Thursday, September 16, 2010

Changing our political culture, part deux

Following up on yesterday's post about the Delaware Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate, Christine O'Donnell, particularly the part about her being a chastity advocate as a young woman, I came across a few things today that do not surprise me in the least. Nether does it surprise Chris Horner, who blogs over on the ultra-conservative AMSPEC blog. Horner hits the nail on the head while opining about the likes of Rachel Maddow and their response to O'Donnell unabashedly standing up for what she believes in, for her Christian beliefs, which also constitute the same sexual morality as that espoused by Muslims, as well as orthodox and conservative Jews:

"Part of the media’s O’Donnell heckling is due to the urban bubble journalists and broadcasters live in. They can’t fathom how an intelligent human being could take the conservative line on human life and sexuality — let alone the deficit — because none of their friends or colleagues do. Their mistake is presupposing that the New York City crowd is an authority on everything — or anything."

So, now we turn to the always entertaining James Carville, who does not seem to be able to make the distinction between O'Donnell's activities prior to entering politics, which did not include advocacy for making masturbation illegal, and the issues and platform on which she is running for office. In fact, Carville gets so worked up on Good Morning America he doesn't even make sense. I am pretty confident in stating that until Maddow aired the MTV interview from 1996 no mention of self-stimulation was made in whole of the campaign.

"In terms of getting into the bedroom, this woman has run against masturbation. That seems to me to be a lot of government intrusion to be honest with you. She is a very fiscal conservative, she doesn’t believe in paying the bills, and she equated masturbation to adultery. If that is the case the Iranians would be stoning a lot of people in this country, I’ll tell you that."

See for yourself:

So, let me get this straight, even though O'Donnell has never, ever advocated for a city or county ordinance, or a state or federal law outlawing masturbation, but merely stated that she believes it is immoral and, hence, personally and societally destructive and encouraged young people not to engage in it, using the same moral arguments made by the Catholic Church, if she is elected we have to worry about about Iranians stoning people who engage in self-gratification in this country? Like Glen Davis' quip about O'Donnell somehow implying that no married people are infected with HIV, I have to say, Huh?

This is a mistake the liberal media, most of whom do inhabit the urban bubble described by Horner, makes over and over again. Therefore, it is significant that Sarah Palin is not only endorsing O'Donnell, but her SARAHPAC is helping finance the Republican nominee's Delaware Senate run. What Palin did was to say, in effect, "You're right. I do stand for those things." She recognized that so do a lot of people in the U.S., perhaps even a majority and certainly a strong plurality. She refuses to nuance or compromise, or soft-peddle what she stands for, which certainly works to her detriment at times. I think O'Donnell will do much the same thing. If she's smart, she'll learn when to walk away and when to stand and fight.

My reason for bringing this up arises from nothing other than my utter amazement at the response of people like Maddow and Carville to a candidate like Christine O'Donnell.


  1. Wow.

    "She is a very fiscal conservative, she doesn’t believe in paying the bills, and she equated masturbation to adultery. If that is the case the Iranians would be stoning a lot of people in this country."

    Aside from the problems with grammar (a very fiscal conservative?), this just seems to be one four-part non-sequitur. Has he always been this much of a loon?

  2. Isn't this called the politics of destruction?

    It's probably always been this way, but in the past 20 years, it's been en vogue to smear, attack, and destroy the character of the opposition by any means whatsoever. The goal is to make them out to be a frings kook so far out of whack with "normal sensibilities" (whatever that means today), that anyone would be a fool to actually support or vote for such a person.

    Both liberals and conservatives have this down to an art. I've seen it on both sides, a lot.

  3. Yes, Dan it is what Bill Clinton dubbed "the politics of personal destruction." You are also correct that both sides engage in it, but I have say that people like Maddow and Carville only think it matters when conservatives do it, or, more directly, deny doing it.

  4. Thanks, Scott for this post. Well stated.

    Deacon Bob Yerhot


A political non-rant

In the wake of yesterday's Helsinki press conference, which, like a lot of my fellow U.S. citizens, as well as many people abroad, left ...