O’Dear O’Dumb O’Donnell

By Tatiana von Tauber

My oh my.  It just doesn’t get any better than this recording of Christine O’Donnell showing what anti-Tea Partiers have been cringing about all along.  While at first it’s funny O’Donnell doesn’t know much about the separation of church and state or the First Amendment, on the deeper side we know just how scary this can be. This is the same camp as Sarah Palin and no doubt a wonderful addition to the new and “improved” version of the dumb blonde: the dumb brunette.  They’re few and far between and seem to congregate at Tea Party functions.  

video: http://www.dailykostv.com/flv/player.swf

15 Responses to O’Dear O’Dumb O’Donnell

  1. evrenseven says:

    Forget about O’Donnell: remember that there are about 6 or 7 senators and probably 2 dozen reps that are going to enter congress after these elections that have the same stated belief. Of the senators, Angle, Miller, Buck, Lee, Rubio, Toomey, Johnson, etc. have all at some point or another talked about teaching creationism in public schools. However, a few of those are probably just giving lip service to the ignorant masses who just want to hear that nonsense. Also, Scalia, Alito and Thomas don’t believe in a “separation of church and state” either, and we don’t know how the wise Latina feels about it but she’s a practicing catholic.

    I’m starting to believe more and more that O’Donnell is just a plant from the GOP to keep our attention away from the actual right wing radicals that are going to win elections by double digit margins in response to anti obama hysteria.

  2. Charles Platt says:

    Surely O’Donnell is perfectly correct that the Constitution does not refer specifically to “Church and state,” a phrase which is credited independently to Thomas Jefferson. We all know how the First Amendment has been interpreted in the decades since it was written, but she is entitled to disagree with that interpretation, and while she may be misguided in doing so, she is not necessarily stupid for doing so.

    • McKingford says:

      Well, she is stupid for specifically questioning that the words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” appear in the first amendment.

      Which is what she also did.

    • McKingford says:

      I should also point out that even if one disagrees with the current interpretation of the first amendment (of which the proper short form is entirely properly understood as “separation of church and state”), then one is indeed stupid to pretend that the current interpretation (denoted by the term “separation of church and state”) doesn’t prevail.

  3. Tatiana says:

    Excellent point.

    I recently spoke w/my husband about how the hype is a great diversion. I agree with you…and that anti-obama hysteria is being over hyped too. Shame our most important principles stand on the stage of clowns.

  4. Tatiana says:

    @Charles – If she were a student in class or “just a citizen” yes I agree with you but she is a political candidate and therefore she is in fact uninformed and uneducated. In politics and “reality” that equates to being stupid in a light sense of the word. In the politcially correct arena that equates to “misguided”, with all due respect to your statement. Being misguided is okay. I’ve been misguided many times and made mistakes as a result; however, if you’re going to play with the big boys don’t make women look like idiots on top of the many other battles women must fight.

    How can a woman like this get this far? There are some serious dollars funding these kind of “misguided” ways and still producing a dumbed down version of woman. But isn’t it rather wise to find a new and improved way to knock women down? Rather than blatant sexism “let’s find a dumb woman as a decoy. Let’s show them what women really got to offer” is the kind of “new and improved” system of insult to injury O’Donnell represents when I think of how far women have come and where they are being ‘misled’ – specifically with what politics is feeding us.

    • Bad Monkey says:

      “How can a woman like this get this far? There are some serious dollars funding these kind of “misguided” ways and still producing a dumbed down version of woman. But isn’t it rather wise to find a new and improved way to knock women down?”

      Did you really just try to spin into this some kind of conspiracy of sexism? Let’s consider this for a few seconds, cabal of people are propping her up in order to make women look bad vs. there are a bunch of people who agree with her stated beliefs. So who is behind this cabal, the GOP? As I recall they were refusing to give her money at first (until such a course of action was proven politically nonviable).

      How much money is given to evangelical religions every year?

      It isn’t that she makes women look like idiots, some women simply are idiots. About 25-39% of the women of Delaware, depending on the poll, are stating they intend to vote for her. She isn’t making them look like anything, she simply seems to represents a certain segment of women. Just as Bill Clinton and George Bush did not make all men look like philanderers or language manglers respectively, although they do represent a certain segment I’ll grant you that.

      As far as her being representative of where women are being ‘misled’ and what they are being fed. That is their choice though isn’t it. They can choose to eat what is handed to them on a plate or question it and determine for themselves if there is any validity to it. She, and those who support her, aren’t 6 years old, they can make their own decisions and should be held responsible for them, not be allowed to pawn it off as their having been been misled.

      She said something stupid (not the first time nor the last probably). If a man gets up and says something stupid we blame them for what they said, not how they, or men in general, are being misled. Admittedly some people toss the phrase “personal responsibility” around a bit too frequently, and a bit disingenuously, but it really does come into play here.

      • Tatiana says:

        Good point on the conspiracy thing. I wasn’t suggesting such on a conscious level but I can see the spin now that it’s been brought to my attention.

