The Swiftboating of Christine O’Donnell (Reply to Barrett Brown)

Posted on | September 18, 2010 | 110 Comments

I don’t suppose you’d be inclined to explain the process by which you determined that O’Donnell’s own account of her dabbling in witchcraft constitutes a “smear.” Does “smear” mean something different in Confederate talk than it does in American English?
— e-mail from Barrett Brown

“Smear” describes the intention of the actor as much as the content of his actions. Democrats have employed the term “swiftboat” to describe what they perceived to be such tactics employed by Republicans. But let’s examine that term and see how it applies here, shall we?

John Kerry purposefully made Vietnam heroism the centerpiece of his 2004 campaign biography. The organization Swift Boat Veterans for Truth therefore put forward other Vietnam veterans, including men who had served with Kerry, to dispute the facts and interpretation of Kerry’s record. Believing that the SBVT campaign constituted a smear, Democrats therefore now describe any similar GOP effort as “swiftboating.”

To what extent has Christine O’Donnell made her biography the centerpiece of her 2010 Senate campaign? Not at all, so far as I am aware. She instead focused her GOP primary campaign squarely on Mike Castle’s record in Congress, especially his anemic ACU ranking and his votes for TARP and the cap-and-trade bill.

The one exception to that issue-focused campaign was the online video insinuating that Castle had carried on a clandestine gay affair. That video was produced by a former O’Donnell staffer without authorization of the candidate or her campaign, and has generally been condemned by O’Donnell’s supporters. It is doubtful that it had any meaningful impact on the results of the primary.

By contrast, at no time during the GOP primary campaign did Castle’s Republican supporters attempt to defend his record on the merits. Other than their attacks on O’Donnell’s financial history, etc., the pro-Castle argument could be summarized thus: “Mike can win the general election; Christine can’t; better to elect a RINO than to risk defeat by the Democrats.” Republican primary voters in Delaware seem to have rejected those arguments, 53%-47% being a rather decisive “no” to the status quo.

Now, in the general election campaign, the issues in Delaware are even more starkly defined between Chris Coons and O’Donnell than they were in the GOP primary. A vote for Coons is emphatically an endorsement of the policies of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. A vote for O’Donnell is a rejection of those policies.

Every indicator of electoral sentiment currently suggests that voters are prepared to deliver one of the loudest “no” votes in American political history. Therefore, it behooves Democrats to make the mid-term election a vote about something — anything — other than the Democratic Party’s policies.

This is why Christine O’Donnell’s opponents want to talk about masturbation or witchcraft or whatever else will prevent voters from perceiving the election as a referendum on that set of policies colloquially known as Obamanomics.

Certainly no one could blame Democrats for seeking to change the subject — “Hey, let’s blame Bush!” — but I am increasingly doubtful that voters are in a mood for such sideshow distractions. In fact, according to many observers in Delaware, the Castle campaign’s relentless negative personal attacks on O’Donnell backfired badly in part because voters perceived that Castle (running as the de facto incumbent) was trying to avoid a discussion of his record on the issues.

So, why do I describe the use of O’Donnell’s 1999 comments on witchcraft as a “smear”? To repeat, it is a matter of intent. O’Donnell has never raised the subject of witchcraft as part of her current Senate campaign, nor has she ever proposed any government policy toward withcraft, so far as I know.

Why was O’Donnell discussing witchcraft on Bill Maher’s show? How did this topic come up? What was the context? We don’t know, nor has anyone attempted to place this video clip in its proper context. Rather, the clip is being used to convey a clear message: “SHE’S A TOTAL KOOK!”

That message is obviously intended as a smear. To borrow the Left’s jargon, they are trying to “swiftboat” Christine O’Donnell.

Barrett, you have objected in the past when, highlighting your leadership role in an atheist political organization, I dismissed you as a fanatical God-hater. Perhaps you have sufficient self-awareness to perceive how your bias against Christianity informs your antagonism toward Christine O’Donnell. Perhaps not. Either way, the source of your fanaticism is apparent to anyone with eyes to see.

