It’s strange, sure is strange

New possibility for Tea Party campaign song, especially given the latest Christine O’Donnell revelations, based on Bill Maher’s boffo tape from O’Donnell’s appearance on Politically Incorrect in 1999:

O’DONNELL: I dabbled into witchcraft — I never joined a coven. But I did, I did. … I dabbled into witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I’m not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do. […]

One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn’t know it. I mean, there’s little blood there and stuff like that. … We went to a movie and then had a midnight picnic on a satanic altar.

Politically Very Incorrect.  Possibly explains O’Donnell’s sudden cancellation of scheduled appearances on Face The Nation and even Fox.

Let me just state for the record that I sympathize with O’Donnell’s dalliance with the weird, just as I sympathize with her financial difficulties (though there may be more fire under that smoke). It’s not really too much of a stretch for me to see her side on dabbling with the Evil One, or on her once-upon-a-time anti-masturbation campaigning, or even on what she was trying to get at when she said she didn’t believe God would ever force her to lie.  Yet even I, naturally flexible as I am, find myself getting a bit sore here.  I don’t know how cool and stretchable the voters of Delaware are.  And O’D may fail for other reasons -- just from overall comes-across-as-weird-lightweight-ness, not any particular attention-grabber.

In other news, Sarah Palin has suggested that she might just be ready to give 2012 a shot, but only if the audience claps as hard as it can.  Picking up on the day’s political themes with unusual aplomb, the DNC rushed out the following video:


WordPresser
Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

17 comments on “It’s strange, sure is strange

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. well…..delaware has the second highest proportion of scientists and engineers per 1k citizens in the nation….i think they would vote for a witch before they would vote for a Young Earth Creationist.

    CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that

    .

  2. @ strangelet:
    Hey, strange – long time, no see. Hope you had a witchin Summer.

    Yep, the YEC stuff is just more weight to test one’s non-judgmentalness… ness. It was 1996. She’s tried a blanket “I said a lot of things when I was new and ardent in my faith” that I’m inclined on principle to accept. Unfortunately, even if you’re willing to wipe the slate clean on the ’90s, say, that still leaves the little problem of WTF she’s saying now, and stands for.

    You’ve got to pick up every stitch.

  3. And they still voted for Joe Biden, even after his double plagiarism, the last from Kinnock,?? was revealed, after his Homer Simpsonish way of
    dialog, after flubbing every major issue for the last forty years from the original pipeline to the break up of Iraq. Yes CREW, the folks who petitioned that Sarah’s wardrobe be audited, and they found nothing of note, is on her case. big woop,

  4. @ miguel cervantes:
    CREW fabricated video from Politically Correct and is blackmailing Bill Maher into releasing it? Interesting!

    Your good buddy at Powerline thinks she’s oh-vah:

    Christine O’Donnell’s Career, RIP

    Good grief. Maher says there is a lot more where that came from. Not coincidentally, I’m sure, O’Donnell’s staff today canceled her scheduled appearances on Fox News Sunday and Face the Nation tomorrow. It seems apparent that O’Donnell was not properly vetted as a candidate and that she will be more the butt of jokes for the next six weeks than a serious candidate. This is not what the conservative movement needs.

  5. No, the other matter, which you are alleging, not the video tapes, although I would like to have seen what the panel discussion was like
    in that instance. We’ve seen enough of Max Blumenthal’s and the Winner’s handiwork not to trust the end product.lNow you really have gone ‘Naavi’ over the last year, Colin, next think you know your icon will be blue. The Clean Toga boys, are rather disappointing in their willing to abandon a candidate like the Eskimos on a ice floe. I guess
    you have to willing to at least consider a ‘a pointless and futile’ gesture’ in order to topple the state’s leading patriarch,

  6. miguel cervantes wrote:

    you have to willing to at least consider a ‘a pointless and futile’ gesture’ in order to topple the state’s leading patriarch,

    If burning O’Donnell as a witch is bad for the patriarchy, let’s give it due consideration.

  7. miguel cervantes wrote:

    although I would like to have seen what the panel discussion was like
    in that instance

    I have a feeling you wouldn’t. Look – I could say a lot about her and why she’s not “senatorial,” but the bottom line is that if she were a lefty, and had done and said equivalent left-world things on the ideological side, had behaved similarly in regard to finances and media access, you’d be ALL OVER HER. She’d be a typical sick stupid corrupt lying conspiracy machine evil ruling class clone dimwit to you. And you know it.

  8. Curiousity having gotten the best of me, I actually watched the clip, she in with Clive Barker, the master of Grand Guignol horror, on a
    Halloween themed show by the timeline, ah the vapors from the folks
    at Powerline, Steyn’s reaction should be choice, as will Lileks.

    Now back in the real world, we have the fellow who got a cottage from the Countrywide folks, in Ireland, writing the financial regulatory
    bill, on one end, and one fellow with a very close understanding of subprime financing in the other. The chairman of the tax writing committee was reelected despite having a million dollars in undeclared property. So color me ‘shocked, that gambling is going
    on here’

  9. @ miguel cervantes:
    Great arguments for Christine O’Donnell to be the next Senator from Delaware. Let’s add some amateur criminal idiots to complement the professional criminal idiots! Too bad we can’t call it “progress.” Maybe if we put a three-corner hat on it we can call it “restoring honor.”

  10. No, I’m making a point, CK, most everything has been said or written about her since Tuesday and even earlier was slightly skewed, She did earn her degree, she just didn’t have the funds, she sold her house legally, yet she was audited anyways, Rove who has never had any issues of this kind, was right as rain,

    she was a little too frank about her sentiments when she was just starting out. The Marmalards and the Niedermeyers of the party, really deserve their comeuppance

  11. miguel cervantes wrote:

    No, I’m making a point, CK, most everything has been said or written about her since Tuesday and even earlier was slightly skewed,

    It’s kinda quaint to see you getting hot and bothered on behalf of someone you like, someone on your side, being subjected to the kind of character assassination that is your delight when applied to those you don’t like and who are on the other side.

    What’s toxic for the goose is toxic for the gander. I’m all in favor, within reason, of setting aside the long-ago – even merely days ago – nonsense and suspicious associations of public figures, including bloggers and pundits, in favor of discussion of what they are actually saying and actually mean to represent.

  12. @ Fuster:
    Well I knew that that expression was subject to certain recently observed provisos.

    BUT – What COD “means to represent” – a popularly driven deconstruction of the progressivist state – is to me more interestingly criticizeable than her televised table-talk about dabbling in witchcraft. There is a moment at which the latter can be thought to function within the former, but the TPers don’t typically want to “own” that moment, or confront its implications.

  13. Why cannot we go back, not the whole way back to Constitutional principles. are we that far removed like Marcus Aurelius’s Rome in Gladiator, from the Republic, there aren’t enough gardens in the world
    to accomodate the tulips that have sprung up

  14. miguel cervantes wrote:

    Why cannot we go back, not the whole way back to Constitutional principles.

    whole buncha reasons… taken literally, it’s an impossibility… put into practice could mean so many different things that literally almost anything could be justified as a partial going back to some constitutional principle or another.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Related

Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins