O’Donnell Put Oxford on an Application Before — Plus ZoomInfo Says It Knows Who Set Up O’Donnell’s Profile
Talking Points Memo reports:
TPM just spoke with a Claremont official who reviewed O’Donnell’s 2002 application file. Ryan Williams, who oversees the Lincoln Fellowship program, told us that O’Donnell lists a certificate from Oxford University on her resume. “She did have a line about Oxford,” he said as he looked at her file, which also included an essay and letters of recommendation.
Williams told us the item on O’Donnell’s resume reads:
Oxford University, Oxford, UK
Certificate awarded Summer 2001But O’Donnell did not attend Oxford. She received a certificate from a summer seminar program called the Phoenix Institute, which was housed on the Oxford campus. A Phoenix spokesman told the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent the use of Oxford was “misleading.”
Williams said there is a subtitle in a smaller font listing the program in full as the Phoenix Institute Summer Program: “Post Modernism in the New Millennium.”
Sargent reported that Chris Fletcher, who oversaw the course O’Donnell took, said the course wasn’t overseen by Oxford at all.
I’m disappointed with the poor quality of the TPM story, which does not make it clear whether the words “Phoenix Institute Summer Program” were mentioned on the resume. Even if they were, it certainly sounds like proof that O’Donnell tried to pass herself off as having attended Oxford before the LinkedIn and ZoomInfo profiles were found.
Speaking of the ZoomInfo profile — which ZoomInfo claimed earlier today had been updated by O’Donnell herself — Ben Sargent reports:
I’ve got some more information on what happened from ZoomInfo, and it seems to strongly undercut O’Donnell’s claim that her LinkedIn bio making the same Oxford fib was unauthorized or unknown to her.
To back up: This morning, the Democratic National Committee pointed out that O’Donnell is also described in a ZoomInfo entry as having achieved a “certificate” in “Post Modernism in the New Millennium” from the “University of Oxford.” The Zoom Info entry was labled, “user verified.”
ZoomInfo, which has spent the day looking into this, has sent over a statement detailing what happened with this profile. According to the company, O’Donnell’s profile was claimed in 2008 through something called a “double opt-in process.”
The company says this process cannot function without “response to a verification e-mail message.” ZoomInfo is not releasing that email address, citing privacy. But here’s the rub: The company is confirming that they have identified the emailer:
We can say, however, that the email address was not of an anonymous nature — that is, the address was not from a personal free email service and contained identifying information. ZoomInfo’s Terms of Service require users to agree that they will not “impersonate any person or entity or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent” their affiliation with a person or entity.
The company is also confirming that O’Donnell — or whoever claimed the profile — would have had ample opportunity to change any wrong info, and that after it was claimed, it could not be changed any other way:
All persons who claim profiles on ZoomInfo have the opportunity to review, update, delete and change information that ZoomInfo has compiled from other sources. In addition, persons who claim their profiles may add information of their choosing, including employment and educational history. All employment history (titles and companies), educational background, etc. is “locked” when the registrant claims the profile. Our automated system does not add any new titles, companies or educational records to claimed profiles, even if we find new Web articles and update a profile with these references.
In other words, ZoomInfo knows who claimed this profile and verified the information. And in response to my questions, it’s not disputing the idea that it was claimed by O’Donnell or someone apparently authorized by her to do so. Keep in mind: The company could say this wasn’t done by O’Donnell or someone authorized by her without violating the poster’s privacy.
Again, this is not proof that it was O’Donnell. But it’s sure looking like the way to bet, isn’t it?
Why does any of this matter? Well, if she flat-out lied when asked if she created these profiles, you have to decide for yourself whether that makes a difference to you. You will have to make that decision remembering that she gave a radio interview where she fibbed about having tied Biden in two counties in Delaware in 2008 (after having falsely claimed on the campaign trail that she had won those counties). And so forth.
To some, it will not matter. One of my commenters said today that he would support her as long as she is not an axe murderer. Apparently, a serial liar who is not an axe murderer would get his stamp of approval over Coons — who, while there is no reason to believe he is actually a Marxist, is certainly fully in favor of Obama’s socialistic policies.
As for me, I hate weasels. If O’Donnell turns out to be a weasel on this — and it’s sure looking that way — I’m done. I’m not sacrificing my credibility to support a serial liar. I wouldn’t support Coons either, of course. I would just declare a pox on all their houses.
Some were ready to lose the seat if it was necessary to make a point about needing conservative candidates. OK, fine. I’m ready to lose the seat if it is necessary to make a point about needing candidates who aren’t lying weasels. And if it is necessary to make a point that, in the future, candidates need to be vetted.
Will this matter to Delaware voters? Hard to say . . .
FLASHBACK: Remember when Joe Biden exaggerated his school record?
Mr. Biden looked at his questioner and said: ”I think I have a much higher I.Q. than you do.”
He then went on to say that he ”went to law school on a full academic scholarship – the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship,” Mr. Biden said. He also said that he ”ended up in the top half” of his class and won a prize in an international moot court competition. In college, Mr. Biden said in the appearance, he was ”the outstanding student in the political science department” and ”graduated with three degrees from college.” Comments on Assertions
In his statement today, Mr. Biden, who attended the Syracuse College of Law and graduated 76th in a class of 85, acknowledged: ”I did not graduate in the top half of my class at law school and my recollection of this was inacurate.”
As for receiving three degrees, Mr. Biden said: ”I graduated from the University of Delaware with a double major in history and political science. My reference to degrees at the Claremont event was intended to refer to these majors – I said ‘three’ and should have said ‘two.’ ” Mr. Biden received a single B.A. in history and political science.
”With regard to my being the outstanding student in the political science department,” the statement went on. ”My name was put up for that award by David Ingersoll, who is still at the University of Delaware.”
In the Sunday interview, Mr. Biden said of his claim that he went to school on full academic scholarship: ”My recollection is – and I’d have to confirm this – but I don’t recall paying any money to go to law school.” Newsweek said Mr. Biden had gone to Syracuse ”on half scholarship based on financial need.”
What a buffoon. And yet Delaware elected him, time and time again. So maybe this kind of thing doesn’t matter to the voters.
Which hardly means it’s the standard we want to set for our own candidates.
But if it matters to voters that a candidate tells lies, it’s not the fault of the people who report the truth. It’s the fault of the candidate who tells the lies.
P.S. Perhaps you think a conservative blog should never mention anything negative about a conservative political candidate — even if the negative information suggests the candidate may be embarrassing due to serial dishonesty or other disturbing qualities. If you are the type who cannot bear to read a blog that would dare to discuss widely disseminated information of that nature regarding a conservative candidate — in other words, if political viewpoints are more important to you than the truth — this may not be the blog for you.
UPDATE: Steven L. Taylor has still more (if you can believe it) on her misrepresentation of her educational background. Sheesh.
mentioning education what comes in certificate form isn’t really a boast per se
happyfeet (19c1da) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:31 pmWe’ll have the readership whittled down to a couple dozen people in no time!
On the plus side, at least they will be a couple dozen people who don’t actively engage in blatant double standards and support dishonesty from their own side of the political aisle.
I’m fine with that.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:31 pmmentioning education what comes in certificate form isn’t really a boast per se
That’s why you gotta fluff it up by saying it came from OXFORD!!!
If you polish that turd long enough, it’ll shine like nobody’s business! Also, it won’t stink!
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:33 pmOn occasion, people claim Patterico runs readers and commenters off — usually when his opinions don’t meet their litmus test. For one thing, most of the well-known bloggers “suffer” from that disease. For another, Patterico is generally right.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:37 pmLOL. I can’t dislike happyfeet’s pith for very long, I guess.
Most folks have attended a few conferences and have certificates of some kind. It’s true that it’s kinda weird to put it on the resume. Especially some existentialism nonsense course.
But it’s pretty impressive to have something about Oxford on your resume. Oxford = elite. There was no function to mentioning this course, aside from the idea that she was an elite Oxford student.
Not to psychoanalyze, but she does go on and on about trust funds and elitism. She’s got something to prove, and I respect that kind of ambition, but if it gets out of hand, and ‘history calls’, sometimes Senators screw up.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:40 pmnote to self: don’t ever use zoominfo
overunder (04c020) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:42 pmSome guy named Jerry Wilson:
Mark Levin links on Twitter, chiming in with this typical Levin-style witticism: “Yes, he is a jackass.”
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:46 pmDelusional?
Interesting.
I see a lot of folks boast about Levin. More than I recall in the past. I guess he’s tapping into some of the frustration people feel these days, but he’s doing it in such a self centered way. the Tea Party is completely screwed if it comes to be associated with liars, shills, and crooks. That’s why Democrats in Delaware characterize the race as one against the Tea Party rather than O’Donnell herself. They don’t want that distinction to be made.
Just as lefty shills failed to vet Obama, or play see-no-evil with Waters and Rangel and Frank. They have allowed liabilities to ruin the long term viability of their movement.
In Levin’s case, it’s because the principle of telling the truth is negotiable for a little fame. These people pretend there’s no distinction between an Allahpundit and a Frum because they are lazy.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:51 pmBut it’s pretty impressive to have something about Oxford on your resume. Oxford = elite.
Irony: O’Donnell is running as a Tea Party darling – voice of the little people striking out against the elites who have not only made disastrous decisions for the country but who have patronized and castigated the average joe.
And yet she (possibly) felt compelled to lie just so she could have the impressive Oxford = Elite on her profile?
That’s very un-Palinesque – she who went to 5 schools before graduating, and was proud of her accomplishments. That I can respect.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:54 pmWhat’s with the obsession with her?
I check the site daily and it is all I see. Guess I’ll check back in a couple of days.
J. R. Ford (23a1d7) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:57 pmKudos to Patterico. He understands credibility is more important in the long run than the gain made from an intellectually dishonest argument in the short run.
Chris Lynch (a25f81) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:58 pmJ.R. Ford:
Yesterday I posted on the death penalty, Meg Whitman, Grayson, and health insurance. Today I worked.
Also, there were new developments in the O’Donnell story and I reported them.
I don’t understand the “obsession” claim.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:07 pmLooks like the tea party is going to lose this one. Oh well, it would have been nice to run the table, but it is what it is.
Patricia (9b018a) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:09 pmPatricia,
I don’t know if they’re going to lose, but let’s hope they learn through this that however much they vetted her, next candidate should at least double the effort.
The contagious excitement of putting forth a candidate and winning the primary may have clouded an essential rational, shrewd approach.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:15 pmThe thing is, there is no Party of Tea to vet anybody. We’re talking a relatively amorphous movement, aren’t we? So anybody at all can claim to be a tea partier. They’re not running on a Tea Party Ticket. They’re running as Republicans.
So the vetting, such as it is, has to be done by the people who voted in the primary. And I think you could make a case that none of the primary voters made very good choices. The State of Delaware didn’t put up a very good choice in this election cycle. Some went for a crazy liberal. Some went for a crazy moderate. And some went for a loony conservative. (or at least apparent conservative – her particular brand of loonyness doesn’t seem to match my ideas of conservatism)
Guess that Delaware will lose no matter who gets elected this time. Maybe next time they’ll pay closer attention.
Gesundheit (cfa313) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:21 pmI’m trying to figure out your point of all this. Obviously, you are gleeful, that comes through loud and clear, but to what purpose? You aren’t a Delaware voter nor are most of your readers, so what is your point? Vote for her opponent? Not going to happen. Vote for neither? Very stupid as a nonvote for O’Donnell is a vote for her opponent.
Don’t we have enough real scandals in California to satisfy you? Why this fixation?
Sara (Pal2Pal) (4d3f49) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:25 pmA “Double opt-in process” means that they sent an email to the address with a link and that link was accessed– same way a lot of services have you verify your email address. As thirty seconds worth of research could have shown Mr. Sargent.
In other words, ZoomInfo knows who claimed this profile and verified the information.
Flatly incorrect, and not what they said.
ZoomInfo said that the profile was claimed using an email that wasn’t from a free service and that had it identifying information.
When you picked up patterico.com, didn’t it have the options of making email addresses@patterico?
I just asked my husband, who does this for a living– any email address that isn’t of the @yahoo/hotmail/gmail/whatever sort would fit that profile.
Aaaaaannnndddd… I just checked, comcast will let you change your user name and display name. Also not a free email, and does have personally identifiable information.
There are a LOT of ways to screw with folks online, even if you’re high-school-kid-that-grew-up-in-the-90s-and-likes-computers knowledgeable about it, and don’t want to break any laws. For someone who does computer stuff for a living? God help you.
Basically, all Zoominfo said was “hey, the email wasn’t from hotmail, the name matched and it was live when they signed in.”
Foxfier (24dddb) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:27 pmI’m trying to figure out your point of all this. Obviously, you are gleeful, that comes through loud and clear, but to what purpose?
Yeah, the glee of losing a seat because people insisted on backing a woman who showed signs of dishonesty . . . why, the glee is overwhelming!
Why are you fixated on telling me I’m fixated? I’m running a blog and writing about what I want to write about. What do you care?
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:29 pmOK. O’Donnell should authorize them to release the e-mail address.
How about the Claremont resume?
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:34 pmThat even people who seem to be ideologically correct should be held to standard of honesty and character, because of the tremendous stakes.
What kind of country do you want to live in? One where people shut up and ignore certain issues about someone with the proper political credentials? I’m loyal to my country, not some BS political faction without the self respect to vet candidates.
I’m a tea partier too, and I don’t want to shut up just because some louder and more famous and more published idiot thinks he can prove who is more pure and awesome by whether or not they are silent in loyalty.
Please figure this out.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:38 pmKeep it up, Patterico, I support 100% what you are doing here with O’donnell. If this is true, and I lived in Delaware I wouldn’t be voting for either.
Levin started this. He should have known better than to mess with someone from Texas.
BradnSA (24ba37) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:38 pmO’Donnell is proof that scientists have developed a mouse’s brain in a human.
Larry Reilly (ae99e7) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:41 pmNever mind that she’s a total whack-job, if she were truthful about her schooling you’d welcome her as a solon. Since she fibbed about that, you wouldn’t risk your credibility on her. Yeah-huh.
Sometime you folks will get around to discovering O’Donnell will not vote for carbon tax, will not vote for Obamacare lite, will not vote to continue Obama’s reign of czars. You’ve had your fun not why not get serious about how votes on the issues will turn out with O’Donnell vs Coons.
If she’ll vote as above, I frankly could care less if she dances naked on an alter of blood while printing fake certificates of being the DA of Los Angeles. In the end, it’s the Senate votes that count.
Never forget, when it rains liberals it Snowes Collins.
cedarhill (11a85d) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:41 pmIf it is not her email address, how could she authorize its release?
JD (b14a2f) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:44 pmcedarhill, I agree that many of her policy positions seem to be awesome. I don’t know if I trust her promises on them, and I don’t like that her positions are abbreviated, but politically, she’s awesome compared to Coons if one assumes she’s honest.
Larry Reilly calls her a whack-job. Why? I think that’s ridiculous. My very first impression of her was that she is a pathological liar, probably posing as a Tea Partier (this is before her last Chief of Staff said that), but her policy positions are hardly whacky.
Balanced budget amendment? Very popular. Constitution over her personal religion, when legislating? Pretty reasonable. Sanctity of life? Nothing wrong with that. Low taxes and spending and therefore more jobs? I love it.
Larry, what’s the whackiness? Is it because she knew weirdos when she was a kid? So freaking what? A bunch of morons pretending to be wiccan beat ‘The CIA Invented AIDS and 9/11 was justified!’ any day of the week.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:46 pmWTF is zoominfo? Why is Mawy Reilly such an imbecile? When will we be burning the witch? Why can I hit a soft draw with every club in my bag except my 7 iron? These are important questions.
JD (b14a2f) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:47 pmcedarhill, is it possible that if she lied about a comparatively insignificant thing like an online educational profile, that she might lie about more critical issues once in office?
If her character is lacking before getting into office, what makes you sure she will vote the way you think she will? Because she said she would?
Dana (8ba2fb) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:48 pmMy only concern with you pursuing O’Donnell 24/7 is that it’ll take away from the time you can spend exposing Meg Whitman’s lying about knowing her maid’s citizenship status, or perhaps Bristol Palin’s underaged bar-hopping.
God forbid you should look into “Professor” Obama’s educational and “authorship” record.
Northeast Elizabeth (24fc2b) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:54 pmI’ve been dropping in on this site for awhile now. I enjoy the interplay between the posters, the author usually has good insight on stories and the guest postings are pretty good. But I have to say I don’t understand this obsession (there is no other word for it) that Patterico has for O’Donnell and her somewhat dodgy academic credentials. I think we get it. She’s buffed up her marks and degrees. While this is certainly something that needs reporting on what’s happening here seems pretty extreme. There are so many stories that cry out for attention and I’m pretty sure nobody is going to forget this one. I think it’s time to move on. Besides, I’d rather have someone who buffed up her marks and votes against Cap and Trade than an admitted lefty with sparking credentials who would vote so fast for C&T that he’s strain his throat.
scr_north (06df22) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:56 pmExactly.
That’s why she should authorize its release.
If she’s telling the truth.
The “idea” of Christine O’Donnell would do it.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:56 pmIt used to be a tool for gathering biographical information, it saves time, right before Halloween, I don’t play golf.
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:58 pmSo it needs reporting on. But what I have done is not reporting but obsession. There is no other word for it. (“Interest”?)
Can you define the difference, please? How can you tell the difference between what you call obsession and what you would sanction as reporting that you agree needs to be done?
And she may have done more than buffed up her marks and degrees. She may have also lied about whether she did so.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:01 pmExactly? WTF? If it is not hers, she cannot release it. When is Hillary or bill Gates or Warren Buffet going to do the same?
JD (b14a2f) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:01 pmExactly? WTF? If it is not hers, she cannot release it.
So she announces that it is not hers — and to prove it, she is authorizing its release. If they don’t release it, it means it’s not hers.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:04 pmI think we should go back to the standard that if she does not file a police report she is a liar. That was a better one.
JD (b14a2f) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:06 pmscr_north
Gazzer (c062b1) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:08 pmPatterico is trying to make a much braoder point. Is it OK to have completely malleable principles if the end result is someome you think, or rather hope, will vote in a maneer you can support? For some people it is. The old “He/she may be a villain/philanderer/necrophiliac, but least they are our….” trick is a slippery slope. The very nature of DC life and the relentless onslaught from lobbyists means that there are too many temptations for the weak-willed. If someone can play fast and loose with their achievements and qualifications going in, how resolute will they be once they get there. Character matters. Or, at least it should.
I think we should go back to the standard that if she does not file a police report she is a liar. That was a better one.
I think we should go back to the standard that if I take a correspondence course while sweeping student dorms in Cambridge I get to say I took a course at Harvard.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:09 pmI think we should go back to the standard that a loss can be called a win or a tie if we like the loser’s politics.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:10 pminterlude cause maybe christy o isn’t the future but tell you who is … it’s leighton!
cept for she needs a new stylist I think… that bratz girl ho look is sorta dated
I like elevator leighton a lot though
the guy if you don’t remember him from when he had his hit song is Alan Thicke’s kid – you know the dad from Growing Pains
small world huh
happyfeet (19c1da) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:12 pmI just noticed O’Donnell’s twitter account is not verified. Could she and/or her staff just be that tech challenged?
Dana (8ba2fb) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:12 pmAny mouse with a fully developed human brain can see that this woman does not care for the truth.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:13 pmDelaware lost a long time ago. Around the point where they started sending Biden to DC. Then again when they had to choose between Castle, O’DonneLl, and Hairy Reed’s pet Coons. She prolly lied lied lied lied lied lied about these things. Assuming that, it pales in pales in comparison to the lies peddled by the Left, in volume, degree, and consequence. F@ck Delaware.
JD (b14a2f) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:19 pmAs for Mark Levin…
You know, those Lincoln Fellows need to stick together. Maybe someone else doesn’t want his Lincoln Fellowship application looked into.
Yes, the Lincoln Fellow Levin and the Radio Host Levin are likely the same guy.
Christian (c92ec1) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:20 pmAnd her non-profit doesn’t file their tax returns.
imdw (51cc50) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:24 pmi think what zoominfo is NOT saying speaks volumes.
They say it is not an anonymous free type email service. Well, okay.
But they are not saying “she sent it.” Or “it was sent from a server her campaign controls.”
If that was the case, why didn’t they just say that.
Until and unless they release it i consider it suspicious and unproven.
And honestly, Patterico, I don’t even read TPM. I have personally confronted them with untrue things we said, had a long email exchange where i proved them wrong, and they didn’t change a word in the article i was complaining of. They are not truth seekers.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:29 pmLet’s see, she has a listing on an application to the Clairemont Institute that says, according to their spokesperson, “Williams said there is a subtitle in a smaller font listing the program in full as the Phoenix Institute Summer Program: “Post Modernism in the New Millennium.”
But somehow you think that is “confusing” as to whether it says that on her resume?
And the resume said the class took place at Oxford, and that’s a horrible lie because, after all, the class took place at Oxford. But it wasn’t an OXFORD CLASS, and someone might read “Oxford University, the Phoenix Institute Summer Program: “Post Modernism in the New Millennium.”” and not realize that the class as the PISP taking place AT Oxford.
And of course, nobody ever before in the history of the world tried to make a private resume for a job look as compelling as possible without actually lying.
When she ran for OFFICE, she put out an official bio on her web site, which does NOT in any way mislead on this subject, as Patterico I believe has already noted.
It will soon be the case that nobody who ever tried to make anything of themselves in the real world will EVER run for office, because the “standards” for politicians are apparently incompatable with those for living in the real world.
O’Donnell is castigated repeatedly for things she said on a program when she was being a religious evangelical point of view. It’s claimed that somehow those religious pronouncements are important for how she will legislate, even though there is no evidence for that view.
Can we see Coon’s job applications to see if he lied on any of them in any small way? Why not? Apparently, it is standard practice now for us to see the job applications of our politicians, at least in Delaware. So where are Coon’s job applications?
Charles (7bf240) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:32 pmNo argument here, JD. They kept Biden on during the Carter era. Absolutely nothing has shaken this state awake. I’d love to just write these folks off, but we have to reach these people and I think O’Donnell’s 40% shows the potential for a great candidate to actually sell conservatism up there.
Sadly, Delaware is f@cking us, not the converse. Delaware seems to roll around in the worst stereotypes about politicians. Eventually, I stop feeling sorry for the voters and wonder what the hell is wrong with them.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:35 pmWhen did you start caring about people filing tax returns, imdw?
JD (b14a2f) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:36 pmAgain, I don’t see this much analysis when Democrats lie.
Hilary and the weapons fire in the Balkans. Geithner and his taxes. Seblius and her taxes. Need I go further?????????? Anyone questioning a Democrat’s integrity when they defend Colbert wasting Congressional time?????
What I find interesting is one group of Republicans is upset she is dishonest and upset at the Tea Party for putting “ideological purity” above “integrity lapses” when selecting her. Plus she may lose.
Yet the other side of the Republican Party is upset b/c they believe many Republicans stand for nothing of substance (RINO) even if they are squeaky clean ethical folks who love to quote law and bible as they stride through the village. But, they want the party to lurch right regardless of election outcome.
Interesting. I can certainly understand both POVs.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:36 pmIt sure is. You are confident, I suppose, that it says the words “Phoenix Institute Summer Program” on the resume?
Want to put money on it? Since you’re certain, I’ll ask for 100:1 odds. If those words are there you pay $1000. If they are not I pay you $10.
Deal?
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:36 pmAgain, I don’t see this much analysis when Democrats lie.
Hilary and the weapons fire in the Balkans. Geithner and his taxes. Seblius and her taxes. Need I go further??????????
Where is it that you don’t see this much analysis??????????
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:39 pm#48 And FWIW, I would recommend anyone really interested in this “tradeoff” read Machiavelli.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:39 pm“Exactly? WTF? If it is not hers, she cannot release it.”
JD – Exactly. Zoominfo, LinkedIn, I have nothing to hide, release away. Uh, Ms. O’Donnell we can’t because those accounts don’t belong to you OR liar, liar pants on fire, burn the witch.
Good entertainment either way.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:40 pmscr_north: It’s not just that she “buffed up her credentials, it’s that she claimed she took a course from the phoenix institute at Oxford, when she should have made it clear that Oxford was WHERE the course took place, so people didn’t think she was saying it was an Oxford University course that Oxford mislabeled “Phoenix Institute”.
Or maybe it’s the obsession that she didn’t lie about it on her bio, thus giving us an easy comparison so when there’s a question about whether it’s just inartful or a lie, we know it must be a lie because liars always tell the truth when it counts.
Or something like that. Or nothing like that. Obsession is a good way of saying it. Nobody’s explained why any of us should care one way or another about whether her claim of a class being held at Oxford is meant to mislead us into thinking she took a class offered BY Oxford.
Because, you know, almost NOBODY can take a course at Oxford, but any idiot can get into the Phoenix Instutute at Oxford.
For the record, when I was in college, I could have taken a summer course at Oxford, I was registered and everything, but at the last minute I decided I didn’t want to spend my summer in a foreign country taking a course that was no better than anything I’d get at my own college.
So yes, I don’t understand this morbid fascination with the idea that saying a course was at Oxford is some sort of disqualification for being a Senator, simply because Oxford didn’t have a direct relationship with the course.
Charles (7bf240) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:40 pmPrivacy, I believe they said the reason was.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:40 pmBut if I call on her to waive any privacy interest she might supposedly have, JD mocks me.
So she gets to keep her deniability, such as it is.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:41 pmPatterico,
I see Conservatives and Republicans wringing their hands about this light weights ethicalmake up.
I saw none of this on the Democratic side when their choices do similar.
Just look at Grayson and his ad. No bigger lie and malicious in every way possible ….. where is the NYT to call Grayson a mentally ill man?
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:41 pmShe was actually lying, if she suggested she was a student of Oxford. Claiming she was because of the class’s location is dishonorable. It’s not currently clear what O’Donnell claimed in some of these cases.
My belief is that she made several claims about her education that were untrue, such as having a degree she didn’t have. This is just another potential example of a problem that is pretty well demonstrated.
I’ve tried Unity!, but I failed pretty quickly. I am very disappointed in those who endorsed O’Donnell. Even if her policy claims are excellent, it is wrong to associate with dishonest people who seek such power. She’s a liability.
Her votes might be better than Coons, thanks to the fact that Coons is just about 100% wrong. That’s not good enough.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:42 pmWhere were Democrats to question Barack when he lied that after 20 years in church with a bigot, he claims “I see nothing, I hear nothing!”
The honest answer is he lied to cover up the fact he KNEW that going to this Church was his meal ticket and so he ate the dog food.
So O’Donnell is a liar who lies to get ahead. Wow, a politician who fabricates her resume.
Where Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal in this discussion?????? Attorney General may I add.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:45 pmWasn’t Charles using the words directly from your post, from Williams?
JD (6ca166) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:45 pmThe NYT is just following the standard set by many here: STFU about the infirmities of a candidate who shares your political outlook.
They are liberals and Grayson is a liberal. So you keep silent about his lies lest you hurt the cause.
That is the course of action urged upon me by many here. Good if I do it. Bad if the NYT does it.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:46 pmHeavensent:
Which means this is one of many differences between Republicans and Democrats. Do we really want to adopt their standards?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:46 pm“What I find interesting is one group of Republicans is upset she is dishonest and upset at the Tea Party for putting “ideological purity” above “integrity lapses” when selecting her.”
Heavensent – What I find interesting is one group of conservatives, the ones shrieking that we must purge RINOs for the sake of PRINCIPLES or PURITY or whatever they want to call it and that it did not matter if O’Donnell lost the seat, now want to muzzle people honestly discussing O’Donnell, because they are happy to throw those all important PRINCIPLES out the window all of a sudden in order to win an election. You usually see that kind of crap from the left.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:47 pmWringing their hands? Or criticizing?
I’m not doing much handwringing. I’m starting to get pissed off at this woman who is costing us a seat.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:47 pmI went to Oxford, Yale, Harvard, Princeton ….. well I did!!!!!
We have a light weight running. Ok, sometimes you need to make a mess in order to get something bigger accomlished.
And if putting the fear of god into every RINO Politician is the only god from Light Weight’s flawed candidacy. That is a real good thing.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:47 pmJD:
I’ll quote the post.
The TPM story says:
It is my opinion that this language does not make it clear whether the words “Phoenix Institute Summer Program” were mentioned on the resume. As they are not inside quotation marks.
I offer you the same 100:1 bet. If it’s clear to you then it’s an easy ten bucks for you.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:50 pm“Do we really want to adopt their standards?”
DRJ – Exactly. I can’t believe Heavensent is suggesting we stoop to their level.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:51 pmDaley,
Bash her all you want. I come from the school if you can’t take the heat — GFU. I am not too worked up about her or Paladino or Meg.
But my interest in this is more about understanding how certain individuals look at a broad battlefield and get caught up in unimportant details.
To me, O’Donnell is an unimportant detail from the perspective of stopping Propeller Head. The House is all we need and the Senate will likely swing in 2012 when 2X Democrats are up for re-election.
So whatever, she is a douche.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:51 pmIt is amazing to see conservatives all of a sudden talking about how honesty does not matter.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:51 pm“So where are Coon’s job applications?”
Charles – Why not badger the websites of Coons’ supporters rather than Patterico?
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:52 pmWhy are you fixated on telling me I’m fixated? I’m running a blog and writing about what I want to write about. What do you care?
Oh my goodness, little testy there, aren’t we Mr. Frey?
Care isn’t the right word. I ask to what point or what end are you fixating on a woman in a state 3000 miles away that is probably no bigger than LA County. We understand you do not like her, do not trust her, and do not want to see her elected to the Senate. We got that.
That leaves me with only one assumption, you do like Coons, do trust Coons, and do want to see him in the Senate. So why not talk up him?
If it is your contention that somehow a DA in California has the obligation to nitpick a young woman from Delaware to death, I would like a reason other than its your blog and you can do what you want. I don’t dispute that you can, respect you for it, not so much.
Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, a whole host of No. Calif. and Central Valley politicians have done far worse than anything I’ve seen used to hammer O’D, so why not put your very capable energies focused on your own state? Just askin’!
Sara (Pal2Pal) (4d3f49) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:53 pm“costing us a seat”, what a statement. Castle would not be a R seat!
EART (9d1bb3) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:54 pmLOL, Sara sure knows how to project petty testiness.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:55 pmHave I said we purposely find Conservative liars to run for office somewhere?
I don’t think so ……. I am making a much broader set of points about (a) what Conservatives should be focused on and (b) those who are concerned about this taking a chill b/c it is much worse on the other side.
Mistakes are not fatal if you learn from them. So if the Repubs learn “find real conservatices instead of RINOs” — that is a good thing.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:55 pmI don’t have much problem with putting Oxford on your resume if you really did take a course there, even if it wasn’t an official Oxford course. But O’Donnell’s gaffes are starting to add up and remind me of Biden. What’s up with Delaware politicians? It’s as if they have an inferiority complex and are trying to compensate with big talk.
And we all know Texas politicians have the patent on big talk.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:55 pm“Bash her all you want.”
Heavensent – I’m not bashing her. I’m bashing the intellectual dishonesty of the PRINCIPLES and PURITY folks, as is I think Patterico. This is not that hard.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:55 pmSo, did you include that bit from Williams in your post because you think he was not being truthful? If he did not mean it, why bother putting it in your post?
JD (6ca166) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:55 pmPatterico,
I think you are mis-representing my point about integrity.
As my priest once told “these are venial sins my son, if you are sorry, a Hail Mary will do.”
She lied on her resume.
Their must be 5,897 more important things going on right now one month from an important election.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 8:58 pmDaley,
Please stop the word f*ing. Critique, discuss, analyse, whatever.
It is fine. I think it is a fine exercise to be had for the sake of exercise.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:00 pmPoor assumption, Sara. Why in the world would you assume that my criticism of O’Donnell for what appears to be a pattern of dishonesty means I like Coons, a man about whom I wrote a widely circulated post concerning his possible use of governmental power to squelch speech?
I know that if you reflect on it, you will see that your “assumption” is wholly illogical.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:00 pmSara (Pal2Pal) – Are you truly trying to make the case that the Delaware Senate race is not worthy of blog coverage? Seriously?
Are you making the same points at lefty blogs or just conservative ones, because for that argument to have any merit you should be making the rounds of the entire blogverse and telling people to STFU the same way you want Patterico to stop writing about new developments in the race.
Somehow I doubt you are doing that.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:02 pmI think we’re missing how the real awesome part of the story is she went and got a certificate in “Post Modernism in the New Millennium.”
imdw (47899e) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:03 pmI must be expressing myself poorly.
I do not know from the TPM article which of the following two things appears on her resume.
This?
Or this?
Read the quote from the guy in the article again and tell me if you can rule out the second possibility with utter certainty.
If you can, there’s ten bucks sitting right there on the table just waiting for you to take it.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:04 pmDaley, make I ask …. what do you feel is the intellectual dishonesty of the PURITY folks? Short please.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:04 pmLet’s put things in perspective, shall we, the actions of a certain other candidate, vouched by all the right people, like Mike “Iceberg” Murphy and Mitt Romney, her mentor, preceded by previous signs of poor judgement, like endorsing the ‘green jobs’ claptrap of Van Jones, may have put this seat in jeapardy, legal and otherwise of bringing Jerry Brown Slouching toward Sacramento.
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:05 pmThat leaves me with only one assumption, you do like Coons, do trust Coons, and do want to see him in the Senate. So why not talk up him?
So pointing out the apparent habitual dishonesty of a conservative candidate because a principled blogger who values integrity and loathes hypocrisy is compelled to speak out honestly about the dishonesty, causes you to draw only one possible conclusion – that he is supporting Coons?
This is a very dishonest assumption.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:05 pmHm. If Coons is really as bad as people say he is, Castle would have to be better.
Then again, Zelsdorf Ragshaft III assured me once that Castle voted for the stimulus. (Then I proved he was wrong and he has evaded the question ever since, but that’s not important now.)
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:06 pmI think the real story is that a blogger is believing information about a political candidate from online friending services….
Foxfier (24dddb) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:08 pmI don’t want to pile on, but I believe that there is very little difference between actively running a dishonest politician, and refusing to vet a politician for character. The nature of the profession is that you will wind up with a ton of crooks unless you actively try to weed them out.
You’re right, we need to learn lessons. One lesson is that RINOs are so unacceptable in some situations that even this person beat one. One lesson is that we need to put the fear of God into these reform candidates, so they know they won’t get the loyal silence, even on the right, if they turn out to be conservative versions of Rangel or Biden.
I’d love to think this isn’t necessary, but it certainly is. That’s a lesson for Palin, the Tea Party Express, etc, who I do not believe intended to endorse the actual person they did, but rather the idea. Nobody is perfect, but we can learn.
Anyway, there’s a different point here about RINOs. Castle’s just about the only Republican who has won statewide in Delaware. It sends a message to a lot of Republicans in blue states that they might not actually be Republicans. If we could turn those states red (as in, conservative, not Republican), that is not so big a problem. But we probably can’t. Over the long term, we benefit greatly from the difference between a Brown and a Coakley, and need to keep some of these RINOs.
This primary got out of control quickly, with some people being incredibly dishonest and nasty, even to very solid conservatives. I think RINO hunting shouldn’t get out of hand like that, because it’s counterproductive in the long run.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:09 pmThe passage from williams seems quite clear to this ignorant non-lawyer rube. I don’t know hy they would include all of that if it was not there.
JD (04ebf2) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:09 pmClearly Castle is better than Coons but (I repeat) I don’t find this to be the central point of the Tea party Purity Crowd.
I think their point is above all — conservative who will not play the DC games.
Castle was way tooooooooooo long in DC to meet that standard and his voting record at times disappointed.
But ehhhhh. Who cares.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:10 pm“Daley, make I ask …. what do you feel is the intellectual dishonesty of the PURITY folks? Short please.”
Heavensent – #62. Unless you believe truth, integrity, honesty and transparency are unimportant PRINCIPLES.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:10 pmThey might include the part not in quotation marks because it shows what the part in quotation marks really is.
For you, JD, I’ll reduce the odds to 10:1. I’ll see if I can make the phone call tomorrow during lunch. Your $100 to my $10.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:12 pmThis point really annoys me too. We know Castle was a moderate. He voted with the right half the time, often on critical issues that almost all democrats were wrong on. We know he was nowhere near as bad as this a “marxist”. The same people who say there is no difference between a moderate Republican and Coons are now saying that Coons is so extremely horrible that we should accept anything short of an axe murderer as better.
It’s just another example of not being forthright because This Is War!
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:12 pmDustin,
I do think there is a big difference between willful ignorance and voter malfeasance.
I think O’Donnell is the perfect example of willful ignorance in much the same way Sarah Palin is to many voters.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:15 pmHeh.
You know, if she were truly proven to be an axe murderer, I think some would suddenly see the virtues of axe murder.
You know: Who among us hasn’t contemplated an axe murder or two? I’d rather have an axe murderer voting against cap and trade than a self-confessed “bearded Marxist” who votes for it. How many people were killed by axe-wielding Marxists? and so forth.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:18 pm#91 Daley
So you think the PURITY crowd is intellectually dishonest b/c they claim to have PRINCIPLES yet they ignore the principles of honesty and integrity in her case? Is that it?
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:19 pmBut, in the context of this particular election, does it matter that she is a serial liar?
Apparently, a serial liar who is not an axe murderer would get his stamp of approval over Coons — who, while there is no reason to believe he is actually a Marxist, is certainly fully in favor of Obama’s socialistic policies.
Since being in favor of Obama’s policies often means being a serial liar, Delaware will have the choice of one or the other of a pair of serial liars.
In which case, might as well vote for the conservative liar.
kishnevi (3a3033) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:21 pmThere is obviously a moral difference. You can’t blame stupid the way you can blame evil.
But we all understand what kind of politician we wind up with if we don’t vet them.
Almost every single career politician (O’Donnell is a career politician, having run for office for a pretty long time) is a crook. Almost all of them are dishonest. We ought to learn the lesson that if we don’t scrutinize the hell out of these people, holding up a high bar and rejecting anyone who isn’t quite clearly a patriot with character, then we will wind up with reform candidates who are just paying lip service and don’t give a crap about reform.
It’s not just about Castle vs O’Donnell or Coons vs O’Donnell.
Its about Delaware’s Joe Miller vs O’Donnell. We should have found someone excellent. And I don’t blame anyone specifically for this not happening. Hopefully, this race helps pave the way for a conservative winning in a few years.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:21 pmmy 98 was meant as reply to Heavensent’s 94
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:23 pmConflict of interest are so rife in human matters and when their are conflicts hypocrisy rears its ugly head.
How many innocent men are in jail because Prosecutors simply seek convictions in order to advance their career? How many was their guilt in doubt by the Prosecutor?
Is there not hypocrisy in these cases? Intellectual dishonesty?
Juss saying …. and yes the example is chosen to evoke reaction by the lawyers in the crowd.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:24 pm____________________________________________
And yet Delaware elected him, time and time again. So maybe this kind of thing doesn’t matter to the voters.
But Delaware is populated by mostly leftwing people, so a lack of integrity will be tolerated or given a million passes. But that comes with a caveat: Such behavior is AOK as long as the guilty is full of feel-good, lazy liberal sentiment.
Actually, I’m not even sure if O’Donnell doesn’t fit that bill. She’s such a flake and sympathizer of ambulance chasing — based on her suing a former employer for gender discrimination — that she probably is a closeted liberal.
O’Donnell seems to be such a mooch and leech that it’s a shame she didn’t take the proverbial long walk on a short ledge before the recent primary.
Mark (411533) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:25 pmI am not betting. I am asking you why you would include that in your post, if you now say you do not know if it is entirely true Either Williams said that part about the subtitle or he didn’t. If he didn’t, does that not reflect on the entirety of the TPM post?
JD (f89659) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:27 pm“So you think the PURITY crowd is intellectually dishonest b/c they claim to have PRINCIPLES yet they ignore the principles of honesty and integrity in her case? Is that it?”
Heavensent – You’re catching on. Telling people to STFU and not talk about O’Donnell’s warts because you’re helping the enemy certainly suggests that to me. Your mileage may differ if you believe she’s OK as long as she’s not an axe murderess.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:28 pmOld spanish saying …. “la situacion hace el ladron.”
I think this can be applied very neatly to this thread about honesty and critiquing folks, et al
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:30 pmJust checked my zoominfo profile. It is seriously screwed up, but I do not plan on claiming it. They mix part of my info with that of another person, got the education right, wrong middle initial.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:30 pmJD, I think it is ambiguous. I don’t know how else to say it.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:32 pmCould you explain that a little better? I don’t quite get that equivalence.
Maybe it just means you’re in favor of bad policies?
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:33 pmDaley,
Did I personally tell you to STFU in context to this topic? Or is it possible you may have mistakenly taken something I wrote out of context?
I catch on very fast. Don’t you worry about me. Just wanted to see if I could write what you felt in short prose.
Anyway …. analysis is great. But taking action is more interesting.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:33 pmI shouldn’t be so pissed off at O’Donnell. After all, the people she’s taken advantage of were willing dupes and suckers. I’m referring to the rightist voters in Delaware who must have known about her crummy, checkered background — since she has run for office before — and yet threw caution to the wind and plucked the chad for “O’Donnell.”
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. So various people in Delware should feel very ashamed, if not very dumb.
Mark (411533) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:34 pm“If her character is lacking before getting into office, what makes you sure she will vote the way you think she will?” Even lacking character, she probably won’t morph into Maxine Waters overnight.
gp (f0a9d7) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:34 pmAnd Daley, possible you may have gotten my personal information from my ISP?
Just wondering.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:37 pmWhat reaction? If there’s anyone here who prosecuted someone they thought was innocent, I hope they burn in hell. But I don’t think anyone here is like that. Do you?
I’m sure there are a few readers here who defended people they thought were guilty. Either way, what’s that got to do with filtering news coverage?
It’s not a good tactic to be ignorant of your own vulnerabilities. The GOP is stronger when its candidates are vetted honestly. Maybe your metaphor makes more sense if you imagine a prosecutor who could look into whether or not a suspect’s alibi checks out, refuses to, and loses his case so embarrassingly his DA won’t hire anyone else from his school?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:37 pmHow is it ambiguous? Does he say that bit about the subtitle or not? If he did not, then it calls the entire post into question, no?
JD (04ebf2) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:38 pmLet me go on record as saying I am a hypocrite. I change my mind often. on many issues. As Jimmah Swaghhhhut said “I’m a sinner!”
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:39 pmThe NYT is just following the standard set by many here: STFU about the infirmities of a candidate who shares your political outlook.
Yeah, yeah, but obssessing about the infirmities under the pretense of being Mr. Integrity when your primary motive is winning a grudge match with Mark Levin is not a whole lot nobler. How many times do you click on his Facebook page every day? Let me break it to you: he knows O’Donnell is lying about her education but isn’t going to abandon her because under the circumstances STFU is the principled thing to do. If you’re expecting him to admit he backed the wrong horse, it ain’t happening.
BTW I posted the requested links on St. O’Keefe a few minutes after you requested them. I’m sure that unlike Mr. Levin, after reviewing the evidence you’ll concede the point like any Mr. Integrity would.
Northeast Elizabeth (24fc2b) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:41 pmDustin,
My point was not about filtering news coverage, it was about the “outrage” some have over the impurity of the PURITY crowd.
My point was, even those held up in society as being the most honest and moral do things that are in their best interests in spite of the fact they are selling out their principles.
La situacion hace el ladron
So, hyprocrisy is everywhere even amongst the most pure at heart. So while it may bother one — it is as human as sleeping or eating.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:42 pmOK, that’s true. It’s human nature to not want to hear bad news about your favorite people, and be more interested in scandals about your enemies.
That’s why we have to recognize this human nature, and do our best to avoid this well known pitfall.
Sorry I misunderstood you.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:44 pmI am also a racist and a misogynist. But my taxes are spotless!
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:44 pmWhen asked what his favorite movie was, Joe wrote down the film by Stanley Kubrick: “Dr. Strangelove.”
QUIZ:
Does Joe’s paper say this?
or this?
or do we know?
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:44 pmI don’t dislike Obama b/c he is a hypocrite per se but b/c he has the power, and is actively trying to, make me eat his dog food.
The fool telling me to try dog food, even if he don’t eat it himself, doesn’t really bother me.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:46 pmOh, good grief.
JD (f89659) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:48 pmGood night, folks.
“Did I personally tell you to STFU in context to this topic?”
Heavensent – Not that I recall. I’m referring to all the commenters and people like Levin and Riehl self-righteously telling Patterico to STFU and not to write about O’Donnell. If that includes you, so be it.
I have no information from any ISP. You leave tells, so your use of multiple screen names here has not been a mystery, but I’ve kept it to myself until you started acting like a total d*ck again.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:52 pmSorry I tried to explain what I was thinking, JD.
I really think it is not hard. Either she only wrote the part in the quotation marks, or not.
You have my guarantee that I will not try to explain it any further.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:55 pmDaley,
I use multiple names on every site. And, no, I don’t find it to be a bad thing. Frankly, I care not a whit what your name is or whether you post under 20 names — I only care about what is written on the page. Very left brained.
But you referred to me by name recently and now you called me personally a d*ck for no reason.
And yes I have said STFU to many people but in your case not that I ever recall — even after you called me a d*ck and other names. I have only asked you to ignore me if you simply dislike my posts ………..
Cheers fellah.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 9:58 pmFWIW, her ambulance chasing is more a concern for me. Hypocrisy is one thing but when it crosses over into hurting others then I get bothered.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 10:00 pmHi Patterico. In response to your comment (#31) you ask where I would decide what deserves reporting and what doesn’t or what defines interest versus obsession. Well, in the current web page you have 10 stories. Four of them are about O’Donnell and her academic resume and are well researched and well written and appear to have taken a lot of time and thought while three of the other six are links to video or other stories. Ok, maybe not obsessive but it seems like an awful lot of attention. I think it’s a given that she padded her academic resume and in the case of the Oxford entry seems to be guilty of some creative exclusion but I think your point has been made, repeatedly.
scr_north (06df22) — 9/30/2010 @ 10:03 pmI guess in answer to your question about when I would decide what deserves reporting (in this instance anyway) I think it has been reported. If the problem is that she hasn’t owned up to it, I might cut her some slack on that as she’s got everybody (left, right, media, maher) coming at her. Some for valid reasons but most because she is a conservative.
Anyhow, cheers.
#127, We need an article about Mr Cuomo’s malfeasance and corruption as head of HUD. Or maybe Jerry Brown’s record as Governor. I would find that much more intellectually interesting than this — not to mention much less picked over.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 10:06 pmGood-bye.
william wilson (f6deac) — 9/30/2010 @ 10:08 pmHow about Murkowski corruption in AK?
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 9/30/2010 @ 10:08 pmGood-bye.
And to you.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 10:10 pmThe complaint is that the posts in question are too well researched and written, and appear to have taken a lot of time and thought.
This is the kind of criticism I could get used to.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 10:13 pmI never studied at Oxford. In fact you know how people say, “I studied under blah blah blah at blah blah blah”?
I never studied under anyone at anywhere.
I just took classes. Made As on all my papers and Cs on all my tests. I have a certificate for being the best rester at Claire Ann Shover Nursery School in Fergus Falls Minnesota. Actually it’s a Christmas ornament the lady made from construction paper. Whatever her name was. She was the first person I knew what didn’t have all the fingers. Paper cutter accident, mom said. Very dedicated woman.
Cause I was the best rester I got to feed the guinea pig. I bet Christy O didn’t get to feed nuffin.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 9/30/2010 @ 10:14 pm“But you referred to me by name recently and now you called me personally a d*ck for no reason.”
Heavensent – I used four names under which you have posted under on this blog is consecutive comments as I recall. I just explained why. If you object to being called a d*ck, don’t act like one. Simple.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 10:36 pmscr_north,
If you go to the blog’s second page you will see a very detailed post about an Obama activist’s ties to a group accused of voter fraud. A post about a correction I obtained from the LA Times.
LA Times fans sometimes complain I am obsessed with them. Etc.
I have heard it from Balko and Greenwald and Hiltzik and countless others. Obsessed!!!
The common thread? I’m calling out dishonesty.
Being called obsessed comes with the territory.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 10:39 pmPatrick, when James O’Keefe was arrested, you were a leader of the effort to get folks to withhold judgment until all the facts were in. You didn’t (as did many) try to damn him based on initial reports and initial appearance of some of the facts. Your appropriate caution was largely vindicated when the DOJ allowed him to plead guilty to a quite minor misdemeanor.
But with O’Donnell, your tone seems far different. With this particular issue of her educational background and whether she lied about it, you seem to be joining the critics first, with only a minor caveat that, well, this could possibly be explainable.
PatHMV (c34b06) — 9/30/2010 @ 10:42 pmPatterico, did you attend school with Coons or something. I am beginning to think you are on his payroll. Why don’t you vet the Democrat or is it you are just driven to be right about the choices made by Delaware voters? It is becomming obvious you prefer the Marxist to O’Donnell.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (1ec629) — 9/30/2010 @ 10:48 pmNE Lizzie,
I am too tired to respond to you at length right now. Summary: you received some harsh treatment in that past thread, much of it unfair as I read over it again. For example, you were not a Moby and I overlooked the evidence that you weren’t and for that I am sorry.
But you rub people the wrong way because you constantly make uncharitable and inaccurate comments about people’s motivations. You have done it in recent threads about six times. As I re-read the past thread I see a good eye for detail on your part, coupled with some good writing and sensible arguments. You also got unfairly dogpiled. You also made a mountain out of a molehill and are now acting like a petulant shrew in this thread.
If you would like to start over we can do that. But you have to stop this habit of leveling bullshit accusations about people’s motives in every comment. It is FAR from endearing — and perhaps more important, it undermines your credibility.
I could go on about that at greater length but I am tired.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 10:49 pmYou made the same bullshit insinuation about Steven Taylor today. You are truly a person who is reckless with the truth.
Speaking of which:
Did Castle vote for the stimulus as you claimed?
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 10:52 pmEach has a history. That is relevant, as are the surrounding facts.
In each case I was right. O’Keefe did not do what they said. O’Donnell has definitely lied about some things; the only question is how extensive the lies and misdirection have been.
But hey — at least she’s not an axe murderer!!!
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 10:56 pmThat thing about Coons being a Marxist is bullshit too, in my opinion. I suspected it here and reading the full piece since confirms my initial impression.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 11:04 pmSara (Pal2Pal) – Are you truly trying to make the case that the Delaware Senate race is not worthy of blog coverage? Seriously?
Why would I make that case? Coverage, however, means actual coverage, not this pseudo-tabloid stuff about a possible fudged resume, on and on and on. In the scheme of political things, this is minuscule compared to some of the real scandals right here in California. Hence, my question as to why this race, in Patterico’s mind, is the be all and end all of races. I’m sorry, I just don’t get it.
It is LinkedIn, a site I get dozens of scam messages from nearly every day. They say that 2, 4, 7 messages, etc are waiting for me. I’ve never been to the site to find out and I’ve certainly never entered a listing. As to a verification email, easiest way to do it would be to set up an email account with O’D’s name at whatever domain you have access to. For instance, I get 1000 email boxes with my Pal2Pal domain and I could set any one of those up with anyone’s name. It would come to me, I verify it. Voila done. Not a free box like hotmail or gmail, a legit name. I don’t think that evidence would hold up.
Call me unethical, or lacking in integrity, but I just don’t see the crime here that equates with ax murdering :). I guess I look at as being a Delaware issue for Delaware voters and that, although I thought O’D didn’t sound nearly as flaky as many have made her out to be when I heard her speak and be interviewed, I really have little opinion one way or the other and I certainly don’t think she rates national attention for a local race 3000 miles away. And maybe I’m jaded from working as a Congressional staffer for 5 years for a Member from Maryland, where I learned first hand that constituents don’t give a damn about resumes or educational levels. All they care about is what are you going to do for them when they come to you for help dealing with “the govmint.” If I “cared” enough, I would much rather know who she intends to put on her staff as legislative aids, speech writers, constituent service reps, or who she picks as surrogates and position researchers, etc. I would want to know what she sees as her role in fighting for her constituents needs in Delaware. A screwy LinkedIn entry wouldn’t even be on my radar.
Sara (Pal2Pal) (4d3f49) — 9/30/2010 @ 11:15 pmPatterico, I have tried to remain neutral on your scrutiny of O’Donnell, which is warranted, but, your defense of Coons has left me deflated in my support of you.
sybilll (b9e77d) — 9/30/2010 @ 11:17 pmIsn’t it great how every disagreement has to be a judgment on the person?
Did you follow the link to evaluate my argument?
I’m plenty down on the guy for his positions. I just happen to think the bearded Marxist knock is an exploitation of an obvious joke — as explained at the link I bet you didn’t follow.
If you did follow it, how about responding to the argument rather than making some blanket contentless general denunciation of me personally?
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 11:31 pmHere is the argument for non-clickers:
Let’s say I am a staunch Republican with a bunch of staunch Republican friends. I go off to Africa and I come back a Democrat, with very different views about power and wealth.
And I have grown a beard!
But I am not a Marxist.
My friends, appalled that I am so different, gently mock me as a “bearded Marxist” — a form of hyperbole designed to poke fun at my change in political views.
As a humorous rhetorical gesture, I adopt the label they have put on me in the title of a piece I write about my political transformation into a Democrat.
That appears to me to be very much what happened here. It is very much like my humorously referring to myself as “jackass” because Mark Levin bestowed that name on me.
CONTEXT. What did he INTEND when he described himself that way?
I know this doesn’t fit our narrative. But it is my honest view, and whether some people like it or not, I consider my credibility to be more important than whether a bunch of people who don’t like me anyway will stop hurling invective my way because I jumped on the team and decided to spin like a top for a candidate that I think is ditzy and has problems with the truth.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/30/2010 @ 11:35 pmsybilll, what defense of Coons?
The marxist thing? He was illustrating absurdity and not endorsing marxism. He’s wrong on the issues, but he’s not a marxist.
I’m not reading the entire thread, so if there’s some other defense, my bad, but Patterico hasn’t shown any support for Coons whatsoever. The Marxist line is a load of crap, though.
Sara doesn’t make any sense to me.
She says:
No one else does either.
And here Sara is just being incoherent. She started her comment saying “why would I make a case [that this isn’t worth coverage]?”
Weird.
Sara cares more who O’Donnell’s L.A. and Scheduler are, than if she’s a liar.
Actually, I don’t think Sara has any idea what Sara thinks. I worked on the Hill, too, and I know that the people who call in are not the only ones that count. Sara’s analysis is as terrible as the contempt she shows for the people who called into her Member’s office.
This isn’t merely a local race thousands of miles away (not that this blog has ever been confined to California or even the USA). Each Senator impacts other states severely. In such an anti-federalist system, everyone has a stake in make sure all Senators are honest, have character, and hopefully are conservative.
It is absolutely my business.
Sara thinks there’s some doubt that O’Donnell has been dishonest. I guess that means Sara doesn’t have any grasp on this issue. Whether she lied about Oxford is an additional issue to the already demonstrated ethics problems.
Sara says:
and
So it’s OK for Sara to make up obvious bullshit motivations to smear people as not honestly Republicans. It’s not OK to point out the issues facing O’donnell.
Character counts. Sara repeats the tired cry for Patterico to please cover issues x,y,z (amusingly, he’s covered many of them). The reason Sara cannot cover them herself is… what? Maybe it’s because she makes up BS while condemning honesty, and that is not a recipe for a persuasive pundit?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 11:37 pmWell, Patterico totally preempted me on the Coons deal. Oh well.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 11:38 pmOh forgoodnesssake.com
Please, no one here thinks Coons is a marxist, however many here are aware that Coons ran his county as bad or worse thn the Pelosians ran Washington.
At least some dems are not on record as being on record
EricPWJohnson (f666b2) — 10/1/2010 @ 12:06 amPatterico-
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m concerned because you’re spinning like a top against someone you think is a ditz, and grabbing at support that, otherwise, you would scrutinize more closely.
I know I wouldn’t trust a twitter feed that claimed to belong to someone unless they’d publicly claimed it, or there’s something major like a known email address they have control of publicly listed. (Don’t know about you, I’m not paying Zoominfo to find out, and their privacy junk says they won’t share it unless it’s for legal reasons.)
Foxfier (24dddb) — 10/1/2010 @ 12:06 amfoxfier, he’s just asking for more evidence. I don’t think he’s insisting this is O’donnell’s and spinning like a top.
O’donnell has a record of this exact sort of embellishment. there’s no doubt… she lies about this stuff sometimes. Someone may have somehow played an incredibly effective dirty trick on her, playing off that tendency by making a favorable profile of her, connecting with over 80 of her friends, and tweaking a couple of details in a manner consistent with O’Donnell’s fabrication about her undergrad degree (etc).
I don’t know why they’d do that, but people do silly stuff. I think she obviously posted the profile, but there’s no hard proof. I’ve skipped a lot of the thread, but I thought Patterico was saying we need to know more before it’s clear she lied in this case. Am I mistaken?
I think Patterico is spinning slightly in O’donnell’s favor. It’s been freaking obvious that she’s a con artist for quite a while.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/1/2010 @ 1:05 amOne of them is wounded that Patterico pointed out he ain’t a marxist and never was.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/1/2010 @ 1:14 amAt the end of the day your only choice will be O’Donnell who almost certainly voted opposite to how Coons will vote.
This entire discussion about who’s posting what, why and the psycho babble associated with it makes for fine group therapy.
Rumsfield once said something akin to you go to war with what you have, O’Donnell is what you have if you’re not a barking made drooling liberal ranting around about global warming. A better therapy session would be how to recruit better candidates.
You have O’Donnell. If you don’t like her, then pledge to vote for Coons, make a contribution to Coons and the DNC, declare your intent here and get on with your life.
cedarhill (11a85d) — 10/1/2010 @ 3:21 amPatterico,
JK (3231e7) — 10/1/2010 @ 4:11 amWhether you agree or not, Delaware senate race is a major political battle in this political war that will determine future of America. When I use the word political “battle” and “war” I literally mean it because that’s what it is. Of all the flaws Rush Limbaugh and Andrew Breitbart have, one of the reasons I respect and admire them deeply is because their worldview reflect this reality accurately (see Rush’s recent comment on “You’re Either With Obama and Dems or With America” and see few YouTube video on how Andrew Breitbart think about media). Here is a quote by General George S. Patton on warfare: Nobody ever defended anything successfully; there is only attack and attack and attack some more. My point is this: you are dead wrong on usage of your resources because you are defending rather than attacking. Now if you not believe you are on the side of conservatives, don’t bother with this. But if you are, I think one’s strategy is pretty straightforward which is to focus on attacking, not on defending.
___________________________________________
That thing about Coons being a Marxist is bullshit too
Well, let’s just say he’s probably a garden-variety ultra-liberal. But his favored status is hardly surprising. Idiocy does runs rampant in places where such people reside—Hello, Delaware! hello, San Francisco, hello, Mexico, hello, France, hello, Detroit, hello, Greece and Venezuela!!! After all, a lot of those folks believe that following a liberal ideology imbues one with wonderful, beautiful, generous, sophisticated, compassionate, big-hearted, tolerant, non-racist, fun and friendly qualities.
^ And If Coons is typical of a lot of liberals — if he’s typical of one of the heroes and icons of the Democrat Party, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (who had the nerve to tell the IRS back in the 1930s that the higher taxes he pushed through Congress did not apply to him — he probably does the watusi to get around paying the higher taxes he loves imposing on the (stupid) electorate of Delware.
Mark (411533) — 10/1/2010 @ 5:23 amPatterico,
I’m not here to support or oppose this person. Got no dog in that hunt. However, I think you’re potentially very inaccurate in your representation of what’s going on here.
1) I think we’re dealing with a cultural and worldview difference here.
I know kids who would say “Wow, I got to go to a summer program in England and took this awesome course in postmodernism! What a great campus they have there at Oxford.” That’s the memory. The piece of paper is a nit.
Sure, I may stick my nose in the air and say “But I have a degree from Hahhhh-vard.” (OK, mine’s actually Stanford, so what.)
2) ZoomInfo auto-creates entries and people accept them. That’s VERY different from a person creating their own entry. In this case, the user “accepts” the existing text rather than creating it. Not only that, but you have to “claim” the entry on the basis of seeing the first two or three items… and if you don’t go back and check the rest, they will remain as-is.
At best, all we know from this is that most likely she accepted her ZoomInfo entry, and the auto-generated entry contained potentially misleading information.
3) We don’t have enough information to know if her zoominfo entry was actually misleading. You and others represent it that way, BUT: it sounds like the entry communicates (at least) three things: geographic location, accomplishment made, and name of institution. In this case, the geographic location is ALSO the campus of a university.
4) To us it is important which institution. To her, maybe the location WAS more important, as I noted above. It is TRUE that she attended a summer institute AT OXFORD. Most likely, she attended classes in Oxford classrooms, stayed in an Oxford dorm, etc etc etc. For a certificate-level program (which mostly proves she’s not an academic — only a non-academic would bother listing it!), it’s a nit who ran the program. In that sense, Oxford lends the cachet of its location to any group that runs a program on their campus. If they didn’t want the association, they would deny their presence on campus.
Especially in light of the fact (?) that her info DID reveal the exact institution that issued the certificate, it seems to me YOU are the one making this into a lie. YOU are the one interpreting wrongly.
MrPete (589903) — 10/1/2010 @ 5:55 amHow come there wasn’t any obsession to find out ANYTHING about obama before he got elected?
How did he get his positions? What was his academic record? Let’s hear more about his influences.
Instead, when anybody did try to find out anything the media minimalized it.
Now we have somebody who would be one out of a hundred getting 100 times the scrutiny. Well, screw you and screw everybody else that let obama happen.
Rick H. (7690b3) — 10/1/2010 @ 6:00 amI’m not for this blogger or that and loathe flame wars but I suspect Levin must have been dead nuts on target.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/1/2010 @ 6:03 amTaylor’s article raises very good points and he is correct about the student loan rules. Heck, if paying them off was the criteria to get the diploma most people wouldn’t be able to get jobs in their specialty until they were in their thirties.
#154: Look Bunnies!
VOR2 (c9795e) — 10/1/2010 @ 6:05 amPatterico
Your line from the beginning on the “bearded Marxist” thing has been to accept their spin as gospel truth.
I on the other hand saw nothing to indicate to me he was joking and I wanted to see the whole thing.
Now, I have, here: http://s3.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/20100920-coonsamherst.pdf
Now it is possible he is being ironic and my irony detector is broken, but read for yourself. I don’t see it. In fact, what is the joke in the sentence? That he was a bearded Marxist? Or something in the diet or the tropical sun made him one? I would posit the only obvious joke in that sentence is the diet and sun part.
I mean there are clear jokes in the piece. Here is a picture of “a clean-shaven Chris Coons” and a picture of Africa with the words “Kenya: the ‘catalytic converter.’” That clearly was meant to be witty and ironic.
But where is the clear irony about Marxism? And if I made a joke about being a “bearded Marxist” I would follow it up by saying, “which I am not.” Or “the truth is I believe that capitalism is the best system, but flawed. And Marxism is a failure wherever it goes. And I shave daily.” Or something specific to say it is not true.
Now you compare it to headlining a post something like “chat with an asshole” or some repetition of an insult Levin threw at you. But there are two differences. First, you are a semi-famous guy. I mean I don’t want you to get an inflated head about this, but you tell me what your stats are. They are respectable enough that you had to upgrade to a better server, right? So you can expect people to know you are not an asshole, or at least to already made up their own mind on the subject.
And even if we didn’t know you, when you call yourself something so clearly insulting, refutation is implied. I have yet to meet anyone who says they are an asshole and proud of it. The closest you get is a person realizing they have been an asshole and right there and then changing (think of Ike on South Park, on the episode dealing with Somali piracy, suddenly saying, “we’re assholes”). But I have met a lot people who have said they were a Marxist and proud of it, especially in the ivy league. Being an asshole is considered per se a bad thing, but being a Marxist is not considered per se a bad thing.
Now against that silence, let’s review what he did say:
He studied under a “bright and eloquent” Marxist professor (or was he being ironic there, too?)
He said that our dogma caused us to lose Vietnam (what dogmatic beliefs is he referring to?)
That equal opportunity in America is a myth.
That America is not a beacon of freedom and justice to the world.
He suggests that democracy and free enterprise will not solve the problems of developing nations. (Never mind that it did solve our problems when we were developing.)
That the poor are not just lazy and uneducated.
That his belief in the miracles of free enterprise and the boundless opportunities of America might be largely untrue.
He does come around and say he loves America, “but in the way of one who has realized all its faults and failures and still believes in its promise.” In other words he loves America, but feels it needs to change. I suppose he has hope for its change, right?
Now it is possible to be a good capitalist and say most, if not all of those things. No one word he says there proves all by itself he really was a Marxist, and he wasn’t kidding. But how many of the talking points does he have to rattle off, without ever affirming a belief in free enterprise, before you realize he is not joking?
Occam’s razor says that the simplest solution is probably the best. The simplest solution is he was what he put as the title of the article: a Marxist. And I will note that a at a place like Amherst, being a Marxist is not even all that unusual. Its more unusual to be a staunch capitalist, or at least to be openly one.
Now that we can see the piece, we can make up our own minds. But I for one am convinced he meant it in earnest. Which doesn’t tell us for sure what he is today, but there you go.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/1/2010 @ 6:10 amAs I already said twice, I have. My analysis is set forth and you are free to agree or disagree, but it is my honest take and I have explained why.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/1/2010 @ 6:19 amCredibility? And what of consequence?
In what sense credible? It’s merely an honest polititian you require.
John Donne: “Though you pledge she be true and fair, yet before I come, she will prove false to two or three.”
Fartblossums, cumstains are credible in their context I suppose.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/1/2010 @ 6:25 amYuh-huh. First time here, I see.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/1/2010 @ 6:27 amMrPere says:
From the post (did you read it?):
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/1/2010 @ 6:36 amAre you related to Andrew Sullivan? This obsession is getting to be more than pathetic. Did she also forget to punctuate correctly at some point during her career. Better find out for us.
michael evans (ac4f78) — 10/1/2010 @ 6:39 amLovely morning.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 10/1/2010 @ 6:40 am“From the post (did you read it?):”
Ooh, that’s gotta hurt. I hope Meghan is getting all this. Beats a course on Melville at Phoenix U.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/1/2010 @ 6:44 amGreat comment, AW. It seems to me as though the “joke” was the bearded part. There is little to suggest that he did not turn towards marxism.
JD (08bfd6) — 10/1/2010 @ 6:48 amJ.D. Btw, these days i am a goateed capitalist. 🙂
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/1/2010 @ 6:54 am[shrug]
Who cares?
Lazarus Long (5720c3) — 10/1/2010 @ 6:56 amJD
the goatee is part of my master plan for a halloween costume. i will get a yellow-shirted “classic” star trek uniform. Now if you know me, you know i am pretty fair haired, with a combo of red, blonde and brown in my hair. So I can plausibly say, “you might thing I am captain kirk. and you would be wrong. I have a goatee. so i am his evil twin from the mirror universe.”
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/1/2010 @ 7:07 amdaley’s not a dick he represents his p.o.v. is all who’s a dick are include Barack Obama, the cast of any High School Musical sequel, Katie Couric, and Karl Rove
happyfeet (19c1da) — 10/1/2010 @ 7:17 am“When I use the word political “battle” and “war” I literally mean it because that’s what it is. ”
When you use the word “literally” do you literally mean that?
imdw (a544ba) — 10/1/2010 @ 7:20 amI knew John Happyfeet and Brad you are no John Happyfeet!
VOR2 (c9795e) — 10/1/2010 @ 7:37 amjeez I’m just a little pikachu nobody said nuffin about being serious
happyfeet (19c1da) — 10/1/2010 @ 7:39 amAnd little to suggest he did.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/1/2010 @ 7:42 amYes, HeavenSent, your contentless insult was deleted. When you repeated it, it was again deleted.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/1/2010 @ 7:43 amimdw
people misuse the term literally so often, i am literally ready to bust a cap in their a–es for it.
Oh, i mean not literally.
Joking aside, i have personally stopped worrying about people misusing the term.
I mean its like when “bad” became a compliment. “Dude that was bad-ss.” at some point we gave up and said, okay, i guess now “bad” can mean “good” or maybe “cool.”
Which doesn’t mean you are wrong, just that its a losing battle.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/1/2010 @ 7:45 amAt the very least, there is substantial context to indicate that the “Marxism” label was a joke.
Which is NOT to say he is some free market capitalist fan. For Christ’s sake, he supports Obama’s policies, which are essentially European socialism.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/1/2010 @ 7:47 amPatterico
well, you made up your mind, but let me throw some from my own blog at you, too.
And you might want to read it anyway, because i try to represent your POV and if i am misrepresenting you, tell me and i will correct it. i try to be fair and not kill any straw men in this situation. But everyone makes mistakes.
http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/10/was-chris-coons-bearded-marxist.html
But i think either you see it or you don’t. its like imdw and i arguing over whether the video in the black panther case showed intimidation by both panthers or not. the arguments will only do so much and eventually you have to decide for yourself.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/1/2010 @ 7:50 amHis piece does not talk about him converting to Marxism. It talks about him becoming a Democrat. The bearded Marxist line is funny.
Maybe he was a Marxist, but this piece does not prove it.
Some have considered the evidence and disagree, which is fine. I will not make sweeping pronouncements about them as people. We just disagree.
Patterico (48b6c5) — 10/1/2010 @ 8:11 amHow come there wasn’t any obsession to find out ANYTHING about obama before he got elected?
How did he get his positions? What was his academic record? Let’s hear more about his influences.
Instead, when anybody did try to find out anything the media minimalized it.
Now we have somebody who would be one out of a hundred getting 100 times the scrutiny. Well, screw you and screw everybody else that let obama happen.
Comment by Rick H. — 10/1/2010 @ 6:00 am
The Emperor (6e616b) — 10/1/2010 @ 8:44 amWhat?
This must be the most preposterous and ignorant comment on this blog! Who better than Patterico, thread after thread did scoops on Obama’s past ties with “domestic terrorists” and his “American-hating” pastor. “God damn america” et al. The problem with some of you guys is that your hypocrisy won’t let you see the difference between a man who has integrity and wants to build a right foundation for this country’s future and your desire to win elections. Get this, America’s problem is not a red or blue thing. Both the GOP and the Dems have contributed to this mess. Truth needs to be told and liars need to be exposed and expunged from the system. And it starts with you and I in blogs like this, standing for what is right, irrespective of party or tribal affiliation. I am so impressed with Patteico’s conduct on this issue and some others that I am compelled to take a more conservative position on all things America. He has set a good example. Now lets all follow.
Brad – not only is happyfeet a real person, he is a really good person. I am going to vent for a second. Happyfeet is hyperbolic and says some things that clearly rub people the wrong way. But he rarely, if ever, directs his hyperbole at people here, he saves that for politicians and their ilk. The converse is not true, where people here go after him, choosing to dwell on the hyperbole instead of the underlying point. I am biased, I admit. But Patterico talks about dogpiling on leftists, and it happens routinely to one of the staunchest conservatives. YMMV
JD (7a8257) — 10/1/2010 @ 9:03 am“The problem with some of you guys is that your hypocrisy won’t let you see the difference between a man who has integrity and wants to build a right foundation for this country’s future and your desire to win elections.”
No, the Castle supporters wanted to win elections as an end in itself, damn real life consequences.
Rico knows he’s right> about one unfortunate who’s aspirations to office exceed his own grasp.
Regarding ‘integrity’ and a ‘right foundation’ one Jeshua bin Miriam is taken, by some, to have gotten that ball rolling a while back, with little existential result.
Good luck with that.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/1/2010 @ 9:08 am#176, Patterico
Then you should delete Daley’s insult (which, again, was the first stone thrown).
Or is the fair minded prosecutor a little more “selective” in how he applies his principles?
???
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 10/1/2010 @ 9:24 am#176, Patterico,
And he is what I described him as … and you know it which is why you deleted it.
Uber alles indeed.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 10/1/2010 @ 9:27 amKudos.
And yes, there are plenty of liberal blogs that drink the koolaid and bend over backwards to excuse every liberal candidate’s malfeasance (or shift focus, etc.). Those too should be avoided like the plague.
Kman (d25c82) — 10/1/2010 @ 9:30 amPatterico
> I will not make sweeping pronouncements about them as people. We just disagree.
Well, we can agree on that much.
I think i finally do understand why you are harping on o’donnell so much, because you really have a thing about people you perceive to be lying. which is fair, but i think it is leading you to focus more on this than needed. but hey, its not called Worthing’s Pontifications, now is it?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/1/2010 @ 9:48 am#187 Uber alles indeed.
Wise men can tell the difference between venial sins and mortal ones.
What was the name of the Policeman in Les Miserables?
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 10/1/2010 @ 9:59 ambut hey, its not called Worthing’s Pontifications, now is it?
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 10/1/2010 @ 9:48 am
The Emperor (6e616b) — 10/1/2010 @ 10:00 amYou are damn right about that, AW! 🙂
“Then you should delete Daley’s insult (which, again, was the first stone thrown).”
Heavensent – You are very touchy for a guy who said above “I come from the school if you can’t take the heat — GFU.” You asked me direct questions above and I answered them. If you don’t like the answers, that’s your problem and not mine, but I did not call you a d*ck for no reason. Stop whining like a p*ssy about it.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/1/2010 @ 10:05 am@AW, I think the word your were looking for is “Wortherrico’s” Pontification. Lol!
The Emperor (6e616b) — 10/1/2010 @ 10:07 am“Now lets all follow.”
Lemmee guess, Caligula(?) we don’t need to get it
right at the beginning, just in the end.
As someone pointed out above Andy Sullivan has tenacity, integrity and a uncompromising commitment to moral rectitude, at least in his own mind(s).
His sincerity of purpose, his conviction, the evidence he brings to bear are all admirable from a dispassionate perspective.
That and $10 will get you a haircut in Quincy.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/1/2010 @ 10:10 amre: #191
More like Aaronico’s Pontifications.
But then you also don’t get the alliteration, which is important in the naming of blogs and porn stars. 🙂
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/1/2010 @ 10:13 ambut I did not call you a d*ck for no reason. Stop whining like a p*ssy about it.
Comment by daleyrocks — 10/1/2010 @ 10:05 am
DALEYROCKS!!!
The Emperor (6e616b) — 10/1/2010 @ 10:15 amROTFLMAO!!!!
@AW, dont worry, I get it. 😉
The Emperor (6e616b) — 10/1/2010 @ 10:28 amDon’t write “Andrew Sullivan” and “rectitude” in the same sentence!
Icy Texan (c92f58) — 10/1/2010 @ 10:37 amicy
must… resist… urge… to make… dirty joke… about sullivan.
Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 10/1/2010 @ 10:41 amA quote:
“Think of those barren places where men gather
To act in the terrible name of rectitude,
Of acned shame, punk’s pride, muscle or turf,
The bully’s thin superiority.”
— Anthony Hecht
Any resemblance between the above and the life experiences of Power-glutes Sully is entirely coincidental.
Icy Texan (c92f58) — 10/1/2010 @ 11:03 amif political viewpoints are more important to you than the truth — this may not be the blog for you.
Amen, Which is why I tell all the lefty lib-ish persons I know to read this blog. Conservative viewpoints without brainless rah-rah.
EdWood (c2268a) — 10/1/2010 @ 11:06 amThis one is for you hf. Different language but song is “if you are happy and you know it”
VOR2 (c9795e) — 10/1/2010 @ 11:08 amsafe for work btw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GikSjH1F3N8
Comment by gary gulrud — 10/1/2010 @ 10:10 am
Your point being…..
The Emperor (6e616b) — 10/1/2010 @ 11:54 amChristine O’Donnell at Oxford: “intelligent, engaged, dynamic,” says College Prof
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/10/christine-odonnell-at-oxford-intelligent-engaged-dynamic-says-college-prof.html
cc (ef9e11) — 10/1/2010 @ 12:12 pmChimperor should watch calling others out for not having a point. Something about throwing stones in glass houses.
JD (53c560) — 10/1/2010 @ 12:23 pm“Your point being….”
A man’s gotta know his limitations. His wife knows ’em, he should listen to her.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/1/2010 @ 1:02 pmNope.
We have O’donnell. We can prefer her to Coons, or even say we just don’t care who wins because they both suck. The bigger issue is putting the fear of God into any politician, of any stripe, that we won’t play ‘see-no-evil’ with issues surrounding them.
This is crucial to making the government more conservative. Those who oppose honestly holding a set of politicians to a standard of character are trying to interfere with reform. O’Donnell, Reagan, Jesus… it doesn’t matter. We should hold everyone seeking office to a high standard of character. O’donnell clearly fails that. I don’t know if this is an example, but there are enough examples that it’s clear she lacks character.
Winning the election is important, but it’s not the most important thing. We have to win more elections. Our leaders have to stay honest in office. We need to reduce liabilities like crooks, or we will see a democrat majority again very quickly.
We have to convince the masses that they can trust Republicans. Over the next generation, we need to do that by picking excellent primary candidates. And part of that process is refusing to shut up about O’Donnell.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/1/2010 @ 1:23 pmCoons must be laughing all the way to the bank. He can keep his campaign funds for his reelection campaign.
Of course you have your ready made excuse when Coons is the deciding vote on corrupt bills – its the tea partiers and O’Donnell’s fault.
Actually you and your cohorts will share most of the blame. You were pissed at O’Donnell winning the primary and you are going to make damn sure everyone knows it. We know next to nothing about Coons because you and your buddies are salivating over every crumb about O’Donnell offered by the opposition.
davod (bce08f) — 10/1/2010 @ 2:12 pmthe goatee is part of my master plan for a halloween costume. i will get a yellow-shirted “classic” star trek uniform. Now if you know me, you know i am pretty fair haired, with a combo of red, blonde and brown in my hair. So I can plausibly say, “you might thing I am captain kirk. and you would be wrong. I have a goatee. so i am his evil twin from the mirror universe.”
Someone’s been watching too many Priceline commercials
kishnevi (733718) — 10/1/2010 @ 2:19 pmOh, indeed we do.
I wouldn’t blame the tea party in total, though, since most tea partiers I know think O’donnell is not their idea of a reform candidate, but rather like her supposed policy stances a lot.
However, while most blame falls to the Delaware voter, some blame falls to the Tea Party Express and O’Donnell for Coons’s worst votes. The ones that Castle would have gone the right way on. Remember, if Coons is really this scary extreme marxist, then Castle must have been much preferable to that.
Learn your lesson, and support vetting candidates, and much of this problem can be avoided.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/1/2010 @ 2:29 pmThis from O’Donnell’s Tutor at Oxford (Complete article follows) [No it doesn’t. — P]
[Here is the link to the spammed article. — P]
http://presidentaristotle2010.blogspot.com/2010/09/christine-odonnell-at-oxford-some-notes.html
davod (bce08f) — 10/1/2010 @ 2:29 pmthank you Mr. JD
I will come listen to my song later VOR2
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 10/1/2010 @ 2:33 pmkish
actually more like too much star trek and south park.
but i admit i love those commercials.
Have a good weekend, ya’ll.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/1/2010 @ 2:34 pmWe get it, Dustin. You don’t like her. The witch should be burned at the stake.
JD (eb1dfe) — 10/1/2010 @ 2:35 pmdavod, it’s rude to paste someone else’s entire article. Wouldn’t a link have done?
That’s meaningless, btw. What’s your point? Some grad student like O’donnell? So? They didn’t study at Oxford, he didn’t teach at Oxford, and she didn’t attend Oxford. Bolstering a resume by claiming that would be lying. That’s why O’donnell denies having made that claim.
What’s that got to do with how well she got along with some grad student?
This kind of lame, rude, spammy argumentation has been the norm for O’donnell’s most loyal. It’s very off-putting. This kind of crap is why Delaware keeps rejecting O’Donnell.
Spamming a thousands words into a comment section, without answering the actual issue, reminds me of how O’Donnell filibusters over negative questions in an interview. You have to think the audience is stupid to try that kind of crap.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/1/2010 @ 2:39 pmMaybe my last comment was a little harsh.
JD (eb1dfe) — 10/1/2010 @ 2:40 pmIn all honesty, JD, I don’t like her. I don’t care about her wicca stuff (I’ve noted that is not a big deal), but you’re probably just being metaphorical. I don’t think the metaphor works because I am not upset with her for straying from an orthodoxy. This isn’t like a witch hunt. I agree with her policy views. I don’t know if she agrees with her policy views, but I think they are awesome.
I dislike her because of her actual attitude, the way she campaigns, the way she handles tough questions in an interview, and they way she lies. I believe she set up this linkedin profile, but even if she did not (which is not proven), she has obviously lied quite a bit.
I believe this is about a much bigger issue than O’donnell herself. The reason I hope to see scrutiny of O’Donnell persist, for years from now, even, is because I want politicians to know that we are not going to put up with poor character, even if we are extremely politically motivated.
That’s what this is about for me. You’re right that I dislike her, but that’s not a big deal, IMO.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/1/2010 @ 2:43 pmAnd when I say I hope to see her scrutinized for years, I am forseeing her future. Given my knowledge of her character, and her fame and usefulness to the left as a proxy for a much more honorable movement, I sadly expect to see her on Maher and MSNBC. I bet the folks defending her right now come to be very disappointed with her. This much I realize is just my imagination, but I’m usually right about this kind of thing.
If I thought Coons could be beaten, I’d actually be even more worried about O’donnell’s ethics. However, I think that the real issue is making sure this ‘shut up about it already’ campaign is a failure, so that there’s no question the right doesn’t tolerate crooks.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/1/2010 @ 2:47 pmNah, we’re cool. I know there’s a big dogpile on this woman, and if it seems this is just about screwing with her because of the petty nature of primaries and hurt feelings, then that’s a mistaken impression. Maybe an understandable one, but that’s not what this is about to me.
The degree of the efforts to shut down this topic are causing the folks like me to dig in and stubbornly make sure it persists. Patterico has insisted this he’s not reacting to Levin (and he’s an honest person, so good for him). I am reacting to Levin.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/1/2010 @ 2:50 pm“The degree of the efforts to shut down this topic are causing the folks like me to dig in and stubbornly make sure it persists.”
That’s your takeaway distillation from all this?
This being a leaderless revolution that gave your monomania a hearing and moved on with their agenda.
I’d say “The nasty mutt that don’t heel gets staked out in the yard while the dog that can bird goes for a run and a swim.”
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/1/2010 @ 4:30 pm“This from O’Donnell’s Tutor at Oxford (Complete article follows)”
I like the use of “at oxford.”
imdw (017d51) — 10/1/2010 @ 4:32 pmgary,
I will keep on holding liars like O’donnell accountable.
I realize this means I don’t get to be Levin’s dog and go on a run and a swim for him. Believe me, I can accept not being a lapdog.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/1/2010 @ 4:37 pmDoes anybody ever understand what that nasty mutt gary gulrud says here? I think generations of Scandinavian inbreeding up there in the North country may have crossed some circuits or something.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/1/2010 @ 4:40 pmchristy is the nominee and guess what?
She’s a nominee what promises to move a leftward drifting little party to the right.
That my friends is a good thing, and it’s worth noting she can have this affect win or lose.
So that is a very salutary thing and also Mike Castle is a hopelessly irredeemable cap n trade fairy.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 10/1/2010 @ 4:48 pmdaleyrocks, he’s saying I’m not a good tool for the likes of Levin and gary’s other masters.
and he’s right. I’m not really anyone faction’s tool. You have to meet good honest standards to get my support. I’m not a purist. It’s more pragmatic in the long run to be more flexible on policy and completely inflexible on character, avoiding liabilities.
gary and many like him are currently proving how well they can ‘bird’ by going on this particular hunt.
I find this characterization of the issue very useful and honest, and appreciate gary articulating (as best as he can, anyway), my view of this. It’s not about bashing Christine. It’s about refusing to accept certain types of orders.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/1/2010 @ 4:51 pm“She’s a nominee what promises to move a leftward drifting little party to the right.”
Mr. Feets – You know also what, she also promises she’s not a lying liar.
I want her to win and see how both promises turn out.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/1/2010 @ 4:54 pmDustin – I wasn’t just referring to the latest comment, which was actually pretty intelligible compared to many of the others.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/1/2010 @ 4:58 pmhappyfeet, do you consider yourself to be a Republican?
I wonder if you’re right that O’Donnell will have a good effect on conservatism in Delaware. She’s so unpopular there that she may be a liability. No doubt, Castle did not lose because of anything special about O’Donnell. he lost because he sucks. The reason conservatism has a hope of taking hold in blue states is that progressivism sucks. If a viable statewide conservative candidate ever takes hold in Delaware, it’ll be a first in a very long time and it will have nothing to do with O’donnell… in fact, it will be in spite of her embarrassment.
Hopefully, this candidate will be very well vetted, thanks to people who actually give a crap about character.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/1/2010 @ 4:59 pmdaleyrocks, I have a hard time keeping up with some of them. I’m sure he’s pretty off the wall.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/1/2010 @ 5:00 pmWow. You know next to nothing about Coons because of ME?
I think we know next to nothing about Coons because people like you go around sniping at bloggers instead of digging up dirt on Coons.
I have done my part by publishing anti-Coons posts on several different occasions.
What have you done but whine about bloggers, Davod? Nothing? OK, then.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/1/2010 @ 5:27 pmI’m Republican by default but not proudly so Mr. Dustin. Team R has yet to redeem itself for nominating Meghan’s coward daddy and I’m not at all sure what they stand for anymore. The actions of John Cornyn and the rest of the Team R Murkowski whores in the Senate suggest that mostly they just stand for getting back in power.
I won’t abet that sort of attitude by voting for an uninspired McCain-lurving establishment taco like Fiorina I just won’t I’d rather go get tasty pancakes.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 10/1/2010 @ 5:46 pmThank you for answering. I respect that.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/1/2010 @ 5:51 pmWell, my computer has a problem with cut and paste, happyfeet. I was thanking you for explaining your views in 229, not the other quote.
We’re never going to get anywhere by trusting Cornyn or Mccain. We have to hold their feet to the fire. They have to know they are in trouble if they go too far.
Of course, this is the good aspect of Castle getting tossed to the curb, and now it’s time to worry about the current batch. I’m not as worried about any specific candidate as I am worried about the specific attempts to silence criticism of a specific candidate.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/1/2010 @ 5:54 pmSilence, you must be joking, a dozen threads along the same line, calling her every name in the book,yes there have been the occasional posts for the one who is against every we hold dear, but that’s fine, moe look at my state, despite everything Scott is ahead in at least one poll, talk
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/1/2010 @ 6:01 pmabout read’ um an weep, and his opponent Mrs. Sink
has her own irregularities
Now who can argue with that?
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/1/2010 @ 6:03 pm“a dozen threads along the same line, calling her every name in the book”
Bullseye.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/2/2010 @ 12:22 amDustin, I agree with you. This hasn’t been about O’Donnell for me either since she won the primary. In fact, this is my first comment on this race since my post-primary self-imposed moratorium on online COD commentary.
She is who she is & I figured out the day I heard she’d ripped off both her employers and her campaign employees in order to benefit herself that this woman was no conservative and unfit, at least at this point in her extraordinarily belated maturity, to serve in the Senate, not to mention a very dangerous choice to represent conservative ideals and advocate for Tea Part principles there.
That became a moot point the day the Republicans in DE selected her fair & square as their candidate.
As a conservative & a Tea Partier, however, my problem is now with Levin and the rest of his merry band of TruerThanThou conservatives who have unilaterally – and quite presumptuously – elevated this seriously unqualified woman of less than admirable character to serve not only as the standard bearer of the Tea Party movement, but as some sort of bizarre litmus test for conservatism itself.
Where the hell do they get off staking the credibility of a movement to which tens of thousands of people have dedicated the last two years of their lives on a woman who very clearly doesn’t deserve it?
Where the hell do they get off risking so cavalierly all the hard-won power & influence we’ve earned by recklessly tethering our agenda in the public’s mind to someone of such questionable ethics & dubious character merely because she’s mastered the art of spouting a couple of simplistic right-wing buzzwords?
Guns & Constitution are evidently the facile bromides which serve as the Levinites’ version of Hope and Change, I guess. Say the magic words and we’ll turn a blind eye to all of your decidedly unconservative character flaws, candidates, just like the Obamabots did with their guy. (Quick, somebody call Charles Rangel & tell him all his sins will be forgiven by Mark Levin as long as he pledges allegiance to the 2nd A & the Constitution!)
The irony is that Levin and his TruerthanThouConservative followers love to sanctimoniously insist they’re only trying to rid the republican Party of “Dem-Lite” pols.
But by championing a candidate who plays fast & loose with the facts, even in sworn documents, has a fondness for spending other people’s money on herself & an aversion to honoring her financial obligations, it would certainly seem as though it is they who are trying to emulate the worst misconduct of the Democratic party’s most infamous miscreants, no? Dem Lite indeed!
I have news for Mr. Levin, we JustAsTrueAsThou,Thankyou Conservatives haven’t worked our tail-ends off out here in flyover country for federal government reform only to watch some blowhard sitting on his butt in an air-conditioned studio try to get us to trade in one sleazy unethical crew of self-dealing grifters in the Capitol for another.
Levin & the rest of his profoundly misguided fellow travellers are quite free to irrevocably damage their own credibility by employing blatantly partisan situational ethics in order to justify their blind support for a candidate of such demonstrably dubious ones.
There are not free to damage ours.
leilani (ccfc7e) — 10/2/2010 @ 9:34 am“223.daleyrocks, he’s saying I’m not a good tool for the likes of Levin and gary’s other masters”
Actually the Master said he used parables inorder that those addressed would not understand and therein have their disbelief confirmed, even reinforced.
The only person of any influence perusing these comment threads is the blogger.
If the Powerline guys have stopped by over recent weeks to scan the leaders I might suppose them to be reassured in some measure that their interests were being served.
But you may be certain that the vast majority, including those served, will take this devotion to be an indication of emotional immaturity.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/2/2010 @ 9:52 amThat’s a great comment and I think it states my view very compellingly, Leilani. I wish I had said all that as clearly, but I’m more of a quantity over quality type writer.
There is a lot of frustration with the destructive direction our government’s spending is heading, and it’s lucrative to tap into that with the most outspoken, pure pose. I’ve worked hard for conservative reform, and take a backseat to no blowhard pundit poser with “blatantly partisan situational ethics.”
Even if someone out there believes that Ms O’Donnell is a saint and a victim of a massive conspiracy, I’m responding to a larger issue: the way people keep trying to shut down this analysis because she’s claiming conservative positions. It’s a pragmatism that is both immoral and … unpragmatic.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/2/2010 @ 9:53 amleilani,
Very well said. I plan to use large chunks of that in a post.
Patterico (b72a65) — 10/2/2010 @ 10:05 amI agree, leilani nails it and yet her comment begs the question: Why are so many *allowing* people like Levin to call the shots and be the arbiter of viable conservative candidates?
He is not only defining the selection, he is telling us that she, and only she can be the one. With that, what’s most troubling is the masses are following his lead.
We’ve seen it here on the very thread – commenters angry and critical of Patterico for pointing out inconsistencies and fabrications of the chosen candidate. How dare he!, as if it’s a personal insult to soundly and rationally question and examine the candidate to see if they measure up, if they pass the litmus test – the litmus test which every voter should define and determine, not some pundit like Levin and his ilk.
Too many are abdicating their responsibility as voters and this is precisely how Obama got elected.
Rolling over, turning a blind eye, and letting the swell of emotionalism rule. I don’t want to be as stupid as the left.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/2/2010 @ 10:25 amLevin, like Charles Foster Kane, buys ink by the barrel (if you consider his syndication list as ink).
AD-RtR/OS! (96ebfd) — 10/2/2010 @ 10:34 amI sort of get it, Dana. People get angry at the government with good reason. So then they allow their decisionmakimg on candidates to be influenced too heavily by that anger, causing them to discount character issues they might normally weigh properly.
In the blogosphere context, I believe the Levin tactics have some bloggers reluctant to stir up a shitstorm by mentioning O’Donnell.
Intimidation tactics historically do not work on me.
Patterico (b72a65) — 10/2/2010 @ 10:39 amSo does the LAT.
Never bothered me before. At least, not enough to make me stop calling people out on falsehoods.
Patterico (b72a65) — 10/2/2010 @ 10:42 amWho knew that Patterico was channelling Paul Garrett?
AD-RtR/OS! (96ebfd) — 10/2/2010 @ 10:43 amHas any prominent blogger other than Ace (and Patterico) really called Levin out?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/2/2010 @ 10:43 amYes, Pat, but people actually listen to Levin, which is a lot more than can be said about the “readers” of the LAT.
AD-RtR/OS! (96ebfd) — 10/2/2010 @ 10:44 am“I have news for Mr. Levin, we JustAsTrueAsThou,Thankyou Conservatives haven’t worked our tail-ends off out here in flyover country for federal government reform only to watch some blowhard sitting on his butt in an air-conditioned studio try to get us to trade in one sleazy unethical crew of self-dealing grifters in the Capitol for another”
If self-righteousness is such a heinous sin why cling to it so? If you didn’t mouth economic conservatisms I’d think y’all Liberals.
Is this a demand for a social agenda? When you find your honest man just make sure he’s not a politician.
The train has departed, the crowd dispersed and the hobos picking thru the garbage decide to elect the borehole mucker Chief because he has himself a position.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/2/2010 @ 10:58 amgary – What is your native language?
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/2/2010 @ 11:02 amLanguage? English, is that odd?
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/2/2010 @ 11:12 amOh. In that case, I’ll let him frighten me.
Recall that I never fought him about O’Donnell anyway. I fought him on his lies.
Patterico (b72a65) — 10/2/2010 @ 11:13 amdaley,
I quite literally choked on my beverage reading that comment.
Patterico (b72a65) — 10/2/2010 @ 11:14 amSo then they allow their decisionmakimg on candidates to be influenced too heavily by that anger, causing them to discount character issues they might normally weigh properly.
Patterico,
I see it a bit differently: I think what we saw during Obama’s campaign and subsequent win was the incredible willingness of citizens to abdicate their responsibilities as conscientious voters and thinking people. Because it’s just easier and less work. Same with the O’Donnell situation. Go along with the program.
Obama wisely tapped into this. He presented himself as the one who emphatically reassured people that he would take their burdens if they believed in him, he would wipe away their tears, and even put gas in their cars. They couldn’t give over to him fast enough. Freely and willingly surrendered while blindly ignoring the red flags – because they didn’t want to be bothered – they just wanted him to win because he would do for them, he would carry their burden, blah, blah.
It has been somewhat the same with the O’Donnell nonsense. Not that she is the candidate they have been waiting for but rather she is the one they have been told is the One by very important people like Levin and his ilk. Reasonable voters have once again let up on their BS meters and let others do the decision making for them. They willingly ignore the red flags, shun those who dare to question and not blindly follow, and worse yet, endlessly criticize those who are determined to retain their critical eye and make their hesitations about the candidate known.
How is this any different from the Obamabots? There is certainly anger at the government but is it the anger that is motivating this allegiance, or is it just laziness and a willingness to follow like sheep because that’s the easy way to go and requires less work from us? And because of this built-in need to be led, do they even *see* the character flaws or has their misplaced sense of loyalty to the party – Tea Party that is – blind them to it?
Are we now to just submit to our betters’ judgement of what makes *the* candidate and suspend our own discernment? Is this what the right wants us to do? Levin is a punk. And I don’t like punks telling me I’m an idiot for questioning and formulating my own views – as a matter of fact, a punk calls me an idiot for that makes me dig in my heels in even further. Because I know I’m doing something right.
(Side note: This is so similar to the left with Obama – You question, you’re disloyal to the cause, you’re not to be trusted, you’re divisive, you’re nitpicking, etc.)
It’s disappointing to see the right play this game, too.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/2/2010 @ 11:15 amWho is Paul Garrett?
Patterico (b72a65) — 10/2/2010 @ 11:16 amCould we put this in some sort of perspective, she got her degree, she worked for CWA. set up her own organization, as an activist, was considered a talking head for what ever reason, she took that course, the professor remembers her well, went to work for ISI, was fired had some issues, ran for Senate, against the Junior and Senior Senator, the last backed up by the nation’s corporate establishment, the ones who helped wreck this country; Yes it’s an act of Icarisian hubris, to attempt this, goes up against the entire party establishment, wins that, despite a huge gale force against her.
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/2/2010 @ 11:23 amDana,
I have said for years that the right plays a lot of the same games the left plays. It’s situational. I know it’s received wisdom that we are just Better People but that’s mostly propaganda bullshit. We have better policies, yes. But that doesn’t make us superior *people*.
It’s harder to see if you never buck the party line and know no intelligent and fair lefties.
I still think the left is worse, generally, on some personality issues. We tend to be less apt to try to restrict speech, for example. But we unfortunately have our share of liars and thugs.
Patterico (b72a65) — 10/2/2010 @ 11:27 amBut we unfortunately have our share of liars and thugs.
…and sheep willing to do what they are told without question. The liars and thugs are nothing without the sheep.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/2/2010 @ 11:31 amThanks for the nice comments, Dana, Dustin & Patterico & please forgive my tardiness responding. I am new to this blog & though I subscribed to the feed for this post, it doesn’t seem to want to refresh for some reason.
Patterico, feel free to use anything you’d like, but would ya do me a favor fix the embarrassing typos first? Yikes. “They are not free to damage ours”, for starters. Aargh. I’m too scared to go back & find out what other boo-boos lurk in there.
leilani (ccfc7e) — 10/2/2010 @ 12:06 pm“Not that she is the candidate they have been waiting for but rather she is the one they have been told is the One by very important people like Levin and his ilk.”
I really think you good folk, you salt of the earth, give us barflies and moral cretins too much credit. Like we listen to the radio, watch Fox Business channel or read.
Coons ran on a cinch-up-city-government’s-belt platform and raised our taxes 25%. That’s a straight-shooter?
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/2/2010 @ 12:11 pm…
Guys, claiming “party line” in demanding a higher level of proof than “I saw it on the internet” for these kind of accusations needs to go out the window. Generally, unless someone is straight up following the party line counter to their stated motivations (where can we get that, by the way? No news letter shows up here) the whole “you’re just saying that because THOSE guys say it!” is an unworthy claim.
Rationally, it’s sophisticated name-calling; we should know enough about why we believe what we believe to make an argument from facts or at least neutral statements, rather than attacking the other individual.
For crying out loud, the main reason this gal is news is because folks voted against the party line. Remember? “We have to take the moderate/RINO because we need that seat”?
Foxfier (24dddb) — 10/2/2010 @ 12:33 pm“This woman is a crazy liar” is the party line, but you don’t see me yelling that like it’s some iron-clad counter to your beliefs!
Our host asks: Who is Paul Garrett?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._District_Attorney
These kids, they just don’t know nuthin’.
AD-RtR/OS! (96ebfd) — 10/2/2010 @ 12:43 pmSomebody direct a fire extinguisher at the flaming strawmen in Foxfier’s comment before the whole place goes up!
“Guys, claiming “party line” in demanding a higher level of proof than “I saw it on the internet” for these kind of accusations needs to go out the window.”
