Apparently you didn't read my post. Regardless, you do not speak for this conservative, who defies everything you just said in your thoughtless, sweeping generalizations about "conservatives."

I just tried to be more than fair, albeit from an admitted bias, and the best you can do is swashbuckle your blather in an unfair characterization of all conservatives? I never cease to be amazed at the blanket passes that dems and liberals give themselves without justifying themselves.

That approach defies the very word "liberal." Remedial Latin lesson: from "liber" meaning "open." Closed door rants betray the very word "liberal" by definition.

Your suggestion, by implication, is that no conservative can possibly be intelligent and well-informed. While O'Donnell is clearly not, I can line up several who are more than willing to "be your huckleberry."

Posted by: jay_thompson | October 14, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

panhandlewilly nice moniker, beause you're a perfect example of a teabagmoronatard. hellooooh genius! conservatives who hijacked and occupied the WH for 8 years prior to the first preseident elected by the people since 1996 got us into this mess. W inherited a record surplus. W turned it into a record deficit. And I was alive and wathching the news during those eight years. I saw dozens of times when the dems told the repukes they needed to have a way to pay for things, and the repiggers were having none of it. Now they're saying the same thing they said no to for eight years. Suddenly, since there's a democrat in the WH, they care about the deficit. yeah, sure they do. Any middle class person who votes for a republican is a mindless, ignorant, uninfomred, embarassingly easy to manipulate moron. Hi! I'm middle class! And I want to vote for a guy who apologizes to BP for a "shakedown" in one breath, and votes against extending unemployment benefits in the next. I want to vote for the party that passed an 8 billion dollar tax cut for Exxon Mobil when gas was over $4 a gallon at the pump, and slashed all kinds of programs for middle class people to pay for it. I want to vote for people who will get rid of that pesky estate tax, because I think our represenatives should pass laws that benefit less than 1% of the populace. I want to vote for people who make up a pack of lies so they can invade countries that are minding their own business so the VP's old company in which he still holds stock can get huge no bid contracts. I want to vote for people who appoint justice dept attorneys based on political affiliation. I want to vote for people who will have me arrested and charged with a crime if I disagree with them. I also hate big government, but at the same time thinking for myself is soooo hard, so I want them to make personal decisions for me as far as contraceptives, whether or not to have a child, etc. I want the party that will think for me and tell me how to live. I also want all children to be told that evolution is only a "theory" and I want them taught that Jesus made everything, and that anyone who worships a different god is a terrorist who should be locked up. I could go on for days, but why bother? People who vote republican for the most part do not posses brains that can function indepedently of rush, et al. It'll be just like with bush. The idiots will line up and vote in all of these fools who do not represent their interests, and after 7 or 8 years they'll realize what the rest of us realized from day one that kept us from voting for someone like that in the first place. Why people vote for those who do absolutely nothing for them is beyond me, but truth is, most people in this country aren't qualified to vote to start with. for the most part they have no clue what they're voting for. just too bad that the rest of us have to live with it. How f'n dumb are you people?

Posted by: red2million | October 14, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Excuse the language,she has more balls than some of the so called men,we have in office.

Posted by: arturor44 | October 14, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

jay_thompson-

"It never cease to be amazed at the blanket passes that dems and liberals give themselves without justifying themselves."

You were doing so well until you did exactly what you scolded losthorizon for. The posts seem to be about 50-50 between rational and logical criticisms and ad hominem broad sweeping generalizations. It's sad that we can't do better than that. For what it's worth, I'm a liberal that agrees with your first post completely. So the two groups can agree on some things, if not most thing.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 14, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

While I'm not surprised by her style of "debate", I am still shocked that Christine O'Donnell is in the position to participate in a senate debate on a national news network. It's an embarrassing day, not only for Delaware but for all of the US, when someone that ignorant represents a piece of American politics.

Posted by: jenbaseball ...

Amen. only thing worse is her defenders on this blog

Posted by: mloaks | October 14, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

It makes one pucker up when O'Donnell says the government can decrease "discretionary spending" to reduce the federal budget deficit, and you know that she doesn't have a clue what that means.

And I agree with the previous post that she has "more balls than some of the so called men,we have in office" but not in the same way it was meant.

Posted by: sr31 | October 14, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

lcrider1 wrote:
Christine is just a Sarah Palin- lite. Just a little Sarah mini-me. She seems to be a little nastier, though.
-----------
You'd be nastier, too, if you've never had any in your life.

Posted by: bucinka8 | October 14, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Ya think maybe ya just don't like non-Liberals Stromy? I think that's the case because if O'Donnell was lame, your article is vacuous.

Posted by: hz9604 | October 14, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Your first paragraph is the exact same reference we on the other side of the political spectrum tried to tell everyone about Obama. He was a good speaker but knew nothing of what it actually takes to run a country. Of course, now, everyone has figured that out. Everyone also took notce of the fact that he can't speak either, unless he has a teleprompter in front of him. All that's fine and dandy though when it's a Dem.
Regardless what you think of O'Donnell, the fact that Coons is acting like a fiscal conservative in his campaign ads when he has voted for nearly every tax increase every put his way to pay for all the social programs he promotes, well, what do say to that? At least with O'Donnell, she hasn't lied to us yet; unlike her competitor.

Posted by: AMCLUCAS | October 14, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

So, Mr. Stromborg's big complaint (and that of many commentors here) is that Ms O'Donnell isn't an intellectual (and is a "ditz" as one commentor put it)?

Have any of you met Joe Biden?

Posted by: mil1 | October 14, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Dumb, dumb, dumb. She should never have been in a position to be in this debate. She and her ilk are playing to those who somehow thought that President Obama was going to "fix" in two years what 8 years of Bush did to the economy. It is turning around -- my retirement is sure looking brighter rather than going deeper into the sinkhole that eight years of Bush created.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | October 14, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Jenbaseball commented that she was "still shocked that Christine O'Donnell is in the position to participate in a senate debate on a national news network. It's an embarrassing day, not only for Delaware but for all of the US, when someone that ignorant represents a piece of American politics." This is perfect. And of coure with only 2 degrees of seperation, we can blame John McCain for that. After all he inflicted Sarah Palin and that low level of non-educated moron onto our national stage= bad enough we have to suffer through hearing about Snookie and the Situation, but Ms. O'Donnell is no better. I think in one childish response she said something to the affect to Mr. Coons that she'd been 'on' Saturday Night Live' yes on as in totally ridiculed as her mentor (Palin) was too. She ignored the moderators questions as in don't mention fraud waste and abuse and then did, and couldn't answer Mr. Blitzer's question about what would YOU do about xyz, her vague- using the collective "we" have to change washington, was the best she could muster. She was in way over her head, I'm sure even a high schooler could out debate her. She claimed some phony degree again on stage. What a disgrace to our political and educational system. States should decide what's taught re: evolution, great that's why states that take control of their educaitonal rules (like many southern states) have the lowest educational levels in the country. I only know that she got it wrong, about the scientists and mice, as she is proof positive that scientists have developed a human (Ms. O'Donnell) with fully formed (albeit miniscule and hardly functional) mouse brain.

