Take a moment from your busy holiday season to consider the following fact: As the new class of Tea Party backed legislators prepares to head off to Washington for the 112th Congress, the movement is once again besmirched by one of it’s former stars. This time it’s thanks to a slip up by that one time sensation, Christine O’Donnell, who is now under the microscope for yet another round of financial improprieties, these related to her failed 2008 run for the U.S. Senate.
According to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, it seems pretty clear that O’Donnell had been using her campaign money to finance her personal lifestyle and that would be highly illegal. These allegations were backed up as well by Ben Evans of the Associated Press, who pointed out:” At least two former campaign workers have alleged that she routinely used political contributions to pay personal expenses including her rent as she ran for the Senate…O’Donnell has acknowledged paying part of her rent with campaign money, arguing that her house doubled as a campaign headquarters.” Likewise, Mark Halperin and others have provided similar and supporting observations. To date, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware is reviewing a complaint filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, examining the merits of that complaint and whether or not the amount of money purloined from the campaign reaches the appropriate threshold to require D.O.J. action. The matter is also before the FBI.
Ms. O’Donnell has tried to deflect this latest controversy by asserting that she is he victim of “thug tactics” perpetrated by Vice President Biden or some well orchestrated conspiracy being carried out by the “professional left.” However, Melanie Sloan, President of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington quickly dispatched with these allegations with the following comment which revealed that the source of the allegations against O’Donnell came from her own Republican Staffers and not:” “because we’re some Soros funded group or something, it’s the Republican staffers — people who worked for her — who made it clear she was stealing the money,”
While many would ask the question: “Why bother with Christine O’Donnell as she has by now been roundly dismissed for the buffoon that she is?” Well that may in fact be the case as far as Ms. O’Donnell goes but there is a larger, more compelling question beyond the particulars of her personal missteps alone. That larger question revolves around the selection of someone like Christine O’Donnell as a candidate for public office and what that says about decision making process within the Tea Party Movement as it relates to who is picked to run and how they are vetted. Moreover, what in turn does the selection of candidates of Ms. O’Donnell’s caliber that say about the Tea Party Movement’s chances for long term success? I for one think that this element of the movement’s modus operandi is in fact one of it’s greatest weaknesses, one that works against its long term viability as a serious force within American politics. Not to telegraph too much, but this will be part and parcel of a wider discussion in the New Year, Stay tuned and Happy New Year.
Steven J. Gulitti
12/30/10
Our diarist rhetorically asks why we should bother with Christine O’Donnell. The reasons, apparently, is predictive: if they have a predilection for bad candidates, they’re doomed.
<
p>I say we don’t bother.
<
p>We liberals gain no points and win no elections by being derisive. Conservatives love, love, love to accuse us of being smug — and they won the Presidency in 2000 with a buffoon against a candidate who really was smarter. Let’s learn from history.
<
p>Likewise as prediction, this approach is none too useful: This diarist in his numerous crossposted “essays” has been predicting the collapse of the Tea Party as long as it has existed. Note to Steven J. Gulliti: the new senator from Kentucky is not named Conway.
<
p>So rather than indulge our vanity with how much smarter we are than the Tea Party, it would be better to ask why the Tea Party is attractive to a surprising number of voters. Could it be a problem with Democratic messaging? with Democratic policies?
K Busch wrote: “Likewise as prediction, this approach is none too useful: This diarist in his numerous crossposted “essays” has been predicting the collapse of the Tea Party as long as it has existed.”
<
p>SJG: The fact that this essay has been cross posted has nothing to do with the thrust of the argument made here but it has everything to do with your particular problem with that fact, an issue that seems peculiar to you alone as no one else makes an issue of it. I suggest you bring your concerns to the folks who run this site as it is they who are best situated to help you and address your needs.
<
p>As far as the the lifespan of the Tea Party Movement is concerned, it is far to early to declare it dead or moribund, that is more than obvious and requires no further analysis here and at this time. However, the keen observer of the movements stated ideology and its relationship to the larger political world around it can plainly see that there is trouble ahead for this movement and its success on the American political landscape is anything but assured. More to follow on this.
<
p>K Busch wrote: “So rather than indulge our vanity with how much smarter we are than the Tea Party, it would be better to ask why the Tea Party is attractive to a surprising number of voters. Could it be a problem with Democratic messaging? with Democratic policies?
<
p>SJG: The fact that the Tea Party Movement has become so attractive to so many Americans speaks volumes about the failures of the Democratic Party to define itself as a party that the average bloke can feel at home within. The Democrats have lamely allowed the right to define the party instead of defining themselves. Democrats are notoriously famous for not “being able to throw a punch” when it comes to deconstructing the rights arguments as to what the Democrats are and what they stand for. For one thing, the Democrats and independent progressives should never let up on the message that most of the progress in American society has been delivered by them and not the conservatives. The second area where the Democrats and the progressives need to “buck up” is in dismissing the conservative line that only the right wing paradigm for America is patriotic and that anything to the left of Attila the Hun is blasphemy and anti-American. These would be a few areas in which to launch the new progressive offensive against the reactionary right.
Generally, people who crosspost all over