Comments on It’s strange, sure is strange by CK MacLeod

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.

@ 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.

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.

@ 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."

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.

@ 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.

@ 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.