Posted by: counterisk | October 14, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell is that person who thinks she can say things she doesn't really know as long as she does it without a hint of doubt.
*******

a lot like our current president.

besides, the hands down most embarressing senate candidate is from the democrats, I am talking of course about Alvin Greene. The people who voted for him should never be allowed to vote again.

Posted by: dummypants | October 14, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

This is what Americans can look forward to with today's GOP - this idiotic woman is an insult to people who take this country seriously. Thank God she's down 15 points.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | October 14, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Stromberg, stick with posts on global warming, it's what you are best at.

Posted by: gmfletcher12 |
---------------------------
I'm sorry, are you confused by all these pesky facts? Go on back to the Dousche Limpbag site with your fellow dildo-heads where you can dream of the 1950's where women and minorities knew their places and white men ruled the world.

O'Donnell is a cretinous imbicile without a shred of credibility with anyone possessing an IQ greater than their belt size. I guess that excludes all of the teabaggers which is why they love her.

Posted by: xconservative | October 14, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Your first paragraph is the exact same reference we on the other side of the political spectrum tried to tell everyone about Obama. He was a good speaker but knew nothing of what it actually takes to run a country.
------------------------------------------
Are you really comparing someone who graduated from Harvard Law School to someone who took 17 years to graduate from undergrad? And who lied about that fact?
Democrats aren't being inconsistent here. We require more academic bona fides than McDonnell has (see Palin criticisms). Republican supporters of O'Donnell are being unmitigated hypocrites for criticizing Obama for not having enough "executive" experience, but apparently being unconcerned about O'Donnell lack thereof. What is O'Donnell's most recent job?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 14, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Your first paragraph is the exact same reference we on the other side of the political spectrum tried to tell everyone about Obama. He was a good speaker but knew nothing of what it actually takes to run a country.
------------------------------------------
Are you really comparing someone who graduated from Harvard Law School to someone who took 17 years to graduate from undergrad? And who lied about that fact?
Democrats aren't being inconsistent here. We require more academic bona fides than McDonnell has (see Palin criticisms). Republican supporters of O'Donnell are being unmitigated hypocrites for criticizing Obama for not having enough "executive" experience, but apparently being unconcerned about O'Donnell lack thereof. What is O'Donnell's most recent job?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 14, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Love to read all these conservatives rush to the defense of the clearly not-ready-for-primetime O'Donnell. Coons is boring, but O'Donnell's a potted plant with a cute smile and a bag of tired, right-wing platitudes. What we've got here is Sarah Palin II!

Posted by: morecowbell | October 14, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

And yet CNN ran a headline saying "She gave as good as she got."

Go figure how anyone could think she was not a moron.

Posted by: baileywickFL | October 14, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

The debate was painful to watch. Ms. O'Donnell was clearly out of her depth. I actually almost felt sorry for the ditz at the beginning of the debate when you could see her hands shaking but that quickly dissipated after her first strident and fact-free attack on Coons. Sad, just sad.

Posted by: Observer001 | October 14, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

What a sad pathetic joke of a candidate. The GOP is a national embarassment.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | October 14, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

The debate was painful to watch. Ms. O'Donnell was clearly out of her depth. I actually almost felt sorry for the ditz at the beginning of the debate when you could see her hands shaking but that quickly dissipated after her first strident and fact-free attack on Coons. Sad, just sad.

Posted by: Observer001 | October 14, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Mr Stromberg your opening paragraph described Obamas approach to a T.

Posted by: wxyz6200 | October 14, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Stromberg, stick with posts on global warming, it's what you are best at. Posted by: gmfletcher12 | October 13, 2010 10:08 PM _________________________________________________________

Looks like someone else like Christine O'Donnell who still needs to (a) evolve and (b) needs an education.


chris12345,
a) I have opposable thumbs, b) I have a college degree, c) You and Mr. Stromberg is a useful idiots (you can find that term in Russian Studies, around the Stalin years), and d) Nancy Pelosi is 10 times nuttier than O'Donnell, yet she is the Speaker of the House! Everytime I see Pelosi I think someone let Grandma out of the nut house.

Posted by: gmfletcher12 | October 14, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

"You were doing so well until you did exactly what you scolded losthorizon for. The posts seem to be about 50-50 between rational and logical criticisms and ad hominem broad sweeping generalizations. It's sad that we can't do better than that. For what it's worth, I'm a liberal that agrees with your first post completely. So the two groups can agree on some things, if not most thing.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 14, 2010 11:07 AM |
ashotinthedark:

I appreciate your criticism, though I humbly beg to differ. Where did I generalize? I suppose that it sounded sweeping and general, but was specifically intended for losthorizon10.

I agree with you about the 50-50 equation as regards the posts collective. And I very much appreciate your kind words about my first post. As a rule, I too, try to be fair and open-minded. Indeed, I have voted for candidates on the left on rare occasions where I deemed it the right thing to do (an oxymoron?). My experience is that rarely does one size fit all. My conservative friends have a hard time swallowing that, but in the interest of reason, it seems a sane approach.

Posted by: jay_thompson | October 14, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

I'm with you Stromberg. O'Donnell deserves to be 25 or so points behind in the polls with her performance. She was woefully unprepared, reading from her script and fumbling her responses to the questions. The timing of her SNL "comeback" was laughable, as Coons was actually trying to deflect some of the criticisms away from the debate. Would make a C in HS Public Speaking with her performance. At least I learned that Marx led his revolution to raise the estate tax on people... and to let your local school be free to teach that if they believe it. Embarrassing, but hopefully we will be seeing less of her after the elections.

Posted by: iioo5677 | October 14, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

I appreciate your criticism, though I humbly beg to differ. Where did I generalize? I suppose that it sounded sweeping and general, but was specifically intended for losthorizon10.

I agree with you about the 50-50 equation as regards the posts collective. And I very much appreciate your kind words about my first post. As a rule, I too, try to be fair and open-minded. Indeed, I have voted for candidates on the left on rare occasions where I deemed it the right thing to do (an oxymoron?). My experience is that rarely does one size fit all. My conservative friends have a hard time swallowing that, but in the interest of reason, it seems a sane approach.

Posted by: jay_thompson

----------------------------------
Fair enough. I interpreted the comment to be saying all liberals do those things as opposed to that particular liberal.
Anyway, I too have voted for Republicans on occasion and at this point I am planning on voting for a republican as governor of Michigan. And people on both sides often reference voting a straight liberal or straight republican ticket which seems like intellectual laziness.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 14, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else notice Blitzer and the school marm humping Coons leg? Kind of what it would look like if Hanity was moderator for an Obama debate. Could these so called moderates hide their bias any more poorly. I doubt it. I thought they were going to actually offer Coons a breath mint.

Posted by: elcigaro1 | October 14, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Under normal cirucmstances and in a normal election cycle one would be tempted to advise Coons to continue allowing O'Donnell to keep speaking and let the public see just how crazy and incompetent she is.

But things are not normal and far too many of the electorate are willilng to overlook her obvious shortcomings and will vote for her out or rage, anger and discontent. Coons is a representatitve of the professional political establishment which is at the heart of so many of our problems.

Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle and the role playing Nazi in Ohio are what we get when the, so called, responsible politicians fail to do the jobs they were elected to do.

Sad to say real representative government is going to take a licking come November 2. On the other hand, maybe if Christine is elected she could use some of her purported witchly powers to solve some of the problems her more responsible and sane predecessors seem to have found insoluble?

And, if she and her Tea Party fellow travelers fail, the electorate can turn to the guillotine next time around.

Posted by: bobfbell | October 14, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The only remarkable thing is that niether Coons nor Blitzer stood up, and screamed at the top of their lungs "you are such a free kin idiot how in Gods good name did you even manage to get dressed this morning??????????????????? Get out, get out now and see if you can find a fast food place that needs an assistant manager you dope!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: John1263 | October 14, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Listen, I'm sure O'Donnell is a nice woman. But she's in over her head. That's the point. Same deal with Palin.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | October 14, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Looks like we know how the CODfish campaign is spending some of that $$ moronic teabagggers are donating to her campaign: hiring other moronic teabagggers to post nonsensical gibberish on message boards from coast to coast.

Posted by: Observer691 | October 14, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

After watching the debate, and being a De. independent, my vote is for O'Donnell. Not that I like her, but Coons and everything he stands for don't represent who I want. She is the lesser of two evils I guess.

Posted by: jjlj | October 14, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

As a Delaware voter my choices are to vote for the guy who raised my County taxes by 54% in three years, my sewer fees 60%, and cut my senior discount in half. That's on top of blowing through a huge surplus left by the previous County Executive - who did not raise taxes for the eight years he was in office. Mr.Coons had promised to maintain that "no tax increase" policy until he sat in the big chair. That's one choice. My alternative choice is for the dingbat. Keep in mind that the race for Joe Biden's Senate seat was supposed to have been between his son, Beau Biden, and Mike Castle. Mr. Coons was thrown into the ring as a sacrificial lamb for Mr. Castle to steam roll over on his way to victory lane. Ah, the best laid plans.

Posted by: deldoug | October 14, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell/Palin, perfect morons, together, what a team they'd make!

Posted by: mtravali | October 14, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

As a political moderate that subscribes to a couple "Marxist tenets" like welfare and Medicare (as do most Americans), and an American patriot that despises several tenets of the Tea Party movement, nonetheless I must be fairminded in confessing that Coons was the epitome of arrogance last night. Coons' condescension was absolutely disgusting and a complete turn-off, almost chauvinistic even. I might not agree with O'Donell's Tea Party views, but it would be dishonest to deny Coons' over-the-top lack of deference towards his opponent. Absolutely disgraceful. I wonder why the mainstream media has not called him on it.

Posted by: lany | October 14, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Liberal morons want to call O'Donnel as a witch but why is it that true witches will vote for Democrats? Is the Democrat the real party of witches?

Liberal morons are like lemmings following a fool.

Here's a fact. Don't you liberal morons know that Charles Darwin was a theologian and not a biologist? B.A in Theology. Now that's your "scientist".

It only means that Darwinian Evolution is not a branch of science but a branch of Theology.

Hello liberal morons. Why don't you guys gather all the evolutionist biologists you know and present them this fact below. Please stop being morons because you are destroying this world with your stupidity.

Science follow a set of rules. Physics, Chemistry, Math, etc have their set of rules. Darwinian Evolution has no rules because it is not science but a science of fools.

How did the eye, ear, brain, nose, lungs evolve? These idiots have no answer. Of course, because they have no set of rules. It's all random stupidity to them. They just say what they want like stupid babblers.

Posted by: spidermean2 | October 14, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

All O'Donnell needs to do to be superior to any liberal candidate is to say "NO" to spending and increased Gov't involvement in our lives. Anything after that is just icing on the cake.

Posted by: asdf9876 |
.............................................

If you REALLY believe the "conservatives" want to decrease government in your lives, you really have not been paying attention. Sure, this is what they SAY, but it is not what they DO. And they like to talk about trimming the federal deficit, and yet they want to make the Bush tax cuts (ie, disastrous tax cuts)permanent which will add 3 trillion dollars to said deficit. I have yet to hear ONE good idea from republicans as to how to lower the deficit. They talk about it a lot, but they NEVER do it. Tax cut, yes, but they never cut spending, and then the debt just keeps getting bigger. Do you REALLY think Ms O'Donnell is going to do anything different? And let's face it...she is NOT bright. Entertaining, sure. Bright, not at all.

Posted by: biggirl90 | October 14, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Well then! Chrissy has let the world know that the only reason we went to Afghanistan was to finish what the Soviets were doing - commit genocide to clear a path for oil pipelines.

Rather nice to see a GOP'er finally confess and take personal responsibility and accountability for their genocidal acts. Wonder when they'll take personal responsibility for paying for their genocidal pogroms? That would be ever so accountable of them.

Perhaps she can volunteer to fight the "Soviets" and mice with human brains in Afghanistan.

Poor Pres Reagan though...sigh... last night in one fell swoop...the legacy of his in his own addled mind...for destroying the Soviet Union was cleared up by Delaware's resident bible thumping rocket scientist, the sexually deprived intellectually & spiritually constipated O'Donnell.


Posted by: spritey | October 14, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

So you're defending Marx now?

She's funnier than Groucho ... not at pretty as Harpo, though.

But since the Senate is basically a night at the opera these days, hey, maybe she'll fit right in.

Posted by: pressF1 | October 14, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Reality Check.

All you need to know about Christine O'Donnell is:

She said that she would have revealed where some Jewish people were hiding, rather than tell a lie to the Nazis.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 14, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Evolution is a myth and we need benchmarks for Iraq withdrawal.

Sounds like the Tea Party got the intellectual giant that represents them "appropriately".

Dumb and dumber....

Posted by: bhuang2 | October 14, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

The 'tea party' is all about one thing: distorting the truth in public policy debate so as to avoid having the real implications of the ultra-conservatives' agenda be seen.

Stop them!! Join the discussion to end their assault on truthful debate! http://www.facebook.com/TeaPartyCognitiveDistortion

Posted by: jsmitty01 | October 14, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell handled herself well against 3 opponents last night.

I watched.

She said she opposed BIG Government, Obamacare, and taxes like well MOST Americans ! She said she supports charter schools and empowering teachers NOT bureaucrats !

Coons said he supports Teacher Unions and Obamacare unlike MOST Americans and even 39 House Dems running for re-election... as Christine pointed out.

Christine may well be the 51st Senator.. the needed and necessary 51st vote to STOP Obama's agenda.

Does the venom and misogyny in these comments suggest an October surprise ?

Posted by: pvilso24 | October 14, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Here's a fact. Don't you liberal morons know that Charles Darwin was a theologian and not a biologist? B.A in Theology. Now that's your "scientist".

It only means that Darwinian Evolution is not a branch of science but a branch of Theology.
----------------------------------------

You think whether something is scientific or theological is determined by the undergraduate degree of the person who comes up with the theory?

Seriously?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 14, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

She did a nice job, and Coons was truly awful. But, if CNN and its pollsters are right, it probably doesn't matter. Delaware will get what it deserves,one of the most out-of-touch liberal senators imaginable who will vote the party line and continue in Delaware's proud tradition of sending politicians to DC that contribute to the country's problems rather than work towards solving them.

Posted by: rhgibson | October 13, 2010 10:36 PM |
___________________________________________

Are you smoking crack? Really? Really?

Posted by: geoffryh | October 14, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

America is doomed when voters are willing to vote for a woman who can't even balance her own checkbook because they're upset over government spending. Luckily the saner residents of Delaware have spoken, and given her opponent a 15 point lead in the polls.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | October 14, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

WHY PULL YOUR HAIR OUT OR GET NASTY? THESE ARE TWO AMERICANS WILING TO RUN WHILE WE SIT ON OUR BUTTS. WE DO HAVE TO STOP SPENDING SO I SUPPORT THE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE.

Posted by: DANSHANTEAL1 | October 14, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

"That person in high-school debate who manipulates her audience with stage presence and an inventive approach to fact."

Having done high school debate, this is the best to describe her babble.

Posted by: gabbeauty | October 14, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

@pvilso24 .... recent polls showed that 21% of registered voters believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. A slightly higher percentage (but not much higher) support Christine O'Donnell. There will be no "October surprise" .... it is a well-documented fact, by now, that a small percentage of religious nuts have an aversion to fact and science --- first Tuesday in November will simply validate that, but, no one will be surprised. Sad would be a better word than surprise when thinking about this whole situation. And everyone should take note: Christine O'Donnell is *the* face of the Tea Party. (And Sharron Angle. And Rand Paul. And Rich Iott.) Pathetic and embarrassing for anyone who admits that they are a 'tea partyer'.

Posted by: jsmitty01 | October 14, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Oh my God, I can't stand it. There is no damn liberal media people. The media is owned by a bunch of republicans! Get your facts straight. Propaganda is how Hitler killed the Jews. Stop drinking the Cool Aid!

Posted by: geoffryh | October 14, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

By Christine's definition of Marxist tenet, the Constitution's creation of copyright and patent limitations is Marxist. Those darned Marxist Founders strike again!

Posted by: hlabadie | October 14, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

...She seems to be genuinely sincere to the people....

Posted by: chaemoondriver
***************************

I get that many Americans are frustrated and frightened by the worst recession since '29 and have no confidence in "elites" who a) appear to have gotten us in this mess and b) seem unable to get us out.

But, friends, the solution is NOT to distrust anyone who appears to have a brain and experience. The solution is NOT to trust your instincts about sincerity.

Those are the same instincts that lead millions of Americans to trust charlatan televangelists. Those are the same instincts that caused millions to vote for Bush II, who is directly responsible for our current economic mess.

Enough with your perceptions of "sincerity." They're self-evidently flawed!

Posted by: abqcleve | October 14, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

There's never a surprise, October or otherwise, when pvilso24 posts: You always get nonsensical teabaggger drivel.

Posted by: Observer691 | October 14, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

The comments on this page really tell you a lot about what is happening in this country.

The people supporting O'Donnell do not even bother to argue that she is qualified; rather, they support her because she is NOT qualified, and wouldn't it be wonderful to drive all those so-called "liberal elites" crazy by electing her!

This country is doomed, because far too many Americans are STUPID, CHILDISH, and INCAPABLE OF MAKING RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS ABOUT ANYTHING. We might as well permit kindergartners to vote.

Posted by: AdrianMole | October 14, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

This woman is unfit to lead.

(It's the common theme of Republican Tea Party Candidates: See Sharon Angle, Rand Paul, Joe Miller, Michelle Bachman, and Christine O'Donnell.)

Posted by: vigor | October 14, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

There are a LOT of EMPTY SUITS in the Senate. We all know that. If somehow this dingbat was elected, she would go to the front of that Empty Suit line. There is NO THERE there. Do you think it is at all possible when Witch O'Donnell was being prepped by her advisors and they told her when asked about "evolution is a myth" to avoid answering the question, which she did, do you think for one minute it crossed her mind that these advisors are telling me not to answer because my belief is wacko? Her convulted explanation of it being about health care and not insurance coverage was beyond idiotic, as well as her response about the government being in the doctor's office coming between you and your physician. What B-S!

Posted by: wrw01011 | October 14, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

If you want to know the difference between Republicans and Democrats, look no further than Alvin Greene and Christine O'Donnell.

One is treated as an embarrassment, the other is embraced by Sarah Palin, supported with thousands of donations from around the country, and her debate with her opponent even gets televised nation-wide. Fox News will probably hire her if she loses. This is the party that might be running Congress next year?

Posted by: Trakker | October 14, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell and Palin both stupid and a coplete embarassment to our country what a mess.....

Posted by: lildg54 | October 14, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

October surprise impossible ? Than why the venom and misogyny (woman-hatred) directed against O'Donnell ?

I heard Chris Coons express support for Obamacare, Teacher Unions, Trial lawyers, and higher property taxes... I bet he also supports illegal immigration ! All winning positions ! NOT !

I heard O'Donnells opposition to same.. curiously like MOST Americans !

I heard O'Donnell's support for REPEAL of Obamacare... her support for Tort reform.. reduced spending.. freeze on hiring... empowering teachers instead of bureaucrats... charter schools even...

A vote for Harry Reid’s “pet” Chris Coons is a vote for continuing Obama's disastrous agenda.

Posted by: pvilso24 | October 14, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

"Put another way, my mom believes that roads make it easier to move goods around. So did Idi Amin. Does this mean my mom is a cannibal?"

The mere fact that you have to make this obviously correct point leads me to weep for the future of this country. Did the national IQ simply drop a few dozen points a generation ago? Can anybody think anymore?

Posted by: simpleton1 | October 14, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

This O'Donnell woman is stupid; plain and simple. If you vote for her, you're stupid too; plain and simple.
This is not ad-hominem attack speech. It's the truth; plain and simple.

Posted by: KJR1 | October 14, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I confess that I thought the defintion of deficit spending was about the federal government spending more than collected tax revenues. When business enterprises spend more than revenues, they get a loan or sell stock. When the federal government uses deficit spending they can get a loan (from another country like China), or they can sell Treasury Bonds (an IOU).

But if O'Donnell is confusing the national debt with deficit spending she might be forgiven. Lot's of people confuse the federal government with all sorts of businesses. The U.S. Constitution doesn't really establish the United States of America as a business enterprise. Or am I missing O'Donnell's point here?

The Federal Government is authorized to establish monetary policy, and create money, and it is authorized to collect a Federal Income Tax. If O'Donnell is suggesting the government cannot do this (set monetary policy) and that makes it look like a communist central planner, then you have to wonder if she really grasps our U.S. Constitution and the powers established for the United States of America.

What is it she is attempting to say about our nation? There is no amendment before congress about magically transforming our federal government into some fantasy socialist/communist style of government.

Posted by: rmorris391 | October 14, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell calls Coons a Marxist during her debate. Very mature.

He could have responded by calling her a sanctimonious, brain-dead, teabagging opportunist ... but no need to state the obvious.

On several occasions, I was waiting for her to ask if she could use one of her "life-lines". Or perhaps she thought the question was part of a take-home quiz.

Posted by: labman57 | October 14, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Excellent repeating of the Democrat talking points. Did you get them from journolist or direct from the DNC?

Posted by: jy151310 | October 14, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Bears repeating:

The comments on this page really tell you a lot about what is happening in this country.

The people supporting O'Donnell do not even bother to argue that she is qualified; rather, they support her because she is NOT qualified, and wouldn't it be wonderful to drive all those so-called "liberal elites" crazy by electing her!

This country is doomed, because far too many Americans are STUPID, CHILDISH, and INCAPABLE OF MAKING RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS ABOUT ANYTHING. We might as well permit kindergartners to vote.

Posted by: AdrianMole

Posted by: agolembe | October 14, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Boy these media pundants really go after these white women types. Remember when the media popped a roid when a man stood to close to hillary clinton during a debate.It seems the republican women have forced real equality into the male dominated pit of media.Now thats the kind of equality we desire not mandated by law but by respect.

Posted by: jmounday
_________________

That's funny. If there were any ignorant women of color in the GOP the media would be going after them too.

The only way to have equality is to be intelligent. Foisting a bunch of ignorant, good looking women who "come across well" (as I keep reading on this board) onto America will not gain equality.

Women who are not prepared to get by on anything other than looks and charm doom other women because they will fail, and they will fail spectacularly.

Posted by: agolembe | October 14, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

God bless Christine O'Donnell, and here's hoping she--and many, many more just like her--win and win big on Nov. 2 and start rolling back the damage done by all you libby libs and Barry Soweto, or whatever his real name is.

Posted by: kbarker302 | October 14, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

To Goomy Gommy I would like to say that such hateful anger should be bottled up and shelved, as it it is unhealthy. It can lead to high blood pressure and/or strokes. My guess is that you are watching way too much FOX news, because you have no facts to back up your rant. Do you go to sleep angry and wake up angry? So sad.

Posted by: questioner2 | October 14, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Wow; Odonnell's supporters like her because she is energetic and enthusiastic. If that's all it takes to be a Senator, then feel free to elect my cocker spaniel.

The point is that O'donnell is an idiot. Who cares if she's nice, and good on tv? How has having a clue about the world and US government become something only the 'liberal elite' care about?

We need serious people in the Senate to help this country get back on track. If there were any Republican candidates out there that actually had a clue then I'd consider supporting them. But the folks supported by the tea party are so far out of it either politically or in terms of having a general clue, I don't see how any normal person could vote them into the US Senate.

Posted by: hacksaw | October 14, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

The most oblivous thing that stood out for me is that CNN broadcast this debate nationwide.I can not remember a statewide election debate being broadcast nationwide.
The Meg Whitman-Jerry Brown on Tuesday should have been the one CNN broadcast.
In last night's debate COD had everthing to gain and Coons had everything to lose.
Ms O'Donnell did much better than I expected and thru no where near as polish as Mr Coons,acquainted herself well in this debate.
Even though Mr Coons leads Ms O'Donnell between 9 and 15% points,it seems odd that Pres Obama will be in Delaware on Friday campaign for Mr Coons.
Are those "internal polls" telling a different story than other polls,only time will tell.............

Posted by: montpied | October 14, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Wow; Odonnell's supporters like her because she is energetic and enthusiastic. If that's all it takes to be a Senator, then feel free to elect my cocker spaniel.

The point is that O'donnell is an idiot. Who cares if she's nice, and good on tv? How has having a clue about the world and US government become something only the 'liberal elite' care about?

We need serious people in the Senate to help this country get back on track. If there were any Republican candidates out there that actually had a clue then I'd consider supporting them. But the folks supported by the tea party are so far out of it either politically or in terms of having a general clue, I don't see how any normal person could vote them into the US Senate.

Posted by: hacksaw | October 14, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

This is undoubtedly the product of a mouse with a human brain.

Posted by: trippin | October 14, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

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

More like a human with a mouse brain.

Posted by: mencik | October 14, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell thinks "raising taxes is Marxist philosophy." Ronald Reagan raised taxes in California. So I guess thinks he was also a Marxist. Of course, she may have confused Harpo Marx with Karl Marx.

Posted by: BBear1 | October 14, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I'm afraid these debates resolve nothing much of anything. Not saying anything controversial and coming up with sound bites is the whole point. Try being honest and thoughtful in a debate when your opponent does not and you will be torn apart. Damage control and making no major mistakes is the whole point.

As for O'Donnell, she simply has absolutely nothing to offer. In a country/state where the population is thoughtful and educated, O'Donnell would have been destroyed in the primary. Now that we are where we are, the question is not "can she win?" Rather, the question is how can she possibly be within 9 percentage points of Coons (Rasmussen, September 27, 2010). Having read a lot of what the TPiers have to say, O'Donnell is clearly perfect for them. No real education, no work experience to speak of, no ideas. Just cut spending _someplace_ and taxes _everyplace_. NOW! Simple but ineffective answers to this country's complex and long term problems. Of course, this will tip the U.S. back into recession, and possibly depression. After all, we're already losing jobs in this country due to a loss of government jobs, due to reduced tax revenues and the end stimulus spending. See...the stimulus programs under Bush and and Obama _did_ create jobs. Private businesses have failed to pick up the slack.

Posted by: ptgrunner | October 14, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

I would love for some of you admirers of Miss O'Donnell to trust her with balancing your checking account. Note, I did not say trust her with your checks!

3;30-pm local time

Posted by: CharlieDrew | October 14, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

After Miss O'Donnell loses badly November 2nd. expect to see her working for 'unfair and unbalance Fox News'

Posted by: CharlieDrew | October 14, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

And, what prescriptions does Coons advocate for cutting the deficit? Y'think it might be raising taxes (on the rich, of course)? It - saying what one wishes to cut - is a losing proposition. It is the equivalent to "When did you stop beating your wife." EVERY sort of spending has a constituency, so every proposal loses one some segment of the community, so every politician says "waste, fraud and abuse."
Imagine the furor if she had said "eliminate the Department of Education" or "eliminate NASA" or "eliminate the Department of Agriculture" or "eliminate the DEA". The screams would reverberate around the world.

Posted by: danny70000 | October 13, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse


I think that is the precise point. She is trying to get credit for cutting the deficit, but does not have an idea of how to to do it.

To cut the deficit without raising taxes, you need to cut programs. Major programs.

The American people have made it clear that we want our social programs intact, but don't want to pay for them.

Either you have the guts to cut Medicare or the military or whatever or you don't. It is obvious that she does not.

She is just hoping that voters don't know enough about math to notice her numbers don't add up. Hence, the whole underpinning of this article.

Now it is possible that people just don't care or that they belive she can wave her magic wand and make it dissappear or that they figure ignorant is better than a thief.

But the article was illustrating that she has slogans, not real life plans.

Posted by: Blurred | October 14, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Well, of course, she says silly things; she has an R after her name; all the while Coons seduces us with his easy rhetoric of class warfare. Yes, @blurred, programs need to be cut; to wit: all agencies at the federal, state and local levels should cut programs by 10% each year for the next 5 years except for those efforts that directly support combat ops, counter-illegal immigration ops, or HLS ops. However, each agency should still be held to a budget cut of 10% made up of cuts to programs that do not directly support combat ops, counter-illegal immigration ops, or HLS ops. All open federal, state and local positions not filled should be eliminated immediately. VA care (except for service connected maladies) as well as Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid should be means tested. Cut federal and state congressional operational funding by 10% per year for 5 years. Freeze federal, state and local congressional / administrative / support staff pay for the next 10 years. Stop federal government funding of FFRDCs and have them compete for programs as other non-FFRDCs must. Cut corporate taxes; cut capital gain taxes; do not fund any part of the just past Obamacare (let it wither on the vine), and stop the additional taxes passed under that healthcare insurance law. Stop all grain-based ethanol production subsidies; in fact, stop all subsidies; products should stand on their own merits. Fannie and Freddie are NOT too big to fail; no more bailout funds to them, and have them repay what they have received. There are no sure things in the market; if companies/brokers want to make high risk investments, they must notify their shareholders/clients for due diligence; if not, they suffer criminal prosecution. Bonuses to be taxed as regular income. No, there is no point where one has earned enough contrary to what BHO says. Further, 80% of the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 were aimed at families earning less than $250K/yr. Also, families of four earning less than $88K/yr will have their health care insurance subsidized. That means that families earning more than $88K/yr will be helping to subsidize the former. So much for BHO's claim that no family earning less than $250K/yr would see their taxes raised a "dime". Technically, he is correct; they won't be raised a dime; they'll be raised 50,000 dimes.

Posted by: BeanerECMO | October 14, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

The most oblivous thing that stood out for me is that CNN broadcast this debate nationwide.I can not remember a statewide election debate being broadcast nationwide.
The Meg Whitman-Jerry Brown on Tuesday should have been the one CNN broadcast.
In last night's debate COD had everthing to gain and Coons had everything to lose.
Ms O'Donnell did much better than I expected and thru no where near as polish as Mr Coons,acquainted herself well in this debate.
Even though Mr Coons leads Ms O'Donnell between 9 and 15% points,it seems odd that Pres Obama will be in Delaware on Friday campaign for Mr Coons.
Are those "internal polls" telling a different story than other polls,only time will tell.............

Posted by: montpied | October 14, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse


The most "obvious" thing about this post is that the writer is "oblivious" to facts and is just writing on pure gut level, unsupported, preconceived, reactionary opinion.

Posted by: Blurred | October 14, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

The most oblivous thing that stood out for me is that CNN broadcast this debate nationwide.I can not remember a statewide election debate being broadcast nationwide.
The Meg Whitman-Jerry Brown on Tuesday should have been the one CNN broadcast.
In last night's debate COD had everthing to gain and Coons had everything to lose.
Ms O'Donnell did much better than I expected and thru no where near as polish as Mr Coons,acquainted herself well in this debate.
Even though Mr Coons leads Ms O'Donnell between 9 and 15% points,it seems odd that Pres Obama will be in Delaware on Friday campaign for Mr Coons.
Are those "internal polls" telling a different story than other polls,only time will tell.............

Posted by: montpied | October 14, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse


The most "obvious" thing about this post is that the writer is "oblivious" to facts and is just writing on pure gut level, unsupported, preconceived, reactionary opinion.

Posted by: Blurred | October 14, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

@ beaner:

That's what I am saying...If she was truly interseted in cutting the debt/deficit, she would have a plan like that and stick by it.

She isn't and so she doesn't.

My guess is even if she did say what you did, when asked directly along the lines of "So you would like to cut 10% from free lunch programs/airport security/roadway repairs/_______ education/Soybean farmers/whatever?" She would say "No, that would be exempted."

Posted by: Blurred | October 14, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Hacksaw wrote; "O donnell's supporters like her because she is energetic and enthusiastic."

Not really. We like her because she OPPOSES Obama's disastrous agenda unlike Harry Reid's "pet".

We heard Chris Coons express support for Obamacare, Teacher Unions, Trial lawyers, and higher property taxes... We suspect he likes illegal immigrants, cap & tax, and opposes drilling as well.

We heard O'Donnells opposition to same.. curiously like MOST Americans ! O'Donnell rightly called Chris Coons "a career politician".

We heard O'Donnell's support for REPEAL of Obamacare... her support for Tort reform.. reduced spending.. freeze on hiring... empowering teachers instead of bureaucrats... charter schools even...


She's us : )

Posted by: pvilso24 | October 14, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

As near as I can tell the Tea Baggers hate anyone who bothered to go to college. Those folks are elitist. I want to know how many of the Tea Baggers want their children to be in exactly the same job they are in? How many want their doctor to have NOT gone to college? Want the military leaders to have NOT gone to West Point and the other academy schools?

Posted by: Ralph_Indianapolis | October 14, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

As near as I can tell the Tea Baggers hate anyone who bothered to go to college. Those educated folks are elitist. I want to know how many of the Tea Baggers want their children to be in exactly the same job they are in? How many want their doctor to have NOT gone to college? Want the military leaders to have NOT gone to West Point and the other academy schools?

Posted by: Ralph_Indianapolis | October 14, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

"If you plan to condemn people for mispeaking, then let's note that President Obama thinks there is an Austrian language and there are 52 states."

And let's not forget the all-time PRO at bumble-mouthed speech:

George W. Bush, Republican

LOL

Posted by: massmedia77 | October 14, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Let's see, you made the case for Marx's and your not a Marxist? The thinking of the Democrat party is so closely tied to Marxism how can you tell them apart. You can't and you fail to do so. What did you say you studied? You must have studied with the same professor Coons did. Funny how Marxism, communism, and socialism just beings out the Democrat in people. Ever notice those who craves the lifestyle of Marx's, socialism, and communism all seem to be Democrats.

Posted by: houstonian | October 14, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Ralph_Indianapolis; ALL,

PERSONAL TO "Ralph": reference your STUPID/DISHONEST comments about the TEA PARTY members, i can choose to believe that you're a LIAR or a FOOL or a PROPAGANDIST for the DIMocRATS Party.

in ANY of the possibilities, you are 100% dead WRONG & i strongly suspect intentionally (to put it as politely as possible) FICTIONAL in your comments.

fyi. i'm a vice-coordinator for a local TEA PARTY group in northern VA & our membership is:
a. (on the whole) BETTER educated than MOST of the DUNCES, crooks & politcal HACKS that infest the DIMocRATS contingent of the US Congress,
b. are generally over 40YO,
c. DECENT & God-fearing, ordinary folks, who simply want:
1. our current taxes CUT at least 25% across the board (which means a cut of the same percentage at EVERY federal agency & the elimination of certain federal agencies),
2. the CROOKS & THUGS to be OUT of the government FOREVER
and
3. a citizen's congress of regular people, to replace the coven of SELF-important elitists, idiots, fools, "party pros", bigots and dunces that currently fill the seats at the WH & Capitol.
(if tomorrow we replaced everyone in the Congress with a random sample of the voters of the 50 states, DC & the territories, we would be NO worse off than we are with the collection of generally corrupt & worthless individuals that are in Congress now.)

we TP folks just want the "current crop" on Capitol Hill all GONE & a better (and hopefully more) DECENT group of people, who are willing to do the bidding of the electorate, to replace them.

frankly, you owe the membership of The Tea Party an APOLOGY but i fear that you're not a decent/honest enough person to admit that you are WRONG, MEAN-spirited & NASTY besides. = PITY.

to ALL: your local TEA PARTY organization will happily welcome you to our ranks & get you "involved" in time to make a difference this election in our goal to return our country to the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC that it once was.

yours sincerely, retiredMP46

Posted by: retiredMP46 | October 14, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

rhgibson wrote,

I keep looking for what is is that liberals like Stromberg so despise O'Donnell for-it's like it has become a personal vendetta to bury this candidate

They dispise her because, as genuine and energetic as she is, she's dumb as a rock. To have someone like her running for the senate and actually winning the republican nomination is a sad sad commentary on the average intellegence of the people of Delaware. She lowers the common denominator of the entire process. Coons was condisending because that's all she or anyone that supports her deserves, including you. I bet you love cotton candy.

Posted by: TRACIETHEDOLPHIN | October 14, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I doubt O'Donnell will be working for Fox News after the election. It's likely that she will be living the good life off campaign funds contributed during this election. Like most TPiers, he hasn't worked in any job that has been remotely productive in past. Why should she start now? And she will run again for to become a DE Senator in 2012...by then, she will need more campaign money to live on. And running for the Senate is what she does. She's a narcissist and a grifter. Perfect for the Tea Party.

Posted by: ptgrunner | October 14, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Many here express such anger at the Obama administration's spending. Strange that there was zero outcry from these same people while President Bush and a Republican congress were doubling the national debt. There is definitely a double standard here. I believe that the difference is that overspending by a conservative white man is totally different than overspending by a liberal black man.

Posted by: ChrisRestonVA | October 14, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

She doesn't have any specific solutions because she is a Republican. None of them have any. Wow -- if this is the future of the Republican Party, then they are in deep trouble.

Posted by: lddoyle2002 | October 14, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

The federal budge is what, 9000 pages? Easy to fix. Just randomly remove 1000 pages.

Posted by: dcorley

==========

I'll accept your numbers at face value. Odds are 1/9 that we eliminate the Supreme Court. Sure, why not. We would wait a year and odds are we'll get them the following year.

Now, let's see. Would that imply that the SCOTUS was abolished for that year and if funded the following year we would have to appoint new Justices? That would be fun too.

Great idea you have there. Write it up and send it in to Sharron Angle in time for the debate.

Posted by: James10 | October 14, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I'm so glad this column ran in a section called "Post-Partisian", because so many of the comments contradict that heading.

As a middle-of-the-roader -- social progressive, "realistic" fiscal conservative who finds TREMENDOUS problems with superficial, unrealistic, impossible to implement "fixes" to our NATION'S (please remember that,everybody) problems proposed by Republicans, Conservatives, tea partiers AND an awful lot of what comes out of the mouths of Democrats as well -- I continue to be AGHAST at what our elective process has turned into. Now I don't for an instant believe I'm going to change the position of anybody who has posted here, and there were a good number of,IMO,thoughtful comments by self-identified conservatives, but the reality is that the vast majority of Americans can be categorized as "in-the-middle" and NOONE'S political platform/talking points/ attack ads comes even close to representing what mmost people are most concerned with - that's currently, in order: 1. Jobs; 2. Jobs; 3. Job security; 4.Job creation; 5. fixing the economy. I'm only being semi-facetious here, but one of the truest political cliches is that people vote with their wallets.

Amongst the larger errors I believe the President made (and there are several, IMO - this from somebody who was a VERY strong supporter) -- was in underestimating the need to address job loss & job creation a lot earlier. He didn't make it a high enough priority. Protestations from Republicans and Conservatives aside, American history (particularly recent American history)illustrates that you will retain popular support for difficult problems that, however you slice it, are going to take longer to fix than everybody would like. On something like this, it's good to show-up in public looking older, with bags under your eyes so at least you can claim you're losing sleep and doing your best - that's what Americans overall can relate to.

That said, I think it's amazing that this race is even being covered, because O'Donnell is such a moron and so unqualified that she has NO shot at winning. Coverage of this race (as well as Palladino in NY) serves to distract attention away from truly dangerous people, such as Miller in AK and Sharron Angle in NV - the latter is a certifiable nut case of long-standing, while the former is a 10ther, which I'm not willing to get into a debate on, other than to say that there has NEVER been a legal decision remotely supporting that position, and which comes perilously close to sedition -- for tea partiers & Republicans who maintain that they are primarily concerned with taxes and overreaching by the Federal Government, embracing a jerk like this will open up a Pandora's box you will soon more than regret.

Posted by: gwolgang | October 14, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

This reminds me of how Obama was going to get Medicare savings by cutting out, how is it this author puts it?, oh yeah, "because then she(he) talked about cutting, uh, waste…fraud…and, um, abuse."

But with Obama, he then counts that $500 billion savings again, in a classic case of voodoo economics.

Apparently Obama and O'Donnell are of the same ilk, though she's a lot cuter.

Posted by: magellan1 | October 14, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

She's just Sarah Palin Part II. They are the same person. They even look alike, and that's probably not a coincidence.

Posted by: bobby4 | October 14, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Jefferson was for the estate tax. what a Marxist he was. the estate tax is really nothing more than a little extra income tax on those who really made a lot in hindsight. that's actually a lot better than incrementally increasing the income tax on everyone so we're sure we get the same amount of money from everyone up front. I would be for decreasing income taxes further and increasing estate taxes. heck, let's just eliminate income taxes and impose a 50% estate tax on all estates over 300K. how can you complain about not being able to give your kids 300K and half of anything else you didn't spend to start their lives in a world with no income tax?

Posted by: JoeT1 | October 14, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is just trotting out Sarah Palin Part II. They even look alike, and that's probably not a coincidence. Palin really struck a chord (..for some mysterious reason, but then I'm mystified by the way that part of our country thinks anyway), and I think the GOP is counting on another reasonably attractive, overly confident brunette stealing the hearts and minds again.

Posted by: bobby4 | October 14, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Put another way, my mom believes that roads make it easier to move goods around. So did Idi Amin. Does this mean my mom is a cannibal?

lol!

to people who dabble in witchcraft and or racism or other supremacist ideology, it is plausable that your mom could be a cannibal - if she were running for or serving in an office of political significance... smile


Put it this way, our First Mom believes that altering the natural texture of her and her daughter's hair makes it easier to move around the nation without the vitriol that would otherwise be present everywhere they went everyday - were they to simply wear the natural texture of their hair. So do White Supremacists. Does this mean our First Mom is a White Supremacist?

lol

Posted by: stephendavid2002 | October 14, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

The question that I'm left with: did Marx masturbate?

Posted by: rusty3 | October 14, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

"That's what I love about the LEFT. They're so GODD*MN STUPID.
You have a MARXIST, Islam Loving, White Hating, Jew Hating, America Hating, Narcissistic, In Over His Head, ex Coke Head Street Hustler as your President. And the Stupidest guy on the Planet, as your Veep. And you've got the NERVE to call other people names?
The JACK*SS symbol for this Party, is certainly well deserved."