When you first attacked me in October 2009, Barrett, you did so by jumping on someone else’s bandwagon which you evidently believed was rolling on its way to inevitable victory. Nearly a year later, it appears your belief was in error. After some months of silence, now you solicit my explanation of a single word — “smear” — in one of many posts I have written about the Delaware Senate campaign.

How stupid do you think I am?

Don’t you see that it is your intellectual arrogance that defeats you at every turn? You believe that you are so damned superior to anyone who disagrees with you that every argument must resolve itself as another stunning triumph for Young Genius Barrett Brown. Yet the relevance of any such debate is always obscured by your arrogance, as the only reason you ever enter into an argument is to demonstrate how much smarter you are than everyone else.

Whatever the subject, your conclusion is always the same: Everyone should admire Barrett Brown. And whatever the outcome of the debate, you are never satisfied by the result, because no one could ever admire you as much as you admire yourself.

Excuse me for refusing to cooperate in your latest attempt at self-aggrandizement, although I appreciate the opportunity once more to instruct you that you aren’t nearly so smart as you think you are.

Please contact me again the next time you feel a craving for humiliation, Barrett. I’ve rarely encountered anyone who needs humiliating as badly as you do.

— RSM

UPDATE: Hinderaker declares O’Donnell “RIP.” Michelle Malkin says, “Grow some balls.”

Well, I paraphrase slightly . . .

BTW, what is it with some Republicans who would rather walk away from a difficult fight rather than to muster a show of force by winning where Conventional Wisdom says victory is impossible? I’ve always loved underdogs who fight like hell and win despite all odds, but it seems some members of the GOP commentariat are wired differently.

Christine O’Donnell is a “lousy candidate”? Well, pray tell what would you call John McCain?

“Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Bob Barr!”

Category: Delaware

Comments

110 Responses to “The Swiftboating of Christine O’Donnell (Reply to Barrett Brown)”

mistermark
September 18th, 2010 @ 10:35 pm

So, in other words (and you sure wrote a lot of words), it’s a smear when people who don’t like you quote your own words back to you. Got it.

Someone got humiliated here, but I don’t think it’s Barrett Brown.
Rob
September 18th, 2010 @ 10:41 pm

@mistermark,
Barrett’s e-mail speaks for itself.
ccoffer
September 18th, 2010 @ 10:49 pm

The left is populated by vermin.

They brush their teeth, take out the garbage and all sorts of other stuff just like normal people. Thing is, they are crappy people. That’s why they have such crappy ideas.
Robert Stacy McCain
September 18th, 2010 @ 11:30 pm

@mistermark

The point is that O’Donnell’s discussion of witchcraft in 1999 is fundamentally irrelevant to her campaign for Senate in 2010. She is a nominee for a legislative position, not a candidate for sainthood. She has campaigned on the issues, and we have no legitimate reason to believe that she is being dishonest about how she would vote on those issues.

Of course, any candidate for public office will be assessed by voters on the basis of character, insofar as it is possible to do so. But Democrats have never seemed to care much about the character of their politicians. Democrats absolutely revered Ted Kennedy, and Mary Jo Kopechne be damned.

Let me know if you find any dead campaign aides in Christine O’Donnell’s record.
Steve in TN
September 18th, 2010 @ 11:38 pm

Have you searched the alter where she and her beau dined for that dead aide?

Please, you’re defending the indefensible. Better to ignore these things and concentrate on what O’Donnell brings to the race itself. What were those again?
Obama's 'Elite' New Target Came From Humble Beginnings | The Lonely Conservative
September 18th, 2010 @ 11:46 pm

[…] Too bad nobody in the US press has taken the time to publish anything about John Boehner’s rather humble beginnings. I’m sure we would have heard all about it if he had been born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Any biographical information the voters can identify with is strictly off limits. But we’re hearing all about every kooky statement Christine O’Donnell has ever uttered in her life. […]
MrPaulRevere
September 19th, 2010 @ 12:07 am

“Does “smear” mean something different in Confederate talk than it does in American English?”: This sets a new standard in vapid, bigoted commentary.
Robert Stacy McCain
September 19th, 2010 @ 12:21 am

@MrPaulRevere

I’ve lived with that all my life. As Jeff Foxworthy says, the minute a Southerner opens his mouth, people deduct 15 points from his IQ score.
nathan hale
September 19th, 2010 @ 12:31 am

enthusiasm, charisma, a fair amount of courage, a devotion to constitutional principles, things
like thaT
Ben (The Tiger)
September 19th, 2010 @ 12:38 am

We take the anti-TARP candidates we can find.

