The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Christine O’Donnell, Right Again!

Posted on | September 23, 2010 | 27 Comments

“And you can tell that Britney Spears is struggling with who she is. I think she has a team of agents and managers who are saying, yes, push the envelope, kiss Madonna, take off all your clothes. And she’s doing that because she doesn’t want to sacrifice this enormous platform that she’s built. But at the same time, she is sacrificing herself and you can see that in her eyes when she talks.”
Christine O’Donnell, 2003

This quote was among those featured in a New Republic collection of the “the craziest statements Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell has made in public.”

Once again — as I first pointed out when Rachel Maddow was mocking O’Donnell’s statements about masturbation — liberals seem to believe that such statements are self-evidently absurd. All they have to do is to quote this stuff and roll their eyes and everyone gets the joke.

Excuse me, but what it so wacky about what O’Donnell said about Britney? In fact, I dare say O’Donnell was prophetic in discerning that Britney was “struggling with who she is” and “sacrificing herself” in a desperate effort to live up to her sexualized hype.

O’Donnell said she could “see that in her eyes” in November 2003. It wasn’t until 2007 that the emptiness of Britney’s life became disastrously apparent, when she suffered the most spectacular public meltdown in Hollywood history. How empty was Britney’s existence? She was (allegedly) reduced to exposing herself to her bodyguard in a pathetic attempt at seduction.

Why, then, do the editors of The New Republic presume that their readers will find O’Donnell’s 2003 critique of Britney Spears utterly laughable?

I mean, it’s not like I don’t get it: Just as with her quotes about “dabbling into witchcraft,” all this stuff is supposed to suggest that O’Donnell lacks the dignity and gravitas necessary to fill the Senate seat once occupied by Joe “Big F–ing Deal” Biden.

This is merely an attack on O’Donnell’s biography. She was someone whose commentaries on sexuality and pop culture were, for many years, much sought by those seeking the perspective of a young female Christian conservative on those issues. It was not her job, in that role, to comment on tax rates or  other issues that are at the center of her Senate campaign in Delaware. 

Liberals seek to highlight O’Donnell’s early career as a distraction from the issues that matter to Delaware voters, because tax-raising Democrat Chris Coons can’t defend his own record on those issues. And liberals think the voters are too stupid to see through this tactic.


UPDATE: Now a thread at Memeorandum and Moe Lane at Red State says:

I’ll start caring about her social attitudes when she starts introducing them as legislation, thanks. Until then, I’m much more concerned about the Democrats’ social attitudes, which are frankly already starting to raid my wallet.

But Moe, don’t you think that social issues and economic issues are related? Christine O’Donnell tried to warn that excessive masturbation could lead to premature baldness and tax increases, but Chris Coons obviously didn’t listen:

And, in related news: Barney Frank sucks!


27 Responses to “Christine O’Donnell, Right Again!”

  1. Wondering Jew
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 12:22 pm

    Yawn. . That’s Nice, Stacy.

    FWIW, I agree with you entirely on substance. But did you expect anything else from the MSM?

    And now how about we turn our attention to one of the dozens of Republican candidates who are not overexposed and who are actually within striking distance of Dems in independent public polls.

    One of my main criticisms of O’Donnell was that it distracted us from a number of other closer battles with, quite frankly, better candidates. Seeing Joe Miller’s relative fundraising struggles while all of the oxygen got sucked out of the room and sent toward O’Donnell just reinforces that.

    Why not stop talking about this woman until she shows she is within striking distance (she has enough $ to get her message out on her own now without the blogosphere) and focus on more of the dozens of other races out there that are much closer and equally important.

    More Mattie Fein, etc., Less O’Donnell.

  2. Moe Lane » Erm. O’Donnell was actually correct about Britney Spears.
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 1:05 pm

    […] know, I’m going to have to agree with Stacy McCain, here. This 2003 statement by Christine O’Donnell, about Britney Spears? “And you can tell […]

  3. alan markus
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 1:07 pm

    Reminds me of when Dan Quayle had the audacity to suggest that single-motherhood as glorified by the Murphy Brown show might have negative implications on society as a whole. I remember that was one big “hoot” at the time – comedians of that day made some good coin off of that one. How’s all that single-motherhood working out for whatever large metro city you happen live in or near to? I’m near Milwaukee – not so good there!

  4. Erm. O’Donnell was actually correct about Britney Spears. | RedState
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 1:08 pm

    […] know, I’m going to have to agree with Stacy McCain, here. This 2003 statement by Christine O’Donnell, about Britney Spears? “And you can tell […]

  5. Joe
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 1:29 pm

    I am sure Smitty could tell us all about those cathodic electronic systems that prevent rust on ships and pipelines. A small piece of sacrificial metal ends up corroding.

    Someone suggested Christine O’Donnell may be that sacrificial metal, in taking Democratic pressure off of the other Senate races in Nevada, Kentucky, possibly Conn., Wisconsin, etc. The Dems are so fearful of O’Donnell winning they will divert resources away from other races.

    Of course you want O’Donnell to actually win. And she may. It is going to be an uphill battle. Which is why we need to direct fire at Chris Cooms.

  6. section9
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 1:38 pm

    What, no boob shots?

    That’s the point that O’Donnell was actually trying to make, but TNR was too partisan and obtuse to pick up.

  7. nicholas
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 1:40 pm

    “Why not stop talking about this woman”

    Well, Wondering Jew, this is where the battle has gone, and instead of retreating and shrinking away from the Republican candidate, we of the right are calling the phalanx of liberal media tools on the error of their ways.

    The O’Donnell race is a race in which a candidate with conservative beliefs was shunned by the GOP ruling elites, and it rankles that some of our brain trust types have joined the liberals in the latest smack down of a candidate who rose to prominence on the wave of public outrage over how our country has been run by the ruling elites of Washington.

    I’m for her for good reason. But the fact that they are so in the tank against her makes it all the more important to me to line up against them. The liberal and GOP ‘intelligencia’ beat down of her is a liberal and GOP ‘intelligencia’ beat down of me, and I’m not having it.

    You get your Joe Miller to take the kind of liberal BS heat that O’Donnell has and I’d be glad to toss in with him as well.

    Now hit the tip jar. Then head over to O’Donnell’s and do likewise.


  8. Adobe Walls
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 3:30 pm

    O’Donnell is drawing a lot fire; unfortunately some of it is still friendly fire. I say few states or districts are as liberal and out of reach as the conventional wisdom would have us believe. The problem with conventional wisdom is it’s too conventional.
    Any objective view of Mz. O’Donnell’s comments on Britney must conclude they were prescient.

  9. Bob Belvedere
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 4:37 pm

    -Well, said, James Nicholas – you took the words right out of my mouth [again].

    -This just shows that the Left really thinks most of their fellow countrymen are total idiots.

  10. Roxeanne de Luca
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 4:38 pm

    Christine is exactly right and was vindicated by history. Funny how generations – millennia, even – of understanding of human nature give someone the ability to understand the effect that certain actions invariably have on the psyche. It’s almost like studying physics and determining that apples will accelerate towards earth if put into free fall.

  11. Wondering Jew
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 5:11 pm

    Sorry Nicholas, but I’m mostly unconvinced. Your justification was reasonable for supporting her in the primary, but not for continuing the obsession in the general. No one is saying to back away from her, though I will point out that it wasn’t just the RINOs, but significant members of the grassroots R blogosphere (e.g. Ace, Patterico, Allahpundit, etc.) who had legitimate reservatons about O’Donnell.

    I’m just saying– lets concentrate on the dozens of races where our candidate isn’t down 15 or 16 points in independent polls. O’Donnell has banked $2.3 Million. If she can use that to draw a lot closer to Coons, I can justify spending more time on this race.

  12. Can You Smell The Fear? « The Camp Of The Saints
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 7:20 pm

    […] Please do take the time to click here and read his full commentary. […]

  13. ECM
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 9:02 pm

    RE: that pic of Coons and Christine

    It’s like she knows me!

  14. ak4mc
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 10:07 pm

    W.J., if you don’t want to read about O’Donnell, your browser has a scroll bar — and many Windows mice come with a scroll wheel.

  15. nicholas
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 10:29 pm

    I am not gonna be rolled by the left. That’s the bottom line. I am not going to allow the left to shame me away from this candidate on the basis that they have made her an object of ridicule. How many times have we seen them try this crap? What did they say of Reagan? A ‘B’ actor who didn’t have the smarts to be president. An excellent front for the real brains running the show behind him. A dangerous cowboy that is likely to get us all killed? Well he was nothing like the way he was portrayed. I’m guessing the same is true here. O’Donnell may win, perhaps she will not. Regardless, I will take their efforts to impugn her and skewer them with them on their own petard.

    Is it possible that the left is critical of Christine O’Donnell because they are concerned over her teenage experiences with a Ouija Board? Perhaps not. They are ramping up on her because they think they can shame the entire Tea Party movement, and it is the usual slap down we have come to expect, with the usual double standard applied over statements made. They have the bad manners to smirk when someone made a valid point in regards to their idiotic ideas on how to deal with aids. Wondering Jew, we had Surgeon General Joycyln Elders telling people that she thinks classes should be taught in high schools so that boys could learn how to masturbate, and this she felt was an important response to the aids crisis. Am I to believe that Christine O’Donnell’s counter point was the statement that reflected poor judgment? What she said in this instance was on the money, like it or not. ‘Think about what it is you are allowing yourself to think about.’ That is a reasonable admonition for anyone. It just happens to match the teachings of the Bible. What Joycyln Elders said, on the other hand, was absolutely laughable, and was typical of the pie in the sky, misplaced priorities that is so typical in solutions offered to us from the left.

    Christine O’Donnell did not ask for the reception she has received, but the vehement assault and baseless criticism requires a response from us. The reason nobody knows about Joe Miller is because the left and the ruling elites of the right haven’t put the hit out on him. If Joe Miller wants to be a center focus of the discussion it is up to him to place himself in harms way.

    Now they speak of Reagan in respectful terms. The only conservatives the left is keen on are the ones that are dead and who can no longer hurt them.

    I’ll stick with the living ones.