The tone of this Associated Press article on nutty things Tea Party heroine Christine O’Donnell has said on camera was striking to me. It’s generally dismissive of using past statements to evaluate the woman.
You see, it’s not that O’Donnell talked about dabbling in witchcraft on the Bill Maher show in 1999, rather Maher is “digging up” clips. But this paragraph is what I really noticed:
Opponents have been unearthing unflattering age-old television clips. Her campaign didn’t immediately return a telephone message Saturday, but she has in the past dismissed previous comments.
So I guess there are no clips of modern vintage? And how many years is “age-old” in the AP style book? Is the War in Afghanistan about to become “age-old”? Will the inevitable hero worship of things Reagan supposedly did or said be described as “age-old”?
It’s just such an odd editorial choice.
RIght on! Isn’t it interesting that when it’s THEIR guy (or gal) whose past/youthful goofy statements and/or embarrasing activities are at issue, there is no such thing as redemption/starting over (so much for Christian theologies that make that pretty important). But when it’s OUR gal (or guy) we all need to erase our memories and act like its now only microseconds after the Creation [Big Bang for skeptics/non-believers] and the Fall. Oops…….srike that Fall reference…….but for our folks only, of course.
Reagan? Who dat?
It’s nutty stuff, and no, 11 years ago isn’t that long ago.
That said, I think we all have skeletons in our closets, goofy things we’ve said and done earlier in life that we look back at and think, “Wow, what was I thinking?” I have plenty. It’s why I’ll never run again for any office higher than I’m running for right now- county council. I know that even now, if I started polling high enough, innocuous things from 25+ years ago would be dragged out to smear me, such as punk rock haircuts and associations.
And I know which audience I’m speaking to, where the previous sentence was met with responses of “Good!” I also know that O’Donnell is about as lame an example as I can pivot from to make this case: We’re cultivating a political class of insects- people who haven’t done or said anything controversial, never took a hard stand, never took any chances, but just followed safe paths, followed form, and really contribute little.
It’s funny. I really thought O’Donnell had nothing to offer until the witchcraft clip from Maher. I suddenly found her interesting. I like pagans!
Mike, you had a “punk rock” haircut?!? Shocking.
Still, not even close as having to look at a (recent) Tom John picture where he was wearing a tie-dyed t-shirt. I didn’t even know Republicans were allowed to wear stuff like that (even as badly as ToJo did). lol
Prior words and deeds need to be taken in context, not dismissed. They are the main indicator of character upon which a stranger (voter) can judge a person. What’s next? A three year cap? Anything prior to 2007 shall be stricken from my record…
So, again, I was educated in a previous century when, among other things, my high school journalism teacher told us this sort of thing was called “editorializing”, and belonged on the editorial pages. I understand this is now considered quaint, since it interferes with the mechanics of sensationalism, plus you’ve got to relay the proper attitude for people to assume or illiterates won’t read your stuff.
The tell, here, is “the context is not clear” which, first, you’re a reporter, maybe you could, oh, look? and, second, the extended clip, which is on YouTube, is already everywhere. Turns out O’Donnell was using her personal experience, if you wanna call it that, to explain her principled opposition to Halloween.
To Brenda’s mention of a three-year cap on counting a candidate’s history of silly statements. Well, if that’s the case, we don’t need to be concerned about O’Donnell’s claim in September 2007 that scientists had been cross-breeding humans and animals and had come up with mice with fully functioning human brains. That’s really off the wall……..unless she says she was referring to Congress.
Could be worse. Obama did coke, and nobody seems to bat an eye about that. And, of course, Teddy Kennedy crashed his car into a ditch and left a young girl to drown in the dark, to no consequence whatsoever.
The real goofiness about her is why is she so good looking but isn’t married?
Well, for one thing, snorting coke or acting like a coward after a fatal car accident is not exactly believing in witchcraft or evil genetic-monster scientists.