This year, that may be enough.

Republicans and moderates of Delaware — can you afford to elect a guy who reneged on a no tax hikes pledge and hiked property taxes nearly fifty percent, while blowing thru a surplus? That’s Coons’ record.
MrPaulRevere
September 19th, 2010 @ 12:51 am

It’s the Carville’s and the Begals’s and Joe Klein who are whispering in everyones ear that Christine can’t win. Screw that. And a pox upon conservatives who listen to them. You are a real gem Mr. McCain, thanks for all you do.
Joe
September 19th, 2010 @ 12:54 am

Ms. O’Donnell needs to convince just a wee bit more than 50% of Delaware voters that she would be a better representative for them than Chris “Harry Reid’s Pet–Bearded Marxist” Cooms.
newton
September 19th, 2010 @ 12:59 am

“Does “smear” mean something different in Confederate talk than it does in American English?”

What’s this “Confederate” business?!? Just because one lives in the South?

Methinks the bigot here is Barrett Brown. (And yes, you can quote me on that.)
No Sheeples Here
September 19th, 2010 @ 1:00 am

You are linked at http://nosheepleshere.blogspot.com/2010/09/odonnells-got-em-bewitched-bothered-and.html
replete with appropriate Photoshop™.
MrPaulRevere
September 19th, 2010 @ 1:01 am

The same establishment cockroaches who bash Christine told us Ronald Reagan could never win the Presidency. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Mark Noonan
September 19th, 2010 @ 1:16 am

At any rate, if this really does destroy her chances with a majority of Delaware voters, then that would be the fault of the voters of Delaware. To be bamboozled in to voting for a Statist who backs the Obama plan because his opponent once dabbled in witchcraft, apparently, some ages ago, is asinine. Personally, I don’t think they’ll fall for it in Delaware – the fact that O’Donnell so massively energized GOP turnout indicates the real direction this campaign is heading.
H. G. Fielding
September 19th, 2010 @ 2:45 am

what is it with some Republicans who would rather walk away from a difficult fight rather than to muster a show of force by winning where Conventional Wisdom says victory is impossible?

WIthin the punditocracy, I’d say it’s an ego driven need to be right. Alot of people both in traditional media and new media have insisted that O’Donnell cannot win. Nobody likes to be proven wrong, and I imagine that’s doubly so with people who see themselves as influential opinion shapers.

Within professional Republican circles, it’s partly the win at all costs mentality & resentment that their symbolically significant sure thing in DE failed to materialize, partly that she’s an unanointed outsider who had the temerity to run and win when she wasn’t wanted.

And let’s face it, there’s an elitist attitude in both parties that looks upon ordinary people as too unsophisticated to do the important work that elitists like to think they do. The people are to represented, and not by themselves.
RightKlik
September 19th, 2010 @ 2:48 am

Brilliant title
Well, I Used a Ouija Board Once: So, What? | Blogs For Victory
September 19th, 2010 @ 5:08 am

[…] Other McCain discusses the latest liberal attack on Christine O’Donnell – a clip from Bill Maher from 1999 […]
Paul Zummo
September 19th, 2010 @ 7:50 am

When I was in college I actually purchased the Satanic Bible. One evening at a party I thought it would be cute to place the Holy Bible and the Satanic Bible side by side. (The party ended with someone spraying a fire extinguisher, and then the police coming to the dorm. Lesson learned.)

I was never an actual Satanist, and I was mainly just being a stupid college kid. Which is the point – people do stupid things when they’re young.
DaveP.
September 19th, 2010 @ 7:55 am

“Does “smear” mean something different in Confederate talk than it does in American English?”

–Barrett Brown admitting that he’s a bigoted clown.
José
September 19th, 2010 @ 8:20 am

Did Mr. McCain also believe that it was wrong for McCain/Palin to keep bringing up Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers during the 2008 campaign?

O’Donnell’s past work as a religious social conservative have a great deal to do with where she is now and the positions that she supports. People have a right– a responsibility, in fact– to find out where she stands on such issues. O’Donnell has a responsibility to explain herself, and she can either persuade the voters that her beliefs are reasonable or she can disavow her previous statements and actions as youthful indiscretions. Instead she is doing neither, but is avoiding questions altogether.
Lifeofthemind
September 19th, 2010 @ 9:09 am

On this one I am with Mr Stacey McCain. The attack on O’Donnell by Bill Maher and company should make people more sympathetic to the woman. Is she the best possible candidate? No, and I think that people like Rove who suggested that Castle was more electable had a point and should not be attacked for having offered their professional opinion. Once the primary was over they should not have descended to personal abuse of the candidate.

Over the long haul we need to think about the role of political parties in America and how we choose our candidates. The caucus packing by Axelrod in Texas and Iowa in 2008 that gave the nomination to Obama and the primary jumping by David Duke in Louisiana in 1990 and ’91 show how vulnerable the system is. Strong local organizations with members committed to principles that know their candidates should have more control. The trick would be to keep the local clubs from becoming dominated by corrupt machines.
Kelly
September 19th, 2010 @ 10:11 am

Jose, you are too funny. Did you watch/listen to the clip? The explanation is right there. Listen and watch again and see if you can actually hear what she says and not what you want to hear.

I can’t believe that this clip has raised such controversy. O’Donnell says she is against witchcraft because in her youth, she “dabbled” in it, she knows what it involves and she rejected it. Horror of horrors, what controversy!
Ric Locke
September 19th, 2010 @ 10:11 am

Lifeofthemind cuts to the chase.

It’s a political party in a two-party system. Members of a political party are supposed to support one another, in order to build up their strength.

When choosing a candidate from within the Party, it’s “no holds barred” regardless of whether that choice is made by a primary, a caucus, a smoke-filled room, or tossing dice.

Once the candidate is chosen, the other members of the Party should actively support that candidate or simply shut up. Finding things wrong with the Party’s candidate is the business of the opposition Party, and they should be left to get on with it, not actively assisted.

People of the candidate’s party who don’t either support or stifle reveal themselves as having some agenda other than the good of the Party. It then becomes incumbent (!) upon the other members of the Party to discover just what that motivation might be.

It’s simple two-party political mechanics. Democrats know this well, and practice it perfectly. Why can’t Republicans figure it out?

Regards,
Ric
Robert Stacy McCain
September 19th, 2010 @ 10:17 am

Did Mr. McCain also believe that it was wrong for McCain/Palin to keep bringing up Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers during the 2008 campaign?

On Jeremiah Wright: This was not an incidential association of Obama’s career. Obama had spent 20 years in Wright’s church and had used the title of a Wright sermon (“The Audacity of Hope”) as the title of his own book. Wright’s “liberation theology” is clearly far less orthodox than the evangelical Christianity O’Donnell once espoused. (She has since, BTW, converted to Roman Catholicism.)

On Bill Ayers: Again, the association between Obama and Ayers was not incidental. They had been faculty colleagues, and Ayers had hosted Obama’s first political fundraising event. Furthermore, Ayers was not merely a man with radical ideas; he was a man whose radical ideas had led him to pursue acts of criminal violence in pursuit of Marxist revolution — for which Ayers has never repented or apologized.

To compare Obama’s connections to Wright and Ayers with O’Donnell’s past also overlooks a crucial distinction: While she is running to become one of 100 U.S. Senators, he was running to become President of the United States. Americans hold presidential candidates to a much higher standard than they do for mere legislators, and rightly so. While one would hope that all public officials would be of the finest character and greatest wisdom, the potential harm that one senator can cause is far less than the damage that can be done by a bad president — as Obama’s presidency certainly demonstrates!
Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup: Talk Like A Pirate Edition! » Pirate's Cove
September 19th, 2010 @ 10:48 am

[…] Stacey McCain offers up the swiftboating of bonnie lass Christine O’Donnell […]
JeffS
September 19th, 2010 @ 11:06 am

Barrett Brown is a narrow minded, bigoted political hack, who spends much of his time jamming his size 13 ego into his size 3 soul.
Ric Locke
September 19th, 2010 @ 11:27 am

#26RSM: and, again, this goes to the fundamentals.

