"Christine O'Donnell: I'm Done with National Media": CBS

1. 59

   fishskinfreak2008posted 13 years ago

   Web-site/URL: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- … ?tag=stack
   
   Just like SARAH PALIN and the rest of the Tea Party, Christine O'Donnell has one objective/one idea to get attention: BLAME

   replyreport
   1. 60

      JayDeckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, it's the media's fault she looks like an idiot.

      replyreport
2. 59

   Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago

   The list of Teabaggers who will neither answer reporters questions, nor publicly debate their opponents is growing very long...
   
   ...what do you suppose they're afraid of?

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Viewers will figure out how ignorant they are?

      replyreport
      1. 85

         rebekahELLEposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         not likely..    perhaps the thinking ones.
         
         how ridiculous this whole thing. don't talk to the mean media... that way you won't get caught in a lie.

         replyreport
      2. 59

         Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         They already know, and don't care.  FoxNews says swallow it hook line and sinker...

         replyreport
   2. 77

      Abecedarianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Wow, that comes a surprise!  No not really, It's typical of the Tea Party. They don't want to answer questions. They don't want to tell you how they "plan" on doing anything. If they don't answer, they can't be held accountable. THE TEA PARTY IS ABOUT UNACCOUNTABILITY---YET THEY WANT OUR POLITICIANS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.  Pot colling the kettle black? You betcha.

      replyreport
3. 77

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Right. The evil left-wing media also caused her to dabble in witchcraft and use campaign funds inappropriately.
   Gives new meaning to "The devil made me do it!"

   replyreport
4. 59

   Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago

   I guess she doesn't consider FoxNews to be part of the national media.

   replyreport
5. 60

   Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago

   Is there a disconnect behind a group like the teabaggers who claim Obama and the administration is not transparent enough - and yet thy don't want to give interviews or answer questions.
   
   Sarah Palin has a safe position on Fox to snipe at the administration - and she uses Twitter to make cheap and false shots - but she won't TAKE any questions except in writitng and pre-screened on those occasions where she will do a speaking gig for 100K.
   
   Last year when she accepted an invitation to speak at a pro-life rally, not only were reporters banned, so were recording devices. Everyone entering the venue was searched to make sure SP could not be quoted.
   
   It ought to make you think.

   replyreport
6. 77

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   I thought she was including Fox News -- she canceled interviews on CBS and Fox. The rationale I read was that the national attention wouldn't "win her votes" and that she needs to concentrate on Delaware media only.
   
   I think she might be confused, possibly due to listening to Sarah Palin.
   Christine -- you're not running for governor.
   You're running for US senator. That is a NATIONAL playing field.
   Big leagues. Big scrutiny.

   replyreport
7. 77

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Then again, maybe Christine et al are better off going mum. Here are 10 representative Tea Party Candidate quotes. The last one by my gal Sharron Angle really speaks to the "I'm done with national media" mindset. *shiver*
   
   1. "I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." —Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle, floating the possibility of armed insurrection in a radio interview, Jan. 2010
   
   2. "It is not enough to be abstinent with other people, you also have to be abstinent alone. The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. You can't masturbate without lust! ... You're going to be pleasing each other. And if he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?" —Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, advocating against masturbation in a 1996 MTV interview
   
   3. Tea Party candidate Ken Buck, after being asked why people should vote for him for the Colorado GOP Senate nomination: ''Because I do not wear high heels. She has questioned my manhood, and I think it's fair to respond. I have cowboy boots, they have real bullsh*t on them. And that's Weld County bullsh*t, not Washington, D.C., bullsh*t.'' Buck was referring to an ad run by his opponent, which decried third-party spending on behalf of his campaign and urged Buck to ''be man enough'' to run the ads himself (July 21, 2010)
   
   4. 'We took the Bible and prayer out of public schools, and now we're having weekly shootings practically. We had the 60s sexual revolution, and now people are dying of AIDS." —Christine O'Donnell, during a 1998 appearance on Bill Maher's 'Politically Incorrect'",
   
   5. "People ask me, 'What are you going to do to develop jobs in your state?' Well, that's not my job as a U.S. senator." —Sharron Angle, May 14, 2010
   
   6. "By integrating women into particularly military institutes, it cripples the readiness of our defense. Schools like The Citadel train young men to confidently lead other young men into a battlefield where one of them will die. And when you have women in that situation, it creates a whole new set of dynamics which are distracting to training these men to kill or be killed." —Christine O'Donnell, during a 1995 C-SPAN interview when she was press secretary for Concerned Women for America
   
   7. "What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I've heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it's part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen." —Kentucky GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul, May 21, 2010
   
   8. "I think that two wrongs don't make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade." —Sharron Angle, explaining why she is against abortion even in cases of rape or incest, July 8, 2010
   
   9. "I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it." —Rand Paul, taking issue with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while arguing that government should not prevent private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, May 21, 2010
   
   10. "We needed to have the press be our friend ... We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported." —Sharron Angle, during an interview with Fox News Channel's Carl Cameron, Aug. 2, 2010

   replyreport
   1. 60

      JayDeckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Terrifying!

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Number 5 and 9 are actually good responses.
      
      And most of the rest are state issues, so they could be accurate

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Joe Badtoeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         number 9 is a good response?
         wow!

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            you OWN your restaurant, don't you? The 14th Amendment makes it clear that if you OWN something the State CAN'T interfere with your right of ownership.
            
            Thus, yes, PRIVATE racism is allowed. However, the market punishes the racists by preventing them from earning more money than they could by accepting everyone.

            replyreport
      2. 60

         JayDeckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         So, I should be able to turn women away at the door of my business?
         African Americans?
         Asians?
         Hispanics?
         Men?
         How does this fit into your view of the Constitution?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            It fits easily. Why? How? Easy. Reread the 14th amendment, it NO where says that people with private property are NOT allowed to choose how to use it. No where. Not once. Not at all. No where. The supreme court has abused it's powers, and no one has bothered to read the damned amendment.
            
            So, Here's the relevant parts of the 14th Amendment (relevant because section 2 of the 14thA demands that ever MALE is a person, and S3&4 simply say 'screw the south'):
            
            "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
            
            In fact, after rereading it again, the amendment actually speaks in direct favor of my argument! "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY"... IF you make it so that someone who owns a restaurant can't choose his customers, then you are saying that he doesn't own that property.
            
            If I buy a building, do I not own it? If I call that building a restaurant, do I not own it? If I then offer to serve people food for money, do I not still own it? If I own something, aren't I allowed to decide how to use it?
            
            It makes unwavering and flawless sense.
            
            Now, you want to ask me if it's RIGHT to be a racist? No. of course it's not ok. And the market will punish the racists accordingly - Why would you want to be a racist restaurant owner when the color of (true) money is gold no matter WHO owns it? If I'm racist towards (insert type of person here), then i will lose money by not serving them.
            
            It's really that easy. And no where in the Constitution.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               dostersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               You do have a point...often the threat of a racial boycott is as good as the real deal anyway...

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  it doesn't even take a boycott.
                  
                  If there are two restaurants, and both serve decent food, but one only takes white customers and the other takes all customers...
                  
                  .. non-racist restaurant will be cheaper, and it will have more customers. The "White only" restaurant will likely stay in business (if it's a racist town), but it will have to charge more and have fewer customers. Also, what bank is going to fund the construction of a "white's only" business? -- they'd likely lose money, and prestige, on the investment.
                  
                  Imagine, like, a TGIF's and a "White's Only" TGIF's... which one is going to survive?

                  replyreport
            2. 60

               JayDeckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               "Reread the 14th amendment, it NO where says that people with private property are NOT allowed to choose how to use it"
               Nor does it say they are allowed to choose how to use it. In fact, as provided in the 10th Amendment, states have always reserved the right to regulate the use of property. In most cases they allow individual counties and municipalities to regulate it. These cases include, restaurant licensing and zoning laws. If you buy a building, you do own it, but you aren't allowed to open a bar there simply because you choose to.
               The right to property cannot be abridged without due process of law. Thankfully, since Brown v. Board of Education, this due process has held that states cannot pass laws that allow discrimination, endorse discrimination, or condone discrimination.  Granting a white only establishment a license to operate, or zoning for a white only establishment violates the 14th Amendment according to multiple courts and cases. Additionally, federal (and state) anti-discrimination law has consistently been supported by court interpretations of the 14th Amendment, the "Commerce Clause," and the "Necessary and Proper Clause." If federal law isn't enough, you may be fond of quoting the 10th Amendment, Ohio state law forbids
               " any proprietor or any employee, keeper, or manger of a place of public accommodation to deny any person the full enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges based on the bases of race, sex, color, religion, age, marital status, national origin, disability, or ancestry."
               And let's not forget the reason behind the 14th Amendment. If you know your history, following the Civil War the market did not "punish the racists accordingly." The 14th Amendment was not framed to protect the property rights of white people, the 5th Amendment was. Strict constructionists will argue that the words as written are what matters, but will refer to the intent of the original framers and search the Federalist Papers, as the Judiciary has, for clues as to intent.
               Evidently, and thankfully, the majority of Americans- Presidents, legislators, judges, and citizens alike- have seen us to this point, through actions, as provided for in the U.S. Constitution.

               replyreport
   3. 79

      dostersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Man, these are perfect for my hub on logical fallacies!  Thanks Mighty Mom!!

      replyreport
8. 61

   Joe Badtoeposted 13 years ago

   It is terrifying but even more terrifying is the fact that there are people out there who somehow think that these extraoridinary vacuous halfwits are fit to consider running for congress.
   