Foxfier – I don’t know to what you are specifically referring, but given COD’s occasional casual relationship with the truth in the past, mere denials from the campaign are weak tea when stronger evidence should be readily at hand. Your mileage obviously varies.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/2/2010 @ 12:51 pm“These kids, they just don’t know nuthin’”
And they just do a slow burn when you point it out.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/2/2010 @ 12:59 pmMost of the blame belongs to O’Donnell. If she weren’t such a damn self-centered, self-serving fool, she’d have realized she — and her very pockmarked, embarrassing history — had no business running for public office. She’d then have stepped away from the public spotlight (except for perhaps doing info-tainment shows like the now-defunct “Politically Incorrect”) and allowed others to represent Delaware.
Anyone who associates him or herself with the right but who undercuts conservative trends in this society due to selfishness, greed and ego-driven foolishness on their part should be bopped on the head and booted out.
Mark (411533) — 10/2/2010 @ 1:00 pm“…If she weren’t such a damn self-centered, self-serving fool…” she would have never run for public office.
AD-RtR/OS! (96ebfd) — 10/2/2010 @ 1:05 pm____________________________________
I have said for years that the right plays a lot of the same games the left plays.
That’s a bit too squishy or morally relativistic for my tastes. Yea, there are slimeballs on the right and fools like Mark Levin. But incidents of corruption, including those that involve tampering with election results, are so heavily and frequently the work of people of the left, that similar examples due to the handiwork of folks on the right pale by comparison.
Mark (411533) — 10/2/2010 @ 1:12 pmI tend to agree on election fraud. Did you read the part where I said there are aspects where we are better? That’s one of them. We are, in general, more responsible. I used to think we were less nasty. Then I was on the receiving end of some nastiness from the right and it was every bit as bad as anything I had experienced from the left.
Until you experience it, it’s easy not to see it.
Patterico (0b896a) — 10/2/2010 @ 1:24 pmshe would have never run for public office.
Quite seriously, AD, although the stereotype of politicians in general is very negative (more now than in the past, if not ever before), O’Donnell has to have a Mt-Everest-sized amount of gall and egotistical idiocy to think she could go through the public wringer of running for office — and not just once but more than that — and believe she could get away with it.
I’d give her more leeway if she resided in a solidly conservative, one-party-type of state — in which her playing the role of rightist could have been more easily exploited without as much risk to conservative trends — but she doesn’t.
Mark (411533) — 10/2/2010 @ 1:28 pmUntil you experience it, it’s easy not to see it.
I kind of know the reaction you’re describing. I’ve observed instances where a rightist will display very petty, bigoted opinions about some racial, ethnic or religious matter (eg, the stereotype of the snotty person at the country club), that at that moment I find myself so turned off, I’m repulsed (unfairly, I admit) by “conservatism” in general.
Mark (411533) — 10/2/2010 @ 1:34 pmI’m not talking about casual bigotry. I’m talking about full-blown “let’s try to destroy this person!” style zealotry.
Patterico (0b896a) — 10/2/2010 @ 1:38 pmI’m not talking about casual bigotry.
You mentioned about once thinking the right was “less nasty” or vindictive than the left. The rottenness of human nature knows no bounds, ideological ones included.
I buy into the idea that if you go far right enough (Hey, Mark Levin, hey, Daniel Carver!), and far left enough (Hey, Michael Moore, hey, Hugo Chavez!), you enter a convergence of lunacy and nastiness.
Mark (411533) — 10/2/2010 @ 1:53 pmAnd they just do a slow burn when you point it out.
Comment by gary gulrud — 10/2/2010 @ 12:59 pm
Who is this gary gulrud?
The Emperor (6e616b) — 10/2/2010 @ 2:20 pmI dont understand a word this guy says. Are you alright? Do you need to see a doctor? The in-cohesiveness of his comments is alarming…
mere denials from the campaign are weak tea when stronger evidence should be readily at hand
Like what? What more can you do than say “I did not make those profiles”?
Try to bring criminal charges against whoever did the zoominfo account? Good luck with that getting investigated before the election.
Foxfier (24dddb) — 10/2/2010 @ 8:32 pmThe account of the professor that taught the course, probably explains why she touted it so highly, similarly for the Claremont fellowship, so that kind of explains that, I agree she was probably more ambitious then most in the goal, but
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/2/2010 @ 9:41 pmit’s not there is a surfeit of good candidates that would have done better, in that venue.
“Like what? What more can you do than say “I did not make those profiles”?”
Foxfier – If you actually address the points made in Patterico’s posts rather than your strawmen, maybe you could say what was wrong with his suggestions or others raised in the comments. The same applies to the LinkedIn account.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/2/2010 @ 10:25 pmDaleyrocks-
I was requesting elaboration of your standard, which you offered in response to my objection of Patterico’s strawman about “party line.”
What proof would be acceptable that she didn’t produce two profiles that I wouldn’t believe if offered them blind?
(Both have questionable photos, the one with a “bio” has horrible text issues, both would be easy to spoof, both date to after the start of political runs, both systems have auto-correct.)
For crying out loud, I don’t even have any investment in this, other than disliking what looks to be an excess of credulity– I found that I could spoof entries with no motivation other than being curious.
Foxfier (24dddb) — 10/2/2010 @ 11:32 pmWhat, exactly, did you find to be a strawman, by the way?
Patterico suggested she should tell the folks to release the data on her profile; their privacy policy says they’ll only do so in good faith support of law enforcement. Thus, she’d have to file some sort of a complaint, and the cops would have to talk to Zoominfo.
Foxfier (24dddb) — 10/2/2010 @ 11:41 pm“For crying out loud, I don’t even have any investment in this”
Foxfier – Double Heh! Other than telling Patterico he shouldn’t be writing about this? Was that you or am I mistaken?
My solution, I think O’Donnell and the members of her campaign should publicly instruct both LinkedIn and Zoominfo to release the names or accounts of the people who created or claimed the profiles. It’s simple. If they are not O’Donnell or affiliated with the campaign, Zoominfo and LinkedIn will have to respond that they cannot do it.
Strawman – What does your first paragraph mean? Can you point out people taking “I saw it on the internet” as a standard of proof here? WTF are you talking about and what is the “party line” stuff you are spouting? I don’t follow your logic, but that might just be me.
Strawman – “we should know enough about why we believe what we believe to make an argument from facts or at least neutral statements” Seems to me the purpose of Patterico’s points is to raise questions in an effort for people to find out the facts, not to engage in “sophisticated name-calling.” Yet people want him to STFU for raising questions about unsettled facts.
Strawman – ““This woman is a crazy liar” is the party line” Can you point to an NRSC ad with this theme? Seriously, WTF.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/3/2010 @ 12:31 amFoxfier, (be long so apologise)
Don’t bother. You see when anyone responds to Mr Rocks and the proprietor don’t like it — he deletes your posts.
After being insulted earlier in this thread repeatedly by this upstanding “principled” gentlemen, I responded in kind, and then the proprietor who also holds himself uber alles deleted my response …. but never deleted Mr Rocks insults or made even reference to them. To them, I am a p*ssy and d*ck.
Funny yet, there are another 4-5 posters here who live in a pack unable to hunt without the cover of others. Which leads to my next point ….
Their favorite hunting rifle is to ask for “proof” to every assertion one makes as if you were the Prosecutor and they the Criminal Defendent. (* Notice the one sided burden of proof)
It appeals to the rational without really being rational. Like your assertion O’Donnell is portrayed as a bit nutty — clearly true — but they ask for proof. PROOF!!! With their normal indignant tone and ham handed loud way.
But to answer your observation, yes the NRSC does seem to think she is a nut (maybe lightweight is a better description) and the initial reaction about not funding her campaign and Rove’s (et al) crying on TV was pretty indicative of it.
They (MRC/MRSC/RINOs/Cocktailers) got scared shitless when their phones probably blew up next day with people like MEEEEEEE telling the NRC to go f* itself and not count on my money till they got tea party happy.
Hmmmmmm….. so when they ask for proof, well none really exists unless you piece together behaviors and comments and generate a conclusion which albeit anecdotal seems accurate.
And note just this week, Steele (another damn RINO fool) was very coy about answering question on helping$$$$$$$ O’Donnell. Essentially you could conclude from his comments “no money for her directly” but that the NRC/SC might help her organize some fund raisers.
So anyway, just a blog or whatever. Just a place to sharpen your elbows even if the “locker-room” sometimes resembles the jock lounge for wannabe principled intellectuals.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 10/3/2010 @ 4:59 am** Can’t wait for the response which comments on everything except the points made by the usual suspects.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 10/3/2010 @ 5:02 amPatterico, you have been silenced, about as much Tim Robbins was the ‘chill wind’ blowing through
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/3/2010 @ 5:39 amWashington in 2003, any attempt to put the admitted partisan warblings of TPM, Huff Po, this Gary Scott
guy, in context are dismissed
HeavenSent/Obama Uber Alles/Jimminy Cricket/Robert Rodriguez:
Say what you like. However, comments that contain nothing but contentless insults are apt to be deleted. You are not special and do not get an exclusion from this rule.
daley’s comment (in which he did not call you a dick but said you were acting like one) was not contentless, but rather noted your proclivity for using several different names.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/3/2010 @ 12:06 pmBy the way, you’re welcome to use all kinds of different names. I no longer have a rule against it.
But you will be called out for it.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/3/2010 @ 12:06 pmPatterico,
Thank you for verifying what I thought in those last two posts. Both good and bad.
And the countless insults typically come from your friends — which is fine — but best to leave out the air of moral superiority that wafts around these parts while playing editor to what you don’t like while being a turnstile for the others.
G’luck mate.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 10/3/2010 @ 2:32 pm#281, But you will be called out for it.
And again, as I point out — your Frem insulted me twice before I responded in kind.
You in turn deleted my insulting response while ignoring his…… that is to say you did not call him out but you did me.
So …. do as you wish but RESPETEMONOS as the saying goes.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 10/3/2010 @ 2:39 pmYou are certainly more delicate than you initially portrayed yourself.
I will acknowledge some favoritism — but it ‘s not based on viewpoint. Namely, someone with a long history of commenting and adding value — regardless of viewpoint — gets the benefit of the doubt. People who sock puppet and whine don’t.
Nevertheless, I delete (and remonstrate people for) insults all the time.
Patterico (d4da28) — 10/3/2010 @ 3:31 pmAlso: I reviewed the record and the comments were not equivalent, even ignoring their source.
In the future, if your feelings are hurt by what you perceive to be an insult, take it up with me. If you have a point I’ll address it.
Don’t escalate and take it to a purely personal level and expect a pat on the back.
And you’ll get more respect if you pick one name and stick with it.
Patterico (d4da28) — 10/3/2010 @ 3:35 pmOh, and to the other commenters: you’re on notice. HeavenSent does not like you guys asking him to support his statements with evidence. It’s very rude and hurts his feelings. Please remember this — and in the future allow him to assert any old thing he likes without demanding he prove it.
Patterico (d4da28) — 10/3/2010 @ 3:39 pmHeavensent (or whatever his/her/its name is) needs a good hot cup of STFU!
AD-RtR/OS! (b5fc01) — 10/3/2010 @ 4:13 pmPatterico,
I am just flattered that you gave my name to DR b/c I never posted it. Or for that matter than you bothered to do and IP search to cross reference names and emails (you missed a few).
On #286, you just made that up. Hell of a Prosecutor you must be sport. A little thin skinned eh? As you say, please prove I said that?
With respect to your tribe going after me (another pile on jerk-off #287) — hardly a concern. This is way more important to them than to me — and that says something. So if you value them that is your business and this is your business.
You can do as you wish but as I have told you before “focus on building your brand.” You could have something for yourself in the media world.
At least you admit to playing favorites in 284, refreshing, even if you then go on to do a some type of equivalency argument for letting one set of people insult while others not.
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 10/3/2010 @ 4:55 pmAre we done with all the O’Donnell coverage here by the way?
Heavensent (4f78d0) — 10/3/2010 @ 4:58 pmI’ll do another post on her just for you.
Patterico (1c765a) — 10/3/2010 @ 5:03 pmOh goody, more details to prove what we already know!
Any chance you can catch Biggie’s killer instead of focusing on this?
Sycophantshateme (4f78d0) — 10/3/2010 @ 5:06 pmI didn’t, actually. You have a characteristic enough style.
Uh, no. Scroll up just a little bit and you’ll see this quote from you:
Around here we like evidence. I see you don’t like that ethic.
Patterico (1c765a) — 10/3/2010 @ 5:12 pmCatching Biggie’s killer….
AD-RtR/OS! (b5fc01) — 10/3/2010 @ 5:13 pmIsn’t that the PD’s job?
“Facts to a Leftist, are as Kryptonite to Superman!”
AD-RtR/OS! (b5fc01) — 10/3/2010 @ 5:15 pm-Larry Elder
I think sometimes mean people are mean.
JD (467394) — 10/3/2010 @ 5:15 pmPatterico,
1) I think you missed the point — point is you (and others) always say “prove it” but pronounce much as fact too. Like your assertion as truth I am those posters yet you say you did no analysis to prove it …….. so which is it?????? I am saying PROVE IT? Or is anecdotal evidence and analysis enuff for you?
2) You got busted on the IP thing and slinging around info you had no need to.
3) And to prove that your tribe is filled with less than intelligent (or maybe bigots) ADwhatever joins DR in saying I am a leftist who doesn’t like facts.
4) Like the fact a zygote is not a human life by any reasonable definition of what life is …… (** this is where it all started way back **)
Sycophantshateme (4f78d0) — 10/3/2010 @ 5:24 pmRobert – You have a problem with the truth.
1.
Er, not sure he is a “decent guy” per se but not sure he ain’t. So I agree with most that actions speak loader than words.
To me, just seems he has been more interested in his career than in doing the right thing — as so many of us have done day-in, day-out in order to get ahead and along. As my mother alwasy said — “You wanna get ahead you got to be a bit of a hypocrite.”
No question in my mind his Chicago South Side “frems” are nothing more than trash in the highway now. I just hope his Hugo Chavez rhetoric proves just gasoline to get his car across the finish line. HOPE!
Comment by Robert Rodriguez — 11/7/2008 @ 7:50 pm
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/3/2010 @ 5:24 pm#293, doesn’t the Prosecutor’s office have any sway on this?
Or do they sit around waiting for the PoPo to build slam dunk cases while planning what elected office they want to retire to?
I admit to knowing very little of criminal law and try to avoid them at all costs. Lawyers are yucky and cops are the luck of the straw in terms of integrity.
Sycophantshateme (4f78d0) — 10/3/2010 @ 5:28 pmDaley,
LOL!!!!!!!!!! Since posts can be edited at will …. as I have discovered ….
But really, so how often do you and Pat talk in person? That is all I am asking? Same person maybe?
I don’t care much about the rest …. because for two different folks to have two data sets which overlap on the same pretty random data is interesting.
Sycophantshateme (4f78d0) — 10/3/2010 @ 5:34 pm#297, what does that have with the truth anyway?
Are you asserting that I used a name that I am now saying I did not use?
As I said, the fact both you and PF are using the same data set on the same person within a giant blog is odd …. unless you are sharing the same data set.
Like Journolist or something …..
Sycophantshateme (4f78d0) — 10/3/2010 @ 5:37 pmAnyway, play time is over. Onto the important stuff .. bedtime for the kids.
Sycophantshateme (4f78d0) — 10/3/2010 @ 5:39 pm“Are you asserting that I used a name that I am now saying I did not use?”
Sycophantshateme – Heh. Earlier you asked me if I somehow got your name from your ISP because I used it on an earlier thread. Your paranoia is showing again. How would I have accessed anything from your ISP since I have no control over this or any other blog?
I answered truthfully above that you leave tells under the various names under which you have posted. Are you now denying you posted comments under the names Patterico listed in comment #280 even after saying he missed a few names? Is that really the position you want to take?
What real name were you upset about me using that you were paranoid enough to think that I had somehow penetrated your ISP?
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/3/2010 @ 6:08 pm“But really, so how often do you and Pat talk in person? That is all I am asking? Same person maybe?”
Sycophantshateme – Fascinating. Some things for you to think about while you drive your Mercedes 600 to the market. Patterico and I have never been seen in the same place together. I have never spoken to Patterico in person although we were once on the same radio show. I have never to my recollection alleged you were a lefty as you claim in #296, although you are evidencing the paper-thin skin of a person of that political bent. Do you receive radio signals instructing you to do things through the fillings in your teeth. Nobody likes a whiner.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/3/2010 @ 6:17 pmThat’s done at other sites, not here.
You seem to be getting a little manic. Calm down, it’s OK.
Patterico (1c765a) — 10/3/2010 @ 6:50 pmdaleyrocks –
Nope, I didn’t say he can’t or shouldn’t write about this, I just want a better level of proof, a bit less credulity.
My solution, I think O’Donnell and the members of her campaign should publicly instruct both LinkedIn and Zoominfo to release the names or accounts of the people who created or claimed the profiles. It’s simple. If they are not O’Donnell or affiliated with the campaign, Zoominfo and LinkedIn will have to respond that they cannot do it.
It might be good politics, but it would violate their privacy policy– Zoominfo would be unlikely to damage their name by going out on a limb thus.
Patterico accused Dana never leaving the party line in 254, just above my comment. Thus, not a strawman– he introduced and deployed it.
Nuts as the party line.
Can you point out people taking “I saw it on the internet” as a standard of proof here?
LinkedIn and ZoomInfo are both unverified, anonymous internet sites which are being treated as if they are valid sources of information. Possibly worse than using wikipedia as a source.
(Incidentally, the non-internet ‘support’ for the notion that O’d. is lying about Oxford clearly says that she listed the class as Oxford and subtitled who the sponsor was; that’s straight out of resume writing class. )
Seems to me the purpose of Patterico’s points is to raise questions in an effort for people to find out the facts, not to engage in “sophisticated name-calling.”
Patterico’s posts show that he’s already judged the answer to the questions and he’s now trying to spread what he thinks are the facts. My responses are to point out that the evidence is greatly lacking, and that he’s taking evidence that I don’t think he’d accept if he didn’t believe already.
If you read again, you’ll notice that the sophisticated name calling I mentioned was about the “party line” BS, especially in this case. It’s bull pucky to respond to someone with what boils down to ‘you didn’t actually think through to that position, you just say it because you’re blindly following those guys.’ That’s ad hominem.
I’ve shown that it’s incredibly easy to fake those profiles, up to and including all details we’ve been offered.
Foxfier (24dddb) — 10/3/2010 @ 7:43 pmYou seem to be getting a little manic.
Understatement win.
Foxfier (24dddb) — 10/3/2010 @ 7:45 pmI fully agree with Foxfier on her comments here. She has not introduced strawmen whereas Patterico has, and she has called him on it. Yes, Patterico has “written his conclusions prior to writing his evidences”.
And I previously, on Twitter and on this site, called Patterico on his strawmen.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 10/3/2010 @ 8:02 pmI was agreeing with Dana and amplifying her point. No accusation. I think you have misread my commentary.
Also , I don’t think I have let my opinions get ahead of the facts on any of this. Feel free to contradict me with a quote.
Patterico (1c765a) — 10/3/2010 @ 8:04 pmFoxfier,
I re-read Patterico’s #254, and I agree that you mis-read it. It was a statement of agreement (that’s how I originally took it). If he *had* accused me, I would not have hesitated to appropriately respond.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/3/2010 @ 8:10 pmThen you are both wrong, and I apologize for not reading more closely.
Party line has squat to do with it, especially as there’s no shortage of party main-stays who insist that she is not “the one” and we’re all maniacs who have doomed, I say, doomed us all. (Imagine that last bit was read in the classic warner bro’s deep dire tone.)
There’s no little bit of irony in the high praise of one’s BS meter, disinclination to go along with what one’s told and willingness to question information. O’Donnell may, indeed, be as bad as y’all insist– but a couple of incredibly easy to fake and “off” entries to online networking sites is way, way too flimsy to be accepted.