Obama was the Democratic Party’s candidate. Republicans looked for “dirt”, Democrats countered the discoveries. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

If Democrats find out unpleasant things about Ms. O’Donnell, it’s their duty to expose them because they aren’t members of her party — and it’s required of people who are members of her party to counter the accusations. That’s perfectly normal Party politics.

My beef is Republicans finding out unpleasant things and rushing to expose and promote them. That’s damaging to the Party. The best explanation is that people who do that belong to another Party — not the Democrats, but a Ruling Party that has more in common with Democrats who are also members of the Ruling Party and find their position threatened by a candidate from the not-Ruling Party.

Regards,
Ric
ThomasD
September 19th, 2010 @ 11:39 am

I’ve rarely encountered anyone who needs humiliating as badly as you do.

Which is odd considering that Barrette brings this upon himself as a matter of routine.

Not intelligent, just impervious.
johnl
September 19th, 2010 @ 12:36 pm

There is something a little frightening about the claim about having a date on a Satanic altar. Because someone punked her later. That kind of naivete is what makes people support TARP because someone tells them all economists think it’s a good idea, or for Cap and Tax, slam dunk, weeks not months, … Are there no adults in DE that the choices for Senate are all children?
Progressive white liber -- oh, crap...
September 19th, 2010 @ 12:43 pm

As a Concerned Christian Conservative, I am worried about the effect on the moral fiber of our great party and nation if we elect someone who has embraced Lucifer.
Adobe Walls
September 19th, 2010 @ 1:26 pm

I fail to understand the reverence for the “Buckley Rule” didn’t he lose the only race he entered?
Barrett Brown
September 19th, 2010 @ 1:50 pm

I guess I should go reply to this at length. You’re really cutting into my mirror-staring time, Stacey.
skeptic
September 19th, 2010 @ 4:02 pm

johnl, when she dabbled in witchcraft she was a teenager or in her early 20s at the latest. The clip is from 11 years ago, and the events she described took place many years before that. So yeah, she was naive then. And?
butch
September 19th, 2010 @ 4:40 pm

Once again RINO loyalty is shown to be a strictly one-way deal.

RINO wins primary: You conservatives STFD, STFU, and support the slightly less statist alternative. Because there is no way a conservative can win the general.

RINO loses primary: RINO does his best to make sure the conservative loses the general. Then he can say, “See – tolja you couldn’t win.”

Frack them sideways with a pineapple.
M. Simon
September 19th, 2010 @ 6:00 pm

We are at war with the statists of the right and left. So what do we have? I’d say at this point maybe 10% to 20%. Not enough to move things yet. But more than enough to work with.

Just remember Captain Jones. His ship is sinking. When he fires his guns more of his crew die than he kills of his enemies. So what is his reply when the opposing Captain asks, “Have you struck?” And of course his reply has gone down in history (maybe not exact), “I have not yet begun to fight”. He maneuvers his ship into close quarters, grappling the opposing ship, and the Marines in the foretops clear the decks of the opposing Captain’s ship and they board. After a bloody hand to hand fight he takes the Serapis and watches his ship sink. Victorious.

In battles things often look darkest when you are close to victory. Both sides are exhausted. The side that can at that point surge wins.

from:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2010/09/i_feel_like_a_f.html
José
September 19th, 2010 @ 6:04 pm

It’s “incidental”, not “incidential”. Let’s not go Palinesque with our vocabulary.

Candidate Obama clearly disavowed the extreme statements of Rev. Wright. Candidate Obama has never been suspected of supporting the radicalism of Bill Ayers, except by the tin foil brigade. Absolutely nothing that McCain says indicates that President Obama’s actions or policies are in any way made worse because of his church membership or a single fundraiser held decades ago. This is just damning someone by mindless association. I don’t know about you, but I sure as heck will not allow some yahoo to define me by every single thing that my pastor and co-workers say. It’s silly that McCain resorts to superficialities instead of an explanation that relies on specific and verifiable examples.