        That noted consider the kind of mentality running the GOP. It’s dominated by religion and religion dumbs down reason. In that sense, the “conspiracy” is alive and kicking. It’s not so much about *making* women look dumb as it is allowing dumb women to pursue traditionally, “smart” male politics. It’s about letting them run their own show and how sad, in their stupidity they fail. Surely the GOP has smarter women so why is this nutcase running? That was my ranting point but instead it comes down to an “Oh well. Clearly O’Donnell is a dingbat as are many more…back to the drawing board. Men? You ready to get back into dominating politics or are we going to have to deal with these pussies outside of the bedroom too?”

        With all due respect to your excellent point, it’s not unreasonable and to think any less is to simply assume the grassroots movements across America don’t have enough gusto to win. Power doesn’t need intelligence to win. Women are being used in politics and the dumb women fall easily to opportunity without the ability to properly fight back. Sure it’s self-responsibility to self-educate vs. be ‘mislead’ but I don’t see it so on the surface. It’s much deeper.

        One of my points of the comment, how can a woman get this far, stems itself on an answer I didn’t at first see. I’ve experienced the grassroots power of religious America myself. A conspiracy may be a laugh now but don’t underestimate the power of God’s will and THAT is the fuel that keeps them going and in these parts, it’s atomic in power.

        All in all, opinions or truths, it’s heart wrenching to see women make a mockery out of “my kind”. When a porn star has more brains than a political candidate, does not one have to stop and think? The whole thing is very disturbing. But shhh, don’t say “sex” in these conservative parts. That makes ‘em real uncomfortable.

        Thanks for your feedback. It’s not often I’m stumped to think twice about my answer.

        • Bad Monkey says:

          Not to get things started on a bad foot, but allowing women to pursue them?

          They aren’t allowing her, they are supporting her. The fact is she is saying what other people agree with, they support her in that effort. We may think they are all fools, or we may agree with them, but let us call it exactly what it is. She won the primary, just one of a series of popularity contests on the way to an elected position.

          Truthfully, isn’t that what the elections and primaries really are in a great many ways today? Sad as it might be, it is a truth all the same.

          Respecting the “smart” male politics. Lets be fair here. There have been in the past some very stupid men who have ran for office, and some have even won. One can argue people have been voting for that person they can identify with. To say Christine O’Donnel, or even Sarah Palin is representative of all Republican women is an insult to those Republican women who aren’t like them. And again, being fair, the vast majority of them are not O’Donnels and Palins. Heck, even Palin isn’t as Palin as some would make her out to be.

          Why is she running, because she won the primary. The voters spoke, she won, that’s how it works. Recall the GOP did NOT support her. She was not the establishment candidate. Which of course supports your proposition that the grassroots candidates can win. It also might have a big part to be with why she won. The only defining factor I have found among people who call themselves members of the tea party is distrust of the established parties. Much like certain elements of the DNC in the 1960’s felt.

          Where are the other GOP women you ask. Recall, if it bleeds it leads. Retractions are not on the front page. O’Donnell and Palin get front page because the media sells to the lowest common denominator. At this point all newspapers and major media outlets I think should be required to print on yellow paper and use similar light filters in the studio. Just like men who only say reasonable, non-inflammatory things don’t tend to get much air-time on CNN or MSNBC so too with the women.

          Yes, I also fear what the deeply religious, regardless of religion, will do, and what they would do given the opportunity. By the way, I’m in Virginia, a more metropolitan part I think, but I am very familiar with how religious fervor can run the show.

          Oh, very true about the sex thing, and don’t mention adult use of intoxicants either. That really upsets them, unless its booze or tobacco, then its okay. and Asia Carrera, now there is a smart (at least educated) porn star. Then again given how female actors really are the ones making money in the porn industry maybe they know a thing or two anyway.

          Thanks for the reply. And I’m glad it wasn’t a conscious thing too.

  5. writerdood says:

    It made me gag, just thinking about it. But then I was gagging before this, so that was nothing knew. The ramifications of these morons getting into office typically sends me running to the crapper. Even more so the concept that there are a large number of people who actually buy into this movement enough to vote for them. But, that’s America for you. Hype and hyperbola. Sound bites and blather.

  6. car253 says:

    Let’s get bill HR 4364 Passed!! Protect freedom of speech. No SLAPP!!

  7. herbiethelovebug says:

    it’s pretty funny that she said this at a law school and when everyone laughed she thought they were laughing WITH her, not at her. the real problem is that all the dems and liberals want to do is make jokes about these idiots, and we can’t seem to be bothered to get fired up about how morons may take over congress yet again.

  8. Sean F. says:

    You people worry too much.

  9. […] of the tea party? I started to wonder about this after a write-up about O’Donnell on The Legal Satyricon. basically had a bit of a disagreement with how one commenter was portraying O’Donnell and […]

  10. Mesothelioma 101…

    O’Dear O’Dumb O’Donnell « The Legal Satyricon…

%d bloggers like this: