Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Elections

Perspective in Delaware

This reminds me of the weekend when two clubs at Harvard both threw events - one had a cross-dressing drag-queen ball, the other held a meeting on sexual chastity in relationships. Guess which one  was so controversial that it made the school newspaper.

The Washington Post is attempting to stir up a scandal about Republican, Tea Party favorite O'Donnell. Apparently, 20-30 years ago, O'Donnell made "controversial statements in favor of 'sexual purity' and against masturbation in a 1996 MTV documentary." (Since when does sexual purity deserve scare quotes?)

In the video, a very young O'Donnell calls for a mature conversation with the youth about the morality and consequences of masturbation and pornography. Not only is there shockingly little scandal in her charmingly upbeat religiousness, but everything she says is rather rational, moderate and thoughtful. No fire and brimstone - just common sense opinions about sexuality.

On the other hand, her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons, is a self-described socialist who fancies himself a "bearded Marxist." No scandal there. Merely par for the course in the Democratic caucus, I suppose. Coons held that "the ideal of America as a 'beacon of freedom and justice, providing hope for the world' was not exactly based in reality." Charming.

It's an interesting experiment in perspective to see which view the WaPo sees as scandalous in a U.S. politician. I wonder if Delaware shares the WaPo's views?

Categories > Elections

Discussions - 5 Comments

I'd like to know why Castle's campaign wasn't able to find this.

Because his strategy was to be smug, lazy, and arrogant.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/why-mike-castle-lost

(With my limited information,) the charitable take on this is that Bill Maher would not have released this stuff if O'Donnell had lost. Why embarrass her then? As she won, this might wreck her candidacy in the general election. Much more fun.

Considering the nature of the orig. post, this seems relevant here - William Saletan on O'Donnell's "Sexual Socialism":
http://www.slate.com/id/2267654/

(includes pic of O'Donnell - look at those perfect, white teeth!)

key excerpt:

"O'Donnell's version of this critique is more explicitly socialist: If he already knows what pleases him, and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture? The guy is taking care of his own business, and O'Donnell is upset because this makes him less dependent on others.

Is O'Donnell going to outlaw masturbation? Of course not. No government could enforce such a law. But that doesn't lessen her antipathy to non-procreative sexuality, even when it's protected by private industry. In 1995, when Coors offered health benefits to partners of its gay employees, O'Donnell said that her organization, Concerned Women for America, opposed the company's policy because "it legitimizes the homosexual lifestyle." In Catholic doctrine, masturbation and homosexuality are wrong for the same reason: They don't serve the kind of conjugal union that can lead to procreation.

The next time you hear O'Donnell decry socialism, remember how little she respects the individual in the most private of matters. Your wallet doesn't belong to society. Neither does what's under it."

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/15644