O’Donnell’s religious past is a relevant issue for her candidacy today. So she was evangelical once and she’s Catholic now; what will she be next month? As a US Senator in a sharply divided and partisan Congress she could easily cast deciding votes for approving legislation and confirming appointments. How would her extreme religious beliefs affect her votes? That’s a fair question since her background and qualifications consist of little more her work in promoting a religious based social conservatism. Unlike many other candidates O’Donnell is not well known. It’s time that we got to know each other. Most candidates are eager for an opportunity to present themselves to the world. O’Donnell has gone into hiding. What does that tell you?
JeffS
September 19th, 2010 @ 6:05 pm

Skeptic, this is similar to Dubya and his own “substance abuse” problems. Years after the fact, after he’d sobered up, the lefties still held it against him, ignoring the drunks who still had problems, and that they still held in reverence (Kennedy, Kennedy, Dodd, etc).

Selective blindness, as it were. I mean, how many lefties would dare dis a current practitioner of witchcraft or Satanism?

Yup, thems crickets that you hear as their response.
JeffS
September 19th, 2010 @ 6:10 pm

So, José, if Candidate Obama was a practicing member of Reverend Wright’s church in 2008, and disavowed during the primaries, what will President Obama be next month?

After all, Obama went to church today. Which even Reuters describes as “rare”.

Maybe O’Donnell made Obama see Jesus?
JeffS
September 19th, 2010 @ 6:19 pm

“O’Donnell: No Witchcraft Since High School — If so, Rove Would be a Supporter”

BUAWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
M. Simon
September 19th, 2010 @ 6:23 pm

The fact that she was once a satanist is a BIG plus in my book.

Aleister Crowley helped me find God. And I still like him very much.

BTW read this Crowley bit and tell me what you disagree with:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2009/12/magick.html

Excerpt:

MAGICK

is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.

(Illustration: It is my Will to inform the World of certain facts within my knowledge. I therefore take “magical weapons”, pen, ink, and paper; I write “incantations” — these sentences — in the “magical language” i.e. that which is understood by the people I wish to instruct; I call forth “spirits”, such as printers, publishers, booksellers, and so forth, and constrain them to convey my message to those people. The composition and distribution of this book is thus an act of

MAGICK

by which I cause changes to take place in conformity with my Will.

====

The REAL trick is aligning your will with the will of God. A much tougher proposition than just making things happen.
Dave C
September 19th, 2010 @ 6:58 pm

José

Twenty years in Wright’s church. Where BHO’s daughters were baptized by Wright.

Twas no mere dabbling..
José
September 19th, 2010 @ 8:27 pm

Thank you, JeffS. Although candidate Obama publicly disagreed with some of Rev. Wright’s statements and positions, he did not change religions. (I’m not sure if he left the UCC.) For 20 plus years now President Obama has been a member of a mainstream Christian denomination that has strong social concerns, not unlike my own mainstream denomination. Mr. Obama’s personal beliefs seem to be awfully stable and his preferred church affiliation is a good match to his personal beliefs. Do you have reason to suspect that Mr. Obama will jump from one extreme to another? Why?

It is indeed unfortunate that Presidents do not attend public worship services very often. That’s not unusual, right? Other than Jimmy Carter no President in my lifetime attended church frequently while in office, which I suspect has a lot to do with security matters.

You know, it didn’t bother me so much that candidate Obama was quizzed about crossing paths with Bill Ayers a long time before, or asked what he thought of the incendiary statements by Rev. Wright (though they were taken out of context). The problem was that even though Obama answered those questions thoroughly and satisfactorily, the right wing rabble rousers worked hard to keep the topic alive and the media complied. Even Mr. McCain says that the controversies are valid though he can not say why. Now, let’s compare notes. By the time he began his Presidential campaign Barack Obama had served in the Illinois state legislature and the US Senate. He served as president of the Harvard Law Review and he taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. He had worked as a community organizer. He had written two books, largely autobiographical. He was a keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention. The point is, we knew a heck of a lot about the guy. On the other hand, what can you say about Ms. O’Donnell? Her background is an enigma and she is obviously trying to keep it that way. She is running away from questions instead of facing them head on. She was too cowardly to swing at softballs on Fox News this morning. Even Chris Wallace was peeved.

