Is this NY Times profile of Christine O’Donnell not too bad, or am I just so used to complete, all-out hack jobs when it comes to O’Donnell that anything short of an all-out hack job seems okay?
An Overnight Political Sensation Re-Emerges Into the Media Glare
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The latter. The NY Times is so left-wing that when they deviate from that for even a second it's a shock.
“What I discovered while talking to my fellow College Republicans,” Ms. O’Donnell said, “is that I have opinions.”
I like that line.
And yes, the Times is trying to subtley make fun of her.
The fact that there is anyone in America who believes America would be better off if Chris Coons, who apparently has never seen a tax increase he didn't like, was in Washington D.C. is very scary.
Vote O'Donnell! Do it for America.
Coons's politics are just terrible.
However, it's not too surprising he's going to win a landslide. He's acted like a reasonable guy in the debate. Even Christine looked like she was happy to vote for Coons (watch the debate and see if you spot the section I'm talking about).
There's something to be said for having the right policy positions, as O'Donnell does. Obviously, that's quite important. But there's a lot more to winning an election. O'Donnell's ethical problems are quite well demonstrated, and the fervor of some of her supporters have probably greatly increased scrutiny of these problems. Some on the right simply refuse to practice situational ethics.
It's a good thing that O'donnell will lose. Coons's votes will be very bad. Way worse than O'Donnell's (assuming she means what she has said), and somewhat worse than Castle's. But we don't have to have this huge liability time-bomb of ego and dishonesty, and the right can learn a very important lesson. Even in deep blue states, a real conservative can be viable if they are honorable, excellent candidates.