   Civil War beckons.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think it's amazing that so many people think that the people in congress right now aren't vacuous half-wits.
      
      The only difference between the goons im power now and those trying to get in is that those coming in have to deal with the media more often

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Joe Badtoeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You may well be right Evan G although I'm inclined to believe the next bunch of half wits lke Palin and Cod could be actually more dangerous to the rest of the world than Dubya's crew was.

         replyreport
   2. 61

      Jonathan Jancoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      W was the president who set the precedent. Even the 'C' students can be President of the United States!

      replyreport
9. 63

   Greek Oneposted 13 years ago

   hahaha.. done with the media?  Yeah, but are they done with you?
   
   It's like asking my yummy steak dinner if it wants to be eaten.
   
   What is she going to do, cast a spell on them?

   replyreport
10. 77

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    Excuse me?
    Masturbation is a state issue?
    What state do you live in?

    replyreport
    1. 63

       Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       a state of loneliness

       replyreport
       1. 66

          Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I guess your wife is having a virgin birth?
          
          Congratulations to your new baby!

          replyreport
          1. 63

             Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             well, she probably didn't feel anything.. so yeah, I guess it's like a virgin birth lol

             replyreport
    2. 59

       Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       It's in the Constitution...plain as day...no Supreme Court interpretation needed.

       replyreport
    3. 60

       Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       was this one aimed at me? I responded to this claim in a later post.

       replyreport
11. 77

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    Women in the military is a state issue?
    Wanting to control the national media is a state issue?
    And yes, even Sharron Angle's comment on jobs in Nevada is incorrect. It is very much the senator's responsibility to fight for federal FUNDING for PROJECTS in his/her home state. Surely this funding does not simply pour into the state government coffers and remain there. It goes to projects that create WORK for the citizens of the state.
    In her case, it could go towards setting up a bunch of lemonade stands outside of family planning clinics

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       The military is to be manned by the state militias. In the War of 1812, Connecticut refused to send it's militia to help with the war because it was largely a war that was brought on by the actions of a government that was ignoring the Constitution.
       
       And reading your post further angers up my blood:
       
       " It is very much the senator's responsibility to fight for federal FUNDING for PROJECTS in his/her home state. "
       
       This is simply incorrect: The Federal government doesn't have the authority to fund stupid pet projects in states. That's Mercantilism/Crony Capitalism - and the 10thA strictly prevents it.

       replyreport
12. 77

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    Ah, I think I'm getting it now. It's under the Second Amendment,isn't it?
    The guaranteed right to hold and shoot off one's own firearm is METHAPHORICAL!!!!

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       
       
       The controversy is about the "militia" phrase...
       
       ...Does that refer to circle jerks?

       replyreport
13. 77

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    
    Circle jerk, cluster f%#@.
    Perfect description of the Tea Party if you ask me.

    replyreport
14. 77

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    Uh oh. I think we've lost Evan.
    Maybe he's off "reloading."

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Or scanning the Constitution, desperately seeking the "spanking" clause.

       replyreport
    2. 60

       Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       oh, were those comments aimed towards me? You keep posting your responses as a fresh post, and it doesn't look like they're aimed at me. Please reply to my comments with the small reply button after my posts. --- not trying to be a jerk, it just seems that my credibility is being lost because I'm not able to see that your replies are aimed at me.
       
       Anyway. Yes, as stupid as it is - I can agree that the constitutions of each state could use some work - Every issue that is NOT granted to the federal government (A1, S8 and S9) is a state issue, unless that power is STRIPPED from the states (A1 S10). If it is a power not specifically delegated to the federal government, and it is a power taken away from the states, then it is 100% a "people's issue".  This is Spelled out in the 10th Amendment (10thA).
       
       What does that mean? That means, sadly (sadly?), that a state COULD outlaw the... ahem... "circle jerk"... ugh... if such a power was not taken away by the State's constitution.
       
       I'm all for any form of depravity, so long as it's voluntary between both (all?) parties involved, and it doesn't interfere with others' rights. I think i've made this clear: I'm an Anarchist who WILL settle for the Constitution. I make my arguments from the Constitutional standpoint because that's the easiest/most-likely-to-win-others-over way to argue for.

       replyreport
15. 77

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    Do you think these Constitution purists are aware that the document was created by a bunch of Blue Staters? Should we tell them?

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       A bunch of blue Staters?
       
       How many red States existed then?

       replyreport
       1. 66

          Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Get used to revisionist history.  Aka applying current labels to a time when it didn't exist then.
          
          You have to laugh

          replyreport
    2. 60

       Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Are you nuts? The Founders were, if anything, libertarians!! They SECEDED from their government, and wrote NUMEROUS documents STRIPPING their government of power!!!
       
       How in the world could you call them liberals?!

       replyreport
16. 77

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    The original thirteen colonies were Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Virginia.
    
    Using 2008 results as the guide 2 out of the original 13 colonies (15%) would be considered "red" states.
    
    
    
    My point, Jim, as I know you know, is that those who look to the Constitution as the be-all and end-all of American governance, can't have it both ways. These educated gentlemen drafted the Constituion as a framework for governing the UNITED States of America.
    If one is going to hold up the Constitution as the so-called Bible of America, then it stands to reason that
    a) one should understand and respect the education level of the men who drafted it, and
    b) one should respect that it was, in fact, written long before the so-called red staters came along with their "literal but flawed" interpretation of its meaning.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Can't have WHAT both ways? Just because someone was educated doesn't mean that they think the federal government should fund NASA. That's nonsense.
       
       The Constitution CLEARLY restricts the powers of the Federal Government. Have you even read the damned thing? Or are you just using "the Constitution" to mean "things that sound warm and fuzzy"?

       replyreport
17. 77

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    Flightkeeper,
    Are you saying we should only use terminology and concepts that applied when the Constitution was drafted? Because that appears to be what some of what I call the "constitutional purists" seem to want.
    Forget "revisionist" history -- let's forget history altogether and all just live in 1776. Right.

    replyreport
    1. 66

       Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       And where did I say that?

       replyreport
18. 77

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    You said:
    "Get used to revisionist history.  Aka applying current labels to a time when it didn't exist then."
    
    Perhaps to be more historically accurate I should have said the Constitution was drafted by a bunch of blue COLONISTS.
    Would that serve?

    replyreport
    1. 66

       Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Why do you keep making things up?  I said one single sentence and you make stuff out of it, why do you do that?  There was no such thing as red states and blue states then or red vs blue and from that you get to blue colonists...
       
       Yeesh!

       replyreport
       1. 61

          Joe Badtoeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          That first sentence...oh the irony.

          replyreport
          1. 66

             Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             And yet you don't recognize it in yourself

             replyreport
             1. 61

                Joe Badtoeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                oh how I laughed.......

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   are you insulting FlightKeeper? Because her argument is valid - "Blue" (Democratic Party) didn't exist back then in the same way it does today, nor did "Red" (Republican Party).
                   
                   The issues at hand back then were the same as those up until the Civil War - state's rights and the restriction of federal power. These discussions are found NO WHERE in today's debates, except just recently, with the libertarian part of the Tea Party movement.

                   replyreport
    2. 60

       Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Mighty Mom, you GOTTA learn to respond to individual posts... I can't stand these Responses that are completely new threads. There's a small "reply" button at the end of each post, if you want to reply to that post, please reply via that button.
       
       The colonists weren't the Party of Democrats (which is what "blue" means today), nor were they liberals, via today's definition (as "blue" sometimes means).
       
       They were Libertarians, by today's vernacular, because they demanded restricted government and wrote numerous documents to restrict the powers of the government they were creating.

       replyreport
19. 77

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    I thought it was pretty funny, actually.
    And truthfully, the BLUE COLONY diner -- in the CONSTITUTION STATE (Connecticut) is one of my favorites. For reals.
    
    http://www.bluecolonydiner.com/

    replyreport
20. 77

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    Thank you, Joe.
    I thought it, but didn't dare articulate it.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Joe Badtoeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       You're welcome MM.
       
       Remember, the more facts you give them the less they understand.

       replyreport
21. 0

    PrettyPantherposted 13 years ago

    LOL!  In a previous thread, I said "I can't wait to see how O'Donnell handles the spotlight."  Now, we know.  She plays the victim and runs away, just like Palin, just like Angle, just like Rand Paul.
    
    So predictable.
    
    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/53528?p … ost1224332

    replyreport
22. 60

    Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago

    If she's decided to run a purely local campaign, dies that mean she will be turning down out-of-state campaign contributions?

    replyreport