As for the comparisons to former President George W. Bush, who disparaged him for being a recovering alcoholic? There are many reasons for knocking W but that ain’t one. On the contrary it’s commendable that he was able to turn his life around. Lest you think he is a model of openness, I will remind you that the record shows differently. When he ran for governor of Texas he was not at all forthcoming about substantiated allegations of cocaine usage. He still hasn’t confirmed or denied that one. And in 2000 while running for President he first denied being arrested for drunk driving and later had to admit the incident when the facts came out. Making a mistake in your past is understandable and forgivable. Lying or hiding your past, that’s a whole different matter.

DaveC, thank you for observing that President Obama is no mere dabbler when it comes to his Christian faith. Incredibly, a lot of conservatives think he’s a Muslim. Pretty nutty group, don’t you think?
José
September 19th, 2010 @ 8:36 pm

BTW, it’s so funny to see President Obama criticized for being a member of a Christian church, writing a book about his faith, having his children baptized, and attending worship services this Sunday. You guys are a TOUGH CROWD! I guess they can’t all be good role models like Newt Gingrich (twice divorced Roman Catholic) and Sarah Palin (one grandchild, no son-in-law). One can imagine what an uproar there would have been if the candidate with a pregnant unwed teen-aged daughter was a black liberal!
Bob Belvedere
September 19th, 2010 @ 8:38 pm

Another classic – bravo, Stacy!
Adobe Walls
September 19th, 2010 @ 9:33 pm

Barack Obama attended Keynesian/AntiAmerican/Liberation Theology/AntiWhite Colonial Imperialist/Marxist church just like mine is not much of an affirmative defense.
JeffS
September 19th, 2010 @ 10:08 pm

Although candidate Obama publicly disagreed with some of Rev. Wright’s statements and positions, he did not change religions.

Immaterial. Listening to 20 years worth of racist rants from Wright’s pulpit far outweighs a high school student’s brief indulgence.

BTW, it’s so funny to see President Obama criticized for being a member of a Christian church, writing a book about his faith, having his children baptized, and attending worship services this Sunday.

Except that I’m not “criticizing”, I’m pointing out the irony. Especially since ol’ O!bambi virtually STOPPED attending church (that’s what “rare” refers to, a point that you oh-so-conveniently overlook) after he threw Wright under the bus. Until yesterday. AFTER the GOP primary stompings across the country. That “come to Jesus” moment isn’t exactly coincidental, not after his polls have been tanking for months.

Face it, José: you’re not the clever concern troll that you think you are. Goal post moving and deliberate obtuseness are old hat. Me, I’m done with you. Someone else here can step up.
More on Delaware (and did I mention Chris Coons is a liar?) « Olliander
September 19th, 2010 @ 10:17 pm

[…] Take it away, Stacy McCain: [T]he issues in Delaware are even more starkly defined between Chris Coons and O’Donnell than they were in the GOP primary. A vote for Coons is emphatically an endorsement of the policies of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. A vote for O’Donnell is a rejection of those policies. […]
José
September 19th, 2010 @ 10:22 pm

Typing a list of labels without specific examples or justification is not exactly an offense. I guess a defense isn’t necessary! But thank you anyway, Adobe. You might well contend that the UCC is a somewhat liberal denomination. Many people say the same thing about The United Methodist Church, which counts George W. Bush and Dick Cheney among its members. So what is your point? Unless you make a specific argument citing an actual policy decision that results from Obama’s church membership then it’s pretty clear that you have made no charge of any substance.

McCain and crew want an inquisition into Obama’s past, not because of his own actions but for what OTHER PEOPLE did and said. McCain needs to explain why that is fair, and thus far he has sidestepped that question. Now McCain is raising a fuss because Christine O’Donnell is being asked about peculiar things that SHE ACTUALLY DID SAY AND DO. McCain’s sense of fairness doesn’t make a whole lot of sense!

When faced with these controversies that really dealt with other people, Obama addressed the questions directly. Contrast that with O’Donnell, who runs away from questions about her personal actions and statements that directly call to question her future performance as US Senator.