Weak tea in Delaware
Wednesday, September 8th, 2010
We're being entertained this campaign season by a raft of tea-party Republican candidates who have already…how shall I politely put this…expanded the parameters of political dialogue. For instance, in Alaska, surprise GOP senatorial nominee Joe Miller insists that jobless benefits are an affront to the Founding Fathers ("it's not constitutionally authorized"), which means that millions of jobless people screwed by the recession can expect no help from Joe Miller.
Meanwhile, in Nevada, GOP senatorial nominee Sharron Angle has been insisting that abortion is always morally wrong, that women impregnated by the act of rape should be forced to give birth to the rapist's child. Why? Because that rape is God's will. In her words, "I'm a Christian, and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each of our lives."
In Colorado, GOP gubernatorial nominee Dan Maes has been insisting that the city of Denver's pioneering bicycle-sharing program is a dire plot to lay waste to all we hold dear. In his words, the bike program, which has already attracted 14,000 members, "is bigger than it looks on the surface, and it could threaten our personal freedoms."
And now, in the Delaware GOP senatorial primary, we have tea-party darling Christine O'Donnell, who has long taken a tough stance in opposition to…masturbation.
O'Donnell, in a normal year, would barely qualify as a footnote. If this was a normal year, moderate GOP congressman (and former governor) Mike Castle would win the party's Senate nomination with ease in next Tuesday's primary, and find himself well positioned to defeat Democrat Chris Coons in November, thereby giving his party a rare Senate seat in a traditionally blue state.
But O'Donnell is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Russo Marsh & Rogers, the California Republican strategy firm that created the Tea Party Express. This is the faux grassroots group that pumped $550,000 into the Alaska race and catapulted Miller to the GOP nomination while incumbent Republican senator Lisa Murkowski sat on her money and slumbered. Pumped by that win, the group has now adopted O'Donnell, a previously twice-failed candidate, with the aim of toppling Castle six days from now.
The only problem is that O'Donnell is a veritable train wreck. And Castle and the Republican establishment – spooked by what happened in Alaska – are spending serious money to ensure that Delaware Republican voters know it.
Which brings us to, among other things, the issue of masturbation. She's against it. As she once wrote in an article, "We need to teach a higher standard than abstinence." As she once explained during an MTV appearance, masturbation is not an acceptable alternative to unsafe sex because "you're just gonna create somebody who is, I was gonna say, toying with his sexuality." Besides, "The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can't masturbate without lust."
I think I get what she's driving at. It's clearly a slippery slope: If you touch yourself in an intimate fashion, the next thing you know you'll be an enemy of freedom, somebody who defends Social Security, jobless benefits, and the sharing of bicycles.
But of greater concern, perhaps, is O'Donnell's well-documented problems with empirical reality. This character flaw is undoubtedly the greatest challenge for the Tea Party Express, which is nevertheless dumping $250,000 into Delaware for a last-ditch advertising campaign. It's a brave decision indeed to invest so heavily in a candidate who tells audiences that she won two counties while being shellacked by Joe Biden in the 2008 Senate race – whereas, in truth, she won none.
This all came up, in quite entertaining fashion, on a radio show six days ago. Conservative talk show host Dan Gaffney, who had supported O'Donnell in the past, played a recent audio recording in which O'Donnell claimed to have won two counties. He then asked her to comment.
"Oh, you know what that probably was? You're on the campaign trail a lot, and I meant 'tied.'"
Gaffney: "You didn't 'tie' him, either."
"Absolutely, I did."
"…Christine, he won in votes. You know that."
"It's right there in black and white, I tied…"
"We don't pick a winner based on percentage."
O'Donnell finally demanded to know, "Is Castle paying you off?"
Anyway, you get the idea. But that's the least of it. When O'Donnell first tried for the Senate GOP nomination in 2006, her website described her as a "graduate of Fairleigh Dickinson University." Which doesn't quite square with last week's announcement, from Fairleigh Dickinson, that she has now been officially awarded her college degree – 17 years after attending the school.
This is one reason why the state GOP chairman is making remarks like, "I'm not sure Christine even knows what the truth is anymore" and "She could not be elected dog catcher." It also turns out that she owes $11,744 in back taxes, another $11,000 in unpaid campaign debt from 2008, and that she defaulted on her mortgage. Most of those items have now surfaced in a Mike Castle TV ad.
It's rare to see such Republican fratricide – the state chairman has also called her "hypocritical" and "reckless" – but it's understandable. The Delaware GOP primary is open only to registered Republicans, which means that Castle will be deprived of his traditional support from independents and moderates. Given what happened in Alaska, he has no choice but to scare the conservative base away from O'Donnell.
And there's the electability factor to consider. Unlike traditional red states such as Alaska and Utah (where another tea-party favorite recently toppled the Republican senatorial incumbent), Delaware typically has a blue hue. The polls predictably show that Castle would probably beat the Democrat, Coons – but that Coons would cruise past O'Donnell with ease. Surely Delaware's conservative Republican base isn't so besotted with tea-party fervor that it would tap an upstart nominee who's sure to lose in November.
Or would they?
Thank God my family never lived in Delaware — especially when I was in High School!
Great news. First time unemployment claims dropped by 27,000. Wait, what's that you say? 7 states did not submit data due to Labor Day! CA and another state sent in an estimate, and the Labor Dept estimated the data for the other states. Gee, do you think the Labor Dept low balled the estimates?
swmike: responding to your balance argument. Which is more likely? The Repubs, if they get both houses in the midterms will either a) cast aside their curent obstructionism and decide to work with Obama, or b) continue to fight him on every single issue hoping to win the WH in 2012. Unfortunately, I'd bet on "b". I'm not limiting this selfish behavior to the R's either – fundamentally, this is what the D's did for GW's last two years.
I only said more balance would be restored. I doubt they will take the Senate. Possibly the House. Policies like Card Check and Cap n Trade would be dead in the water. Unless they are passed in a lame duck session after the election. But they were never popular with many democrats so they probably won't get passed. Essentially this could save Obama from himself. But on some things they would have to work together with a more even split in power. Like the Budget. The Days of " We won the election, we'll write the bills" of Nancy Pelosi's leadership would hopefully be over.
tom: thanks for the info. I was assuming that, but (fortunately) I have no experience with the IRS and liens.
The masturbation references are pretty funny, guys. But you must admit, this woman sounds pretty whacky. It's fine to be against policies, etc. But it could be a double-edged sword for the Republicans to align themselves with these fringe types. Oh, for some rational, centered people who know how to compromise. Rhetoric has finally made me extremely bored. I'd rather see some practical engagement between the two sides, resulting in sensible compromises.
Nigel,
Agreed. It is a little funny. The best way to have bipartiship for your elected representatives Representatives is to have more balance restored to Congress. When one side runs roughshod over the other due to super majorities it is never good. I have said this before that the best thing that could happen to Obama is to have Republican Congress.
Well, Mike, that's a nice thought, but I think that we have unfortunate and ample proof that whatever side one is on denounces the other side as enemy. Until each side can come together and see some positive points on the opposite side and try to compromise, I don't think we'll get anywhere.
Balance precludes anyone from saying " we won the election, we'll write the bills ( ie. Nancy Pelosi)
That Pelosi line will be right up there with "I am the decider and I decide what is best"
Mike, you are absolutely right, and nothing could prove it more than the Republican control of everything from 2001-2006. That set the table for all the ensuing catastrophes. Trouble is, it probably takes 10 years to recover from 1 year of insanely incompetent leadership…so we're looking at 60+ years to get over GW Bush. Thanks a lot.
F.Inahoy- You said " smike – What choice do they have? They are heavily regulated and burdened with mandates."…… No disagreement there. My only point is that if we had true free market competition the rates would come down and the choices would be better. The bill that Obama signed was passed with a party line vote and filled with even more mandates that drive up costs. If Democrats think the solution to our healthcare is the mess up the Insurance that 85% of Americans have then they, have completely lost sight of all reality.
The Tea Party Express is the poster-child for Republican exploitation of conservative populism. It is simply a front for a Republican lobbying firm from Sacramento.
And unemployment is at 9.6% and Democrats have been in control since 2006
The tea party has no centralized structure. The one in Florida is different from the one in Wisconsin, etc. They even differ from town to town and county to county. The fact a lobbying firm in Sacramento is involved in one does not mean they are funding all of them. After all, they are not George Soros.
Great, that has nothing to do with Mr. Polman's article.
I see you're right in there following the party line, Logathis. Trying to change the discussion to anything other than the economy. Meanwhile, insurers are applying for hefty rate increases in order to comply with the new mandates of ObamaCare. One more wooden stake into the hearts of the middle class.
by "hefty", do you mean the 1%-9% that swmike reported in the last blog? Isn't that pretty normal? Don't they go up that much every year? I'm curious as to which provisions are driving up cost. Most of the provisions haven't kicked in yet. Is it the "no pre-exisiting exclusions" that BOTH parties were in favor of? …. I wasn't in favor of the bill, but I haven't seen anything offered up to back this up (the reasons behind the rate increases, not the increases themselves).
It is 4-9 percent, and that is the portion of the rate increase they attribute directly to the new law. See the link to the WSJ article I posted earlier.
I already read the article. again, there's nothing backing it. insurers throwing it out as a reason. regulators saying that they offer no numbers to back up the claims. it's a mess. obviously, not allowing denial of coverage for children with pre-existing conditions will cause rate increases. However, that seemed to be the one reform that everyone seemed to agree on, so blaming one party for that one seems to be a stretch. And allowing parents to cover children up to age 26 should, if anything, LOWER rates. The additional children aren't added for free, and are, on average, a healthy bunch. Generally speaking, I don't trust insurance companies. By and large, when the stock market is doing well, rates tend not to go up very much. When the market is flat or declining, rates rocket up. Many companies, until a few years ago, were happy to lose money on the underwriting side of the house, since the investment side did so well. That paradigm has changed. … The medical cost side of the argument is different, but that isn't what we were discussing.
Still- you said " I don't trust insurance companies."………… I wouldn't either as they are the ultimate crony capitalist. They went to the political elite long ago to insure there would be no honest competition in their market. If only the healthcare bill allowed for free market competition.
smike – What choice do they have? They are heavily regulated and burdened with mandates. I'm no defender of insurance companies, but let's apportion the blame for the industries ills where it belongs.
Trying to change the discussion!? Mr. Polman's article was about the Tea Party, not health insurance.
There really isn't much grist in Polman's article. Indicting a movement over one candidate who has virtually no chance of winning the nomination. So perhaps we get a little off topic. Polman should be glad we followed him to WHYY
Yeah, right, I believe everything my fine upstanding honest local health insurance mega-corporation tells me.
And since Satullo asked us to, here's the link to a front page WSJ article on health insurers. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html?mod=ITP_pageone_0
Not a front for Republicans at all. There's enough disaffected people to make a real movement out of this. The fringe is what gets the attention-and the cameras. The MSM is delighted to highlight the kooks and the kooks seem to seek out the limelight. There is enough unhappiness with government waste, taxation, and general inefficiency to make the movement a viable alternative to what we have now – two groups of power grabbers who are filled with delusions of entitlement.
Conservatives who blasted the like of Geithner, Daschle, Rangel, and loads of others in the Dem party or Obama White House for their tax issues, then go and vote for O'Donnell (who had a IRS lien for $11,744 and defaulated on her mortgage) are just party hypocrites who believe it is okay for their guy but not for the other. True hypocrites to the core.
I don't know all the details Tom, but there is a difference between cheating on your taxes versus being in debt and unable to meet the payments. Which category do you believe O'Donnell falls into?
The tax issue was for disallowed travel and other expenses taken as deductions on her 2006 tax return. The lien was released on May 19th since she paid the taxes on May 16th, 2009. She claims the lien was filed in error, but has nothing from the IRS to show that to be true. Either way, she took deductions for which she had no evidence, which could be construed as cheating.
She has a problem with the truth in that she's completely unfamiliar with it.
tom: she claims the IRS made a "computer error". On her website she has a form 668(Z). As a tax professional, maybe you know – would she have gotten this form for releasing the lien if she simplay paid off the money she owed?
tom: never mind. you posted the above while i was typing … in any case, it will be difficult for her to run on a "fiscal responsibility" platform given the financial info. And I give you kudos for pointing out the potential hypocrisy.
still, it is my experience that the IRS NEVER sends out a levy in error. There are timing differences, but since her levy was filed in March and not released until May (after she paid any balance due), if it was in error it would have been released long before May. I've gotten them released for clients in 7 days by simply having them file a tax return or an amended tax return.
Tom, did you just say the IRS never makes a mistake? Didn't expect to hear that from you!
Once you mentioned masturbation , my constant Beavis and Butt-Head chuckling prevented me from reading the rest of your column. The masturbation being a "slippery slope" line was pretty good, though.
JMC, Get a grip. I think you put your finger right on the main issue.
she's going to get spanked this election …
O'Donnell sounds like a real " party " . Does she watch Lawrence Welk during sex?
Who's going to be her "right hand" man?
Funny stuff, guys.
Phrossty- from the previous blog you said " Uh, I thought the mortgage meltdown (and subsequent near total collapse of the monetary system itself) was a result of businesses doing exactly that. I guess the whole sub-prime mortgage industry and investors in mortgage-backed securities weren't in their right minds."………………… That is just 1/3rd of what caused the mortgate meltdown. Fannie and Freddie lowering their underwriting standards was one of the biggest factors. And that was at the urging of Democrats in Congress, btw. And of course the populace ( us) is also to blame. Just cause someone offers you a huge loan doesn't mean you have to take it. For political reasons the left only wants to scapegoat " Wall Street " with all the blame.
Anyone who runs on the Republican ticket is the 2nd coming of Satin in Richard Polman's view. 9.6% unemployment and defits 3 times of Obama's predecessor.
If O'Donnell wins I might just find myself either voting for Coons or skipping that section of the ballot. O"Donnell has recently stated that she has Castle spies following her and lurking in her bushes, which is why she can no longer live in her house.
I looked at her website and I found her stance on taxes, debt, abortion but nothing about masturbation. She is very pleasing to the eye
Yes, let's avoid any discussion of the economy, virtually the only thing that will really matter when voters enter the booth come November.
And According to Rasmussen Reports Castle holds a double digit lead on O'Donnell. Mr. Polman left that part out. Richard will be back demonizing Castle when he wins the primary. Wait and watch.