Posted by: GoomyGommy | October 14, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Where does this drivel come from? Here is a serious case of absolute cretinism masked as political commentary. Hello, RuchGlennSeanBill in your aped form.

Posted by: mini2 | October 14, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Mostly because politicians are inadequately educated in the sciences, they don't respond strongly enough to the "creationism v. evolution 'debate'" in the schools. I would have liked Coons to say that we should no more allow local school districts to decide what is junk science, than allow them to revise the Pythagorean Theorem if they disagree with it. School boards may make good administrative bodies (at their best), but they do not conduct scientific experiments, explore theories of any kind, and nor should they. And, I would really like to ask the right wing, why are you fixated on one well-established scientific theory? Why not attack reader response theory in the humanities? Or deconstruction -- after all, it's French! Or, quantum mechanics? My guess is that they simply don't know much, period. So they focus on something that riles up the base of their party.

Posted by: readerny | October 14, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Thanks a lot Delaware.

Posted by: kls1 | October 14, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Harry Reid described Chris Coons as his "pet".

On CNN's Delaware Debate:

I heard Coons express support for Obamacare, Teacher Unions, Trial lawyers, and higher property taxes...

I heard O'Donnell express support for the REPEAL of Obamacare... support for Tort reform.. reduced spending.. freeze on hiring... empowering teachers instead of bureaucrats... charter schools even...

I heard O'Donnell call Chris Coons "a career politician".

Chris Coons will support the failing disastrous Obama agenda.

O'Donnell will NOT !

An imperfect conservative ? or "a career politician" ? Thats easy... She's us ! : )

Posted by: pvilso24 | October 14, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

It is sad that the 'tea party' buffoonery continue to wear blinders. Their pitiful defense of Christine 'Bewitched' O'Donnell proves they are totally whacked as a collective entity. More and more of the nation is seeing how crazy and dangerous their 2010 lineup is. They are more extreme than the Newt gang of 1994.

Posted by: revbookburn | October 14, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

It is sad that the 'tea party' buffoonery continue to wear blinders. Their pitiful defense of Christine 'Bewitched' O'Donnell proves they are totally whacked as a collective entity. More and more of the nation is seeing how crazy and dangerous their 2010 lineup is. They are more extreme than the Newt gang of 1994.

Posted by: revbookburn | October 14, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Let's hope the national media can keep featuring these Tea Party candidates and their bizarre self confidence about how they should be running things, encouraging them to speak as candidly and at as much length as they can encourage.
Their myopic world view and narrow estimation of the public intelligence is breathtaking - if it weren't so consequential, it would be laughable...

Posted by: thanksforfish | October 14, 2010 11:50 PM | Report abuse

this article and posts show the robotic mindlessness of democrat fans. the standard attack this days for a conservative is extremist. Journalists and posters will repeat the same line ad infinitum regardless of the topic.
The conservative says, I am going to slash costs.
Democrat Fan: extreme view on tax, can you belive how idiotic.
C: I will reduce government control
Democrat Fan: idiot will take us back to slavery
C: I will follow the constitution
Democrat Fan: moron extremist idiot.

Get the point?

Posted by: jimenj | October 15, 2010 12:11 AM | Report abuse

this article and posts show the robotic mindlessness of democrat fans. the standard attack this days for a conservative is extremist. Journalists and posters will repeat the same line ad infinitum regardless of the topic.
The conservative says, I am going to slash costs.
Democrat Fan: extreme view on tax, can you belive how idiotic.
C: I will reduce government control
Democrat Fan: idiot will take us back to slavery
C: I will follow the constitution
Democrat Fan: moron extremist idiot.
C: I oppose Obama's views on government
DF: what a racist bigot? can you believe such narrow mindedness? Only because Obama is black, she opposes him.

Right! like conservatives never talked about cutting taxes, reducing the size of government to that outlined and permitted by the constitution or ever disagreed with a democrat (even those that were presidents) before Obama.

I am tired of the frigging race baiting line already; it is worn out! My name is Javier Jimenez. I am from Puerto Rico. Of hispanic origin (no duh) probably in my ancestry there is indigenous blood, spanish, black and who knows what the heck else.

Get it through your thick skull! We oppose Obama because his brand of politics leads down the path to socialism. Progressive liberalism leads to statism which leads to central control which leads to tyranny. Always has; always will. Not because this is the US of A, that politicians of the future will not abuse the power politicians wrestle from the people today.

I prefer 1000 to 1 a down to earth simple minded citizen running for office than a slick well polished public figure because the former will be transparent the latter will be a snake. Always has; always will.

Posted by: jimenj | October 15, 2010 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Is she that cynical or that clueless? I'd have to give the nod to clueless. I've yet to hear or read about anything she has said during this campaign cycle that would pass muster in a 3rd grade book report. This woman is profoundly ignorant, so much so that she is apparently lacks the necessary IQ points to know, let alone care.

I've read that it took her quite a long time to obtain a degree from college. What astounds me is that any college could bring itself to issue a degree to someone so unfit for such an honor. If this same institution of higher learning is accredited in any course of study...that accreditation needs to be revoked and damn quickly.

Posted by: spike591011 | October 15, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Wonder how often miss purity changes her chastity belt? O'Donnell is dull,silly, uninformed and without any class at all.Can you imagine this dolt being a United States Senator?,perish the thought.

Posted by: LDTRPT25 | October 15, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

mini2;all,

mini2: PLEASE tell us all WHY your beloved BHO said of Robert "KKK" Byrd (DIMocRAT of WV)in 2009: "He is a shining star of our party who we are so very, very, proud" when Byrd was at the same time a SITTING NATIONAL OFFICER of the KU KLUX KLAN.

sorry DIMocRATS, your party is the traditional party of ANTISEMITES, BULL CONNORS, RACISM,GEORGE WALLACE, LYNCHING, ORVILLE FAUBUS, FIRE HOSES & POLICE DOGS, RACIAL SEGREGATION & HATE for minorities (full disclosure: i am NOT "a white person".)& remained the "preferred party of" the KKK as long as it was in the informed self-interest of the DIMocRATS to embrace the KLAN.

fwiw, it's just 18 days until we "ignorant people from flyover country" (Princess Pelosi said that of us in SEP 09.) are going to throw OUT the DIMocRATS from Capitol Hill by the multiple dozens & return the Congress to the GOP.
(if the GOP fails to deliver on returning the nation to CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, we will throw them out in 2012, along with BHO & his motley coven of CREEPS, TAX CHEATS, Chicago THUGS, COMMON CRIMINALS & BIGOTS in the WH.)

note to ALL: IF you are as disgusted as the rest of our TP membership is with THE MESS in Washington, JOIN the TEA PARTY in your home county & GET ACTIVE.
you will be WARMLY WELCOMED & "put to work" to help us clean the house & the senate this year. THEN, in January of 2011, we start on DUMPING Obama & the rest of the DIMocRATS/RINOs and returning our government to people who will LISTEN to us "ordinary people" & who will DO our bidding.

yours, TN46
coordinator, CCTPP

Posted by: texasnative46 | October 15, 2010 12:46 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