Here’s an example of what someone who got annoyed can do:
It’s about a parody site done by a disgruntled commenter who was banned. Go down a bit, and you’ll find that he made facebook accounts for most of the characters. Updated them, too, and sent friends requests to folks on that blog.
That’s just response to a blog– imagine what someone with a political motive could manage.
Foxfier (24dddb) — 10/3/2010 @ 8:41 pm“Nope, I didn’t say he can’t or shouldn’t write about this, I just want a better level of proof, a bit less credulity.”
Foxfier – My apologies if I confused you with somebody else.
“LinkedIn and ZoomInfo are both unverified, anonymous internet sites which are being treated as if they are valid sources of information.” – Wrong. LinkedIn must be created by a user, while Zoominfo can be lifted from other sources and then claimed (verified) by a user. I have both a LinkedIn Profile which I created through my gmail account and a Zoominfo profile which was assembled from press releases. The Zoominfo profile contains numerous errors and mixes me with another person. I do not plan on correcting it and claiming it. I’m sure somebody could create a LinkedIn Profile for my name and that was the point for my suggestion. There should be no violation of LinkedIn or ZoomInfo privacy rules if the O’Donnell campaign gives them a list of names and email addresses affiliated with the campaign and asks them to release publicly if any of those accounts were involved in setting up the profiles.
“My responses are to point out that the evidence is greatly lacking” – My response is that truth appears greatly lacking and the response from the campaign has been insufficient on these and many other matters.
On the party line part of your comment, we may have been talking past one another. I saw no reference to party line in Patterico’s post and had no clue to what you were referring. I think now I understand you were talking about candy-assed establishment RINOs like Patterico versus True Conservatives such as Mark Levin.
Like DRJ, I enjoy having you around. I was just having trouble making heads or tails of the comment I commented on originally.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/3/2010 @ 8:49 pmJohn Hitchcock,
Yes, if by “called Patterico on his strawmen” you mean “accused Patterico of using strawmen but refused to provide any specifics to back up the accusation.”
I know I am engaging in the tactic so reviled by Obama uber Alles aka HeavenSent — namely, asking people to back up their accusations with evidence — but that’s because I find it impossible to debate the matter if people are going to throw out general accusations and not tell me where they are coming from.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/3/2010 @ 9:07 pmFoxfier,
Like many others here, I have a good positive association with your name and have no desire to have an unpleasant exchange here — and I feel sure, based on what I remember of your commenting history, that you feel the same way.
So please take everything I say in that friendly vein.
I have asked for specifics from you — like a quote that you are taking issue with — for a reason. I think you are under a general impression that I either a) have declared the online profiles purporting to be O’Donnell’s to be indisputably hers, and/or b) lack other evidence of her duplicity.
Neither is the case.
Let’s start with b).
She has indisputably misrepresented her educational background, even if you assume that the LinkedIn and ZoomInfo profiles are not hers. She has suggested that she has long been a college graduate and received her diploma only recently because of unpaid student loans. Not so; she only fairly recently completed her final course, as discussed in Steven Taylor’s link above. She continually refers to her Claremont fellowship as a graduate fellowship, which it is not. The guy from Claremont quoted in the post said that she claimed on her resume to have taken a class at Oxford University, implying that it was under the auspices of Oxford University, when it fact it was merely located there. Then there is the oft-discussed claims in her lawsuit regarding the Princeton graduate program.
Moreover, on the campaign trail, she claimed she had won two counties against Joe Biden in 2008. Called on this in a radio interview, she changed the claim to having tied in two counties. This was all untrue. In truth, she won zero counties. Instead of simply telling the truth, she insinuated that the radio interviewer, who had supported her in 2008 against Biden, was being paid by Mike Castle.
Going to a). I have not declared these profiles to be definitively hers. It is my opinion that they are, which is why I say in the post: “If O’Donnell turns out to be a weasel on this — and it’s sure looking that way . . .” My conclusion is based on the facts that a) the campaign initially defended the profiles instead of asserting they were not hers; b) a ZoomInfo spokesman has said she is the one who claimed the ZoomInfo profile; c) the profiles are very detailed, flattering, and in their inaccuracies are consistent with the inaccurate way she has portrayed her education in other contexts; d) she has shown no interest in initiating an investigation to see who supposedly set up a phony profile to smear her; and e) I don’t trust her generally for the other reasons stated in this comment.
This episode reminds me of the incident where she claimed that political opponents had vandalized her home, yet she filed no police report and provided no proof. I think she is just generally a vapid (see: mice with fully-developed human brains), nasty (see: accusing critics of being on the take), and stupidly dishonest (see: all the above) candidate who is likely to prove an embarrassment.
You’re free to take issue with me, but given that you have admittedly misread at least one of my comments here, I’d appreciate a specific quote coupled with a specific claim so I can assess where you are claiming I have been too credulous in accepting negative claims about Ms. O’Donnell.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/3/2010 @ 9:26 pmGack. There’s a lot of tension in the air as the weekend winds down.
Can’t we all just get along?
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 10/3/2010 @ 9:29 pm“O’Donnell may, indeed, be as bad as y’all insist– but a couple of incredibly easy to fake and “off” entries to online networking sites is way, way too flimsy to be accepted.”
Foxfier – If all that was there was some potentially fake entries on networking sites I would probably agree with you, but those are only a small portion of the questions surrounding COD, unfortunately.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/3/2010 @ 9:30 pmI’ll add that you still don’t seem to understand what was being discussed in #254. I wasn’t talking about Christine O’Donnell, and my use of the term “party-line” had nothing to do with the Republican party, but was used more generically to reference a particular type of conservative who unbendingly asserts the conservative view in all matters, and firmly believes that leftists are not just people with inferior ideas, but are actually inferior people with inferior character.
If you’re basing a lot of your opinion on that comment, you owe it to yourself to re-read the thread and put the comment in context. I understand if you feel you don’t have the time to do that — but in that case, I ask you not to draw conclusions about me or my positions based on that comment, which you did not seem to understand.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/3/2010 @ 9:31 pm“Can’t we all just get along?”
Bradley – I’m all for UNITY and Purity NOW!!!!!!
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/3/2010 @ 9:32 pmBradley,
I think the tension arises from people making accusations that aren’t fairly reflecting what’s going on here.
John Hitchcock, in particular, made it pretty damned clear to be a couple weeks ago has he has written me off entirely due to a set of mysterious “strawmen” that he insists I have set forth. All requests for specifics have fallen on deaf ears.
I guess he’s bought the Levin line that I am a jackass, an idiot, a moron, and an incompetent prosecutor whose ass Levin would kick in court. 200,000 Facebook followers can’t be wrong!
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/3/2010 @ 9:34 pmDoes anybody know if Levin has actually ever litigated a case in court?
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/3/2010 @ 9:37 pmPatterico,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 10/3/2010 @ 9:38 pmI’m sorry. I’m really sorry. I hope things turn around, and that John H. doesn’t forget the service you provide with this blog.
For what it’s worth, I’m readying a post that I think — if it were properly investigated and publicized — could pose real problems for Jerry Brown’s campaign.
Stay tuned.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/3/2010 @ 9:38 pmThat’s really interesting, Patrick. When you get it published, I’ll mention and link to it from a San Diego political blog I write for, SD Rostra.
Now I’m going back to watching YouTube episodes of Dark Shadows.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 10/3/2010 @ 9:45 pmI’m sorry. I’m really sorry. I hope things turn around, and that John H. doesn’t forget the service you provide with this blog.
Oh, there are plenty of people who forget about your years of conservative blogging, exposure of media bias, breaking news on scandals relating to Obama and other Democrats, etc. — the second you take a principled position on one of their pet issues or personalities that doesn’t toe the line.
I’m sort of used to it by now. I am gradually working on mentally accepting the fact that your history doesn’t really mean squat to the majority of people out there. It helps, Bradley, that the minority who do seem to care — people like you — are quality people with whom I am proud to be associated, even though we do disagree from time to time.
I admit I am generally discouraged by the state of the conservative blogosphere.
On the positive side, Dan Riehl leveraged his Twitter messages calling me a “butt wipe” and “azz wipe” into an appearance on Hannity. So there’s that.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/3/2010 @ 9:47 pmdaleyrocks –
Screw it, I’m throwing the towel in on this post.
I complain about folks using “party line” as a bludgeon in an argument, like it’s in the least bit relevant on the true/false scale, and you respond…by thinking that I’m calling Patterico a RINO and hauling Levin in? Got jack and crud to do with my thinking he had a conclusion and is accepting evidence that supports it, even if it’s not good evidence.
And saying that the sites aren’t “unverified, anonymous internet sites” because you can make your own, and you see how it could be maliciously claimed…doesn’t actually disprove that it’s unverified information, and since we don’t know even what email address was used, let alone who does things, it’s anonymous.
This is WAY too much of my limited internet time (…oy, that sounds lame, but it’s true– I want to finish up my web comics, rather than read through pages of responses, sifting through the new crop of loons for the folks worth talking to– part of why I’ve not been around in the comments, even though I’m still RSS subscribed) when I don’t even care about O’D, I just object to believing anything that is so easily faked and looks fake.
I don’t even listen to Levin– he’s the one that shouts, I believe, with the dog book. I think I listened to some back before the election, but the yelling got on Elf’s nerves, and most talk radio is incredibly repetitive by necessity.
Foxfier (24dddb) — 10/3/2010 @ 10:16 pmFoxfier,
I’m not sure why you’re responding only to daleyrocks and not to me. It appears that daleyrocks may have been reacting to a general pile-on by Levin’s fans and you got caught in the crossfire. Sorry about that.
I still think, though, that your accusations of credulousness on my part don’t pan out if you look at what I actually said, and look at the totality of the evidence.
That’s all.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/3/2010 @ 10:22 pmK, saw this just above my response to Daley.
Oh, there are plenty of people who forget about your years of conservative blogging, exposure of media bias, breaking news on scandals relating to Obama and other Democrats, etc. — the second you take a principled position on one of their pet issues or personalities that doesn’t toe the line.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m not forgetting crud– if I thought this somehow wiped out that you do quality work, I wouldn’t be subscribed to your feed.
I’ll point out when I think you’re wrong on principle, because if nobody speaks up, how’s it going to change? If I didn’t speak when I think you’re wrong and I’ve got something worth saying, how is that any different from toeing the line with some other group who’s done well and is mostly in agreement with me?
You do tend to take things personally — probably because you care about what you’re doing, and passionately believe you’re right. Trying to follow a few posts of this takes so much time that I’m bowing out on this one– for the whole site? When you’re not exactly a man of leisure, last I knew? That’s a lot of dedication.
Try keeping Sturgeon’s Law in mind when you’re feeling down. It seems to be a good philosophical root for conservatives of any stripe, anyways. ;^p
Foxfier (24dddb) — 10/3/2010 @ 10:26 pm“And saying that the sites aren’t “unverified, anonymous internet sites” because you can make your own, and you see how it could be maliciously claimed…doesn’t actually disprove that it’s unverified information, and since we don’t know even what email address was used, let alone who does things, it’s anonymous.”
Foxfier – I don’t understand why you are having so much trouble understanding what I am saying. Do you want to distort it again or should I type slower?
“I complain about folks using “party line” as a bludgeon in an argument, like it’s in the least bit relevant on the true/false scale, and you respond…by thinking that I’m calling Patterico a RINO and hauling Levin in?”
That was clear as mud in your original comment as you can see from multiple posters here. Thanks for clearing it up.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/3/2010 @ 10:51 pmFoxfier,
I’m happy to have people point out to me when they think I’m wrong.
However, I appreciate it far more when they can be specific. Otherwise, I have no chance to respond (other than to say: I disagree) and it doesn’t do me any good.
When I get a criticism that I think is unfair, and I ask for specifics and get none, I do get frustrated. I mean, for you to have leveled the criticism to begin with, you must have had something specific in mind, no?
It’s fine if you don’t have time to elaborate, but I will just reiterate that I think you have misread my position. I do not believe I have displayed the naivete you claim I have.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/3/2010 @ 10:59 pm319. Does anybody know if Levin has actually ever litigated a case in court?
Comment by daleyrocks — 10/3/2010 @ 9:37 pm
— Well, there was that traffic ticket that he successfully fought off by pointing out that the officer failed to write “Douchebag” in the ‘middle name’ box.
Icy Texan (ec9185) — 10/4/2010 @ 3:42 amI really don’t get the anger of “shooting the messenger”.
liontooth (ab09a0) — 10/4/2010 @ 4:17 amSay she wins this thing, because Coons is manifestly
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/4/2010 @ 4:49 amthe worse character, ‘where does one go to get her reputation back,” as one wag pointed out a dozen years before. Levin, having been Meese’s chief of
Staff would like to know,
“Oh, there are plenty of people who forget…— the second you take a principled position on one of their pet issues or personalities that doesn’t toe the line.”
Naked self-aggrandizement.
It wasn’t this wicked world, your crossed stars, your personal cross to bear that left you stone deaf.
The effort was totally pointless-not because people listened to Levin-because no one was materially informed.
Yeah, it is a bit tragic.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/4/2010 @ 6:56 amForget it, gary, they chose not to inquire of the professor who actually offered the course, rely
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/4/2010 @ 7:07 amon the integrity of Sargent, primo Journalista,
(he would never steer you wrong) yet they mostly
defend Whitman’s obviously more serious contratempts
Well, Ian, I don’t know what you mean. Are you saying that O’Donnell is no longer a liar if she wins the election? I think that’s kinda silly.
Or are you saying that people who claim she is unelectable are proven wrong, and lose their reputation, if she wins? Because if you’re saying that, you’re also saying that people who say she is electable lose their reputation if she really gets her ass kicked again. Which is what’s probably going to happen.
So be careful about the rules you’re setting up. Actually, maybe you don’t care. If you have situational ethics and negotiable principles, it really doesn’t matter what the rules are, you will always be the most pure and have the best reputation. So what if you totally called O’Donnell wrong! So what if you let dishonesty slide! You were doing it for the pure guys.
Folks like Levin don’t have a reputation to lose.
As for your comparison to Meg Whitman, I think that’s pretty pathetic. She’s been smeared, and just about everyone reasonable agrees she did no wrong with her maid. How is this manifestly worse than lying and weaseling repeatedly? Oh yeah, situational ethics again.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 7:13 am“Forget it, gary, they chose not to inquire of the professor who actually offered the course”
ian – What really did the lecturer who saw Christine for one hour per week over the course of the three week program add? Yes, it was held at Oxford, but it was not under the auspices of Oxford and it was taught by some Oxford and other high quality professors, and I very much liked Christine? Personally I did not think his commentary added much new information. You obviously differ.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/4/2010 @ 7:14 amdaleyrocks, it is really strange that this grad student is trumpeted as somehow helpful to O’Donnell.
No one said anything about her performance in this lame seminar.
I note that a lot of people are calling this grad student a professor, and even the grad student is using the misleading description of their class as ‘at Oxford’.
Not that I care. This kind of lying is petty and not worth much attention. We all get that O’Donnell will lie over the tiniest thing and cannot be relied on whatsoever.
Now her purist supporters are bashing Meg Whitman, as though this is helpful. No surprise, all their demands for unity were dishonest, too.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 7:22 amNo, we have seen the imprimatur on the smear against Mitt, Jeb, Bush, and most recently Sarah; some of you still repeat the lies, they hounded Donovan, and Olson and Meese, based on scurrilous assumptions. Similar for Libby, and Black and the late Senator Stevens, the last with manufactured evidence and an obvious flawed chief witness Now Professor Griffin suggests that shewas interested in graduate education, but other circumstances got in the way.
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/4/2010 @ 7:23 amOne of those circumstances is that she just graduated college last month.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/4/2010 @ 7:25 amIan, I don’t know what smear you’re referring to against Mitt or Jeb. Or Scooter.
I guess the one against Scooter was the Plame situation? You really think people here bashing O’Donnell for petty lying are responsible for that?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 7:31 amWith Mitt it was some extraneous matter relating to a company acquired by his firm, Jeb, a whole seriesof push polls and other insinuation, one can add the whispering campaign against North. Libby was set up by the Journolisters from Ackerman and Judis, on, The Palin thing is too long to be gone into, so this is the source material you’re relyingon.
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/4/2010 @ 7:37 amOK, thanks for clarifying, Ian.
I think those smears came from democrats. Much of them were either exaggerations or fiction, I think, though I obviously haven’t followed them.
The difference between those and people struggling to decide whether or not they support Christine because of her behavior is that we’re not doing this for political advantage.
I guess that gets right to the heart of this issue very nicely. I’m not fan of Coons or Castle. I strongly prefer O’donnell’s political positions, as I understand them. These concerns about her ethics are sincere.
And, as I’ve tried to say a few times, this isn’t about O’donnell anymore. She won’t win and no one serious thinks she’s a honest person. She’s toast. This is about people trying to shut down honest discussion of candidates, because of politics.
Think about what’s wrong with the smears against Mitt and others (assuming they aren’t true). It’s exactly the same thing that is wrong with trying to silence and accurate criticism of O’donnell.
In other words, know thyself.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 7:43 amNo, this exactly about shutting down debate, you have certain assumptions not born out by the facts,in a fair evaluation of the facts. Coons has by all indications gotten away scot free, and you really have taken almost a perverse sense of joy in destroying someone. Rest assured, they will come after your preferred candidate in the future, and you will protest, and I will shrug
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/4/2010 @ 7:52 amIan cormac,
1. I have done more to reveal Coons’s weaknesses (did you read my post on his anti-speech thuggery?) than you have with all your whining.
2. I don’t think O’Donnell has been “destroyed” but to the extent she has been harmed by revelations of her dishonesty, she did that damage to herself. I refuse your offer of blame for her self-inflicted wounds.
3. If in the future there is a candidate I support who is being wronged, you are saying you will refuse to join me in pointing it out, because you will want to get back at me for telling the truth about ODonnell. Glad to see this is not about petty grievances for you.
Patterico (471320) — 10/4/2010 @ 8:37 am“In other words, know thyself.”
Thank you Falstaff.
On the wealth of life experience demonstrated herein I think the foregoing advice should put everyone on a long sabbatical. Out.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/4/2010 @ 9:04 amWell, Well Well. It seemed all so important to “keep us up to date” on the latest news when it was against O’Donnell. But now I see that when the truth comes out, and it’s for O’Donnell, we don’t have nearly as much interest in it.
“while O’Donnell did put Oxford on the resume she sent to Claremont, she also included the information about the Phoenix Institute and the name of the Phoenix Institute program she attended.”
Also, for those who pretended the PI program was laughable:
“Christine O’Donnell was a joy to have in the tutorials: intelligent, engaged, dynamic, good with questions and interested in ideas. Her paper on cloning was one of the two best papers written for me that summer. She successfully completed a rigorous, intellectually demanding course that was the equivalent of a course in the humanities at any graduate school at any university. …”
But who wants information from the actual institute, or updates to the smear campaign stories, when they don’t play into this “stupid woman” meme Patterico has going?
Charles (fd3093) — 10/4/2010 @ 9:30 amhttp://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/christine-odonnells-oxford-tutor-speaks-out-intelligent-a-joy-to-have.php
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/4/2010 @ 9:59 amian, why did you call a mere tutor “Professor Griffin”? Your own link shows you did the same sort of exaggeration O’Donnell does.
What I love about your link is that it notes that O’Donnell is guilty as charged of claiming to have attended Oxford University.
That disposes of the issue. It doesn’t matter that this grad student thinks she is qualified to be a Senator. She is not ethically qualified for power.
The voters agree with me. You can call Griffin a king or God or Professor, but he doesn’t get to decide if liars get to be Senator. Sad thing is, the voters would have taken a much more conservative Senator… just not this one.
Furthermore, I’ve taken a couple of classes similar to the topic of this one. I know, for sure, that performance in that class does not translate well to politics or any real world application.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 10:51 amDustin
I think it is a bit much to say she is unqualified. First, i am with imao that this is a job you could probably train a dog to do. 🙂
And the alternative is an honest vote for all of obaminable polcies of the last two years, and whatever other fresh hell Obama et. al. have in store for us. the worst you could say is she is a dirty liar. but she will know when her term is up that the record will be there. its not an ideal situation, but its not quite the choice you saw on south park, between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/4/2010 @ 11:37 amAaron, I disagree with IMAO (probably my favorite blog these days, sadly).
Being a Senator, properly, is actually a very difficult job. You have dozens of staff, have to read at least some legislation, have to correspond with various coalitions, etc. Paul Ryan is not a lazy person.
The problem is that we don’t have many people who are qualified, but those people all have ethics. You just can’t do the job without them.
Is Coons qualified? No. He lacks the character I want, too. Of course, he’s pretty open about it. He does not want to get out of this nation’s way; he wants to rule over this nation.
The best shield for unqualified candidates is another unqualified candidate, and I reject that. I am not telling people who to vote for. I am saying that Christine O’Donnell lacks the intelligence, character, and experience to be effective as Senator. She is unqualified.
The more I read how extreme Coons is, the more I think a moderate Republican, while wrong on many issues, would have been a massive improvement. I can live with losing this Castle guy… hopefully it will make squishes less squishy, but this all does not bear whatsoever on whether O’donnell is qualified to be a Senator.
She is not. And she is not qualified to be a candidate, either, so you don’t have to worry about what her record will be at the end of her term. She’s justifiably going to get her ass kicked at the polls. Delaware was willing to elect Castle, and they are willing to elect Coons, and they were even willing to elect Biden, so it’s no slight on O’donnell that she will be rejected by these people. Nonetheless, she will be rejected.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 12:01 pmtwo points, I realize Paul Ryan’s a cardinal of the House, not a Senator, but he’s a good example of a hard working and proper congressman that I think is an example of the approach of a good Senator.
And I’m not bashing IMAO so much as I wish reality didn’t send me over to a satire blog so often.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 12:02 pmReally, Murray, Durbin, Leahy, Kerry, have they shown particular insight into the job, True, Python
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/4/2010 @ 12:12 pmand the Princess Bride, are more apt reflections of reality, nowadays
Indeed, we have a lot of unqualified Senators, Ian.
I don’t support the John Kerry / Christine O’Donnell type.
Now, if you have to choose ‘our flawed guy’, as Patterico was saying for a while, I think that’s reasonable to some point. Not as reasonable here, where the ethics problems seem to be very psychological and you’d be an idiot to expect O’Donnell not to be a trainwreck embarassment, and also not reasonable when the candidate is not going to win anyway.
But I’m not talking about whether or not to vote for Christine. I’m just noting she is unqualified.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 12:16 pmCharles says:
Charles was so busy snarking that he apparently didn’t have time to ascertain that I already reported the precise information that Charles complains I omitted.
Since Charles did not include a link, I had to track down the information he was quoting. It is a post from the Corner, here, which cites the very same post that I linked above — with the very same language I quoted above.
The Corner says the post was updated, but the current version says exactly what I quoted above as to the relevant point.
Meaning the stuff Charles claims I hid, I didn’t.
Charles thought I had made a false accusation and insinuated I deliberately omitted contrary information. I have shown that is not true. Now that Charles is revealed to have made a false accusation about me, will he return and issue a sincere apology?
Patterico (471320) — 10/4/2010 @ 12:29 pmDustin
I don’t think you are saying anything fundamentally wrong. I think we are really disagreeing more on the meaning of terms. Its probably because of different backgrounds. I mean when someone talks qualifications, I think of, say, say how our states will tell a person whether they are qualified to be a lawyer. And in that context I don’t like the state telling anyone who is qualified or not, and if they have to, you should have to be a massive drooling idiot before they call you unqualified.
But that is a world of difference from you, a private citizen, deciding who is “qualified” to be in the senate. So when I say qualified I really tend to think “minimum qualifications” maybe because I think of things like the Bar Associations which I consider to be a continuing violation of the 1st amendment and as currently run, violating the 5th as well. Which might not be the right way to think about it, but its how I think about it.
Certainly a candidate is not very much good to you, if the person is not, well, candid. It’s a serious flaw and a serious consideration when deciding whom to vote for.
And I totally got what you mean about imao. Just don’t tell patterico you like them better. 😉
By the way, I was not blowing smoke about the Bar Associations violating the 5th amendment. For instance, you know federalist #10? This was madison’s broadside against the evil of “faction.”
Well, at one point Madison says this: “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”
Now outside of law geeks, it might not be obvious, but he is also making a reference to Dr. Bonham’s case, an instance of judicial review that occurred in England, before the founding of our constitution—and yes, without a written constitution to base it on. “no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause” or “his own case” is basically repeated in our founding documents as a reference to that Dr. Bonham’s case, where the court literally said that the law could be overturned because it was so contrary to justice it was invalid. It not only provides concrete evidence that the founders anticipated judicial review, but also it strongly suggests that this principle of not being a judge in your own case can be properly interpreted as being encapsulated in their concept of what due process was.
So what was Dr. Bonham’s case about? Why, it was about a medical licensing board, much like what we had today, where doctors judged other doctors on whether they had enough skill to practice their profession. And the court literally overthrew that system declaring that doctors had an inherent conflict of interest in deciding who could enter their profession—they were the judges in their own case, as the court put it.
Now we might rationally say, “sure, that is true, but who else can judge proper medicine? and there are really good reasons not to let a person cut another person open without some assurance of their expertise.” Okay, fair enough. But the argument is a lot less compelling when we talk about the legal profession.
Imho, I believe that the bar exam should be abolished, except for ethics testing, maybe. Anyone is allowed to say what the law is, and you will have to judge them by reputation, education, etc. and how well they can prove what they say. of course, if you are going to serve as a public defender, the public defender’s office has a right to test you for ability; indeed any government entity can do that. but for private practice with voluntary clients? Let the market decide.
It’ll never happen, but its what I wish would happen. And I passed Va’ s bar exam, reputed to be the third toughest in America, on the first try (New York is reputed to be the toughest, Cali’s the second toughest—which is surely what Patterico took). So I am not some disgruntled failure, just a guy who runs pretty libertarian on many topics—especially regulation of commerce.
And honestly the bar exam is not THAT hard. I mean you have to take it very seriously but if you take a bar prep course and study hard, its not so bad.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/4/2010 @ 12:37 pmYes, O’Donnell is legally qualified to be a Senator, just as she is legally qualified to pilot an SR-71. However, when I am asked whether I think she’s up to the job, I say she’s unqualified. Good clarification, though.
Just as an aside, Cali’d bar exam is ‘tough’ compared to the pool of people taking it. California has approximately 7 billion law schools.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 12:53 pm> California has approximately 7 billion law schools.
that sounds about right.
Well, its reputed to be a tough exam regardless, but i mean who really knows? there aren’t many lawyers taking multiple exams.
its the only state i can think of with more than one state law school that is considered “flagship” level quality. i don’t know if that is a good thing or a bad thing–given that it translates into more lawyers.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/4/2010 @ 12:58 pmIf they only let people sit for the bax exam if they attended UCLA, Berkley, and Stanford (and other schools around the country of that quality, from GW of SMU up), I think California would be a remarkably better place within a generation.
I think a state the size of California, NY, Texas could do with 2 public schools max, and 1 private school. Other states shouldn’t have more than one public school, and only accredit privates if they are truly exceptional.
Of course, the states like the ABA decide, which is run by the people who make a fortune off Cooley Law Schooley.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 12:58 pmbtw, i should clarify. i do have some standards with office holders, and it is not merely what the constitution says. i mean i probably voiced the opinion here more than once that in my mind obama wasn’t qualified to be president–too little administrative experience. and boy howdy was i right about that.
Sometimes, i really hate being right.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/4/2010 @ 1:02 pmIf they only let people sit for the bax exam if they attended UCLA, Berkley, and Stanford
If that were always the standard, Ronald Reagan would not have had one of his most trusted advisors,
AD-RtR/OS! (878407) — 10/4/2010 @ 1:20 pmWilliam P. Clark, Jr., who he appointed to the CA Supreme Court, and who was a Presidential Advisor in the first Reagan Administration.
It seems that Judge Clark, never attended any law school.
Correction: He attended Loyola Law, but apparently “flunked out”, but took the Bar and passed.
AD-RtR/OS! (878407) — 10/4/2010 @ 1:23 pmdustin
> only accredit privates if they are truly exceptional.
must… resist… urge… to take this comment out of context…
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/4/2010 @ 1:26 pmAD, there’s always an anecdotal exception.
But I think Clark could have attended a good law school anyway, if he was sufficiently motivated. And I also think he could have had a great career had he not been an attorney.
The problem I’m talking about is pretty staggering. There are far, far too many lawyers, and far, far too many law schools.
But you’re talking about a Stanford man. He could have graduated from an elite institution. We can’t directly compare his choices under different rules to his choices under the rules I’d make. Not that it would break my heart if he had decided to become an engineer.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 1:29 pmFurthermore, we need fewer university students, period.
We subsidize people borrowing tens of thousands of dollars to graduate with a degree in crap arts. We only need a handful of Philosophy majors and English majors and Poli Sci majors. We should make them pay extra, and use that money to fund math majors and chemists.
I could rattle on endlessly about this topic. O’Donnell’s Oxford fraud shows that even people on the right are too enamored with completely meaningless crap credentials. I think less of her for boasting of her certificate in postmodern BS. Granted, she is practicing nihilism.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 1:35 pmAny old lying f@ck can become a lawyer in Indiana.
JD (65e1db) — 10/4/2010 @ 1:39 pmWell, that rules you out JD…
AD-RtR/OS! (878407) — 10/4/2010 @ 1:46 pmYou’re too young!
Dustin, I have the highest degree of respect for Judge Clark. He was an exceptional man (even if he did graduate from a “Jr.” University), who brought a sense of reality to the White House in his too brief tour there.
AD-RtR/OS! (878407) — 10/4/2010 @ 1:50 pmAD, I meant nothing against the guy. Of course, there are a lot of good people who graduate (or don’t) from lesser schools. No question about it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 1:54 pmAnd it kinda sounds like you’re interpreting my comment as ‘We should only let Harvard and Yale types be lawyers’. Not really.
I’m talking about one state law school per state, maybe two in huge states, and only private schools that are exceptional. One huge problem, IMO, is the huge number of terrible quality private law schools.
But remember, you’re talking about a man who was admitted to Stanford. And the USA graduates a couple of brilliant philosophers every few years, too. Those people probably loved the topic so much that they would have made their way there, even if we had much more emphasis on science majors and fewer lib arts majors.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 1:58 pmI’m open to correction from our host, but I seem to recall that one of the major avenues to the BAR here in SoCal is a small, private school called the Southwestern University School of Law.
AD-RtR/OS! (878407) — 10/4/2010 @ 2:06 pmIt is basically a night-school (or was) to enable working people to have an avenue into the legal arena. One of SWU’s alumni was Stanley Mosk, who served 37 years on the CA Supreme Court.
So if you like someone, their school should be accredited?
If you’re just ignoring the idea that there are too many lawyers and law schools because you don’t agree, that’s fine. But that’s my notion, and those two anecdotes don’t impact it at all.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 2:19 pmdustin
all of this reminds me of another anecdote. In the 1800’s there was a man who went to dartmouth for undergrad. he was born with a disability.
He went to york, PA, and read law for a year under a lawyer as the local bar required. but just when the year was almost up, the local bar changed the rules to exclude him specifically. some historians have speculated it was due to prejudice inspired by his disability.
So what did he do? we rode down to bel air, MD, and basically bribed his way into the bar. then he went back up to Gettysburg and started practicing there.
The man’s name was Thaddeus stevens. He went on to be the state’s leading abolitionist lawyer, and eventually the father of the 14th Amendment.
the point of the story is that it wasn’t always like this, with long bar exams, and law school graduation requirements. and i don’t think we were worse off back then. and when the york bar decided to discriminate, the guy just went to another bar and was admitted. no trouble. small government and financial freedom, defeats potential discrimination. imagine that?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/4/2010 @ 2:30 pmAnd we can’t forget Lincoln, he didn’t go to college either, On the other hand, there Al Franken
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/4/2010 @ 2:36 pmand Al Gore, Harvard men all, there’s Begich, who has a GED
We need professional attorneys. Law is incredibly complicated, and it’s good to have standards. Should the ABA decide what those standards are? No.
Anecdotes about a particular lawyer actually strongly bolster my POV. They are the exception that prove my rule. What’s interesting about them is that they showed determination. A higher bar for becoming a lawyer favored those with determination. The fact that they didn’t jump through the hoops I’d place does not mean they wouldn’t. Of course they would.
Anyway, if you folks want to reject the notion that there are too many lawyers, go right ahead. I think there are far too many.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 2:48 pmand then there’s Navy SEAL Christine O’Donnell, Esq., who has a PHD in Nuclear Cold Fusion from Leonardo DaVinci at the Sorbonne.
j/k
Just wanted to note that my 53 or so public schools + a few elite privates (like YHS) != a super elite system. Actually, it may equal a less elite one, just with fewer scammed students and fewer lawyers desperate to make ends meet by suing Wendy’s for finger-chili.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 3:03 pmDustin – Shakespeare had it right about lawyers in Dick’s (the Butcher) speech … (No offence, Patterico, I mean it in the best possible way (grin))
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 10/4/2010 @ 3:30 pmDustin: Not in your wildest flight of fancy could you say that I “like” Stanley Mosk, as he advocated, on the bench, for almost everything that I oppose. I was just pointing out a prominant alumni of what could be considered a not top-tier law school, and there are many more from SWUSL.
AD-RtR/OS! (878407) — 10/4/2010 @ 3:50 pmBut, the basic question arises:
AD-RtR/OS! (878407) — 10/4/2010 @ 3:54 pmIn a Republic, do we want to create an elite class such as you suggest?
Shouldn’t all areas of life be open to all with the ability?
Plus, I’m of the opinion that due to the mechanisms of governance today, lawyers should be Constitutionally excluded from any legislative office, as it is a direct conflict of interest.
Daley …..
That two folks made the same conclusion using the same qualitative analysis would require me to believe …
1) You compiled millions of posts on this site with no tools — just a hunch
2) Given 1, you were able to categorize thousands of screen names in order to identify unique posters using just a hunch
3) Given 2, two folks did it independently without communication
4) Given 3, you somehow manage to find a needle in haystack in Iowa that alleges my name is on it
5) Given 4, you guys both respond to the thread within minutes of each others on a Sunday evening
Again, not that I care but that is pretty cool to be able to do with no raw data, qualititave analysis and hunches. Or, the alternative presented, plus minus a factoid which does not take away from the point.
Either way, I am flattered if I made that much of a bad impression! Must be doing something right/wrong.
Sycophantshateme (4f78d0) — 10/4/2010 @ 3:56 pmLOL. I apologize. Kinda busy this afternoon.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 4:05 pmWhen you come here, confident that you’re hated, and then acting like this touchy and oppressed person, it undercuts your point.
So it’s quite convenient that you don’t appear to have a point.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 4:07 pmNo harm…No foul!
AD-RtR/OS! (878407) — 10/4/2010 @ 4:07 pm“4) Given 3, you somehow manage to find a needle in haystack in Iowa that alleges my name is on it”
Sycophantshateme – Your limited mental abilities are your problem not mine. First you claimed I used your real name in a comment. Then you asked if I had access to your ISP to learn your name. Very paranoid question. I explained how I had tied your use of different screen names together and I did so again yesterday. Yesterday you berated Patterico for revealing too much information and then claimed you had never posted here under your real name. I then produced a comment you made using the name you first quizzed me about, theoretically part or all of your real name, which now you seem to be saying is not your real name.
You need to decide if you are aggrieved about something or not, because you can’t seem to get your story straight. You most certainly do not understand how the internet works from your comment above, but again, that is your problem and not mine.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/4/2010 @ 4:23 pmSycophantshateme –
“Or, the alternative presented, plus minus a factoid which does not take away from the point.”
I think it is flat out bizarre and hilarious that you believe I am a sock puppet for Patterico.
“I am flattered if I made that much of a bad impression!”
I would not flatter yourself, you are not as important as you think you are.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/4/2010 @ 4:32 pmBut who wants information from the actual institute, or updates to the smear campaign stories, when they don’t play into this “stupid woman” meme Patterico has going?
Charles, more accurately, rather than “stupid woman” meme would be, “Woman doing stupid stuff to make us think she really is stupid” meme.
A smart person makes prudent decisions and strives to keep their nose clean – especially one seeking public office.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/4/2010 @ 5:09 pmDana – Keep a hiking boot handy.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/4/2010 @ 5:35 pmOh please, daley, my heels will be quite sufficient.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 10/4/2010 @ 5:36 pmSycophantshateme/HeavenSent/etc.:
daleyrocks has criticized me here several times — most recently re overpopulation, but also (very strongly) re my criticism of a blogger who I thought was a weasel about some racially charged statements he made (but insinuated he had not). daley was very critical of how I handled that. I thought he was wrong — but hey. He thought I was too.
All part of our dastardly plot to seem like two separate people! Bwa-ha!
Patterico (471320) — 10/4/2010 @ 5:37 pmWow. What long a thread. 386 comments and counting. Reminds me of all old times. Hmmmm….
The Emperor (6e616b) — 10/4/2010 @ 5:40 pmpatterico
speaking of separate people, is there any truth to the rumor that Alfred Molina is playing you on Law and Order: Los Angeles?
🙂
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/4/2010 @ 5:41 pmPatterico @387 – The disagreement routine keeps everybody guessing, doesn’t it? It sounds like somebody is keeping a grudge list for their sockpuppet, though. Just keep allocating the Non-PC comments to my screen name like you have in the past.
I want to see how long it takes for Sycophantshateme’s head to explode because he still can’t figure out what’s going on.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/4/2010 @ 7:42 pmhttp://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/04/new-christine-odonnell-ad-im-you/
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/4/2010 @ 7:50 pmNow that is a very good advert, ian. Allahpundit is right that it’s not every day a candidate formally denies she’s a witch. For a lot of folks, that’s going to be helpful, believe it or not.
She has to own, to some extent, that she’s screwed up. An aspiring politician should learn not to be so loose on programs like Bill Maher, or to take liberties with the truth on resumes.
Does her attractiveness help or hurt? On the one hand, she’s not smart or skilled, so her looks probably got her somewhere. On the other, attractive candidates need to go the extra mile to show they have substance (my opinion).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/4/2010 @ 7:59 pmdustin
well, here’s the no spin truth with her on maher.
maher put her on because she is a hot and sexy conservative. she went on because she wanted to be a celebrity conservative. but if she never said anything colorful on the show, i am not sure how long maher would have kept her on. But now she is paying for it. and i say that with no sympathy. she dug that grave for herself.
i mean its not the end of the world but the price she is paying was entirely predictable and wholly her fault.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/4/2010 @ 8:15 pmbtw, has maher aired any other clips from her that were newsworthy?
I haven’t heard anything and i think i would have.
if he hasn’t that goes to prove my other point. maher was showing the worst first, and anything else he shows was much tamer by comparison.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/4/2010 @ 8:16 pmCharrrrr – les!!!
Oh, Chaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrr – les!!!!
My apology?
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/4/2010 @ 9:06 pmMaybe Christine will start her next ad by saying she was not a slut. That would be something different too.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/4/2010 @ 9:33 pm“Let’s do the time warp agaaaaaaaaiiiinnnnn!!!”
Icy Texan (613df9) — 5/19/2011 @ 3:45 amicy, miss is a bot.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/19/2011 @ 5:07 amSeriously now, do you see what a stupid ‘tempest in a teapot’ that was, part of the self destructive
ian cormac (72470d) — 5/19/2011 @ 5:32 amcycle that snatches defeat out of victory. Specially when your candidate, Whitman, lost by
almost as large a margin:http://www.therightscoop.com/sarah-palin-rips-newt-says-she-is-seriously-considering-2012-run/#disqus_thread
Heya! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any trouble with hackers? My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up losing months of hard work due to no back up. Do you have any methods to protect against hackers?
miss facebook (3fdbdb) — 5/19/2011 @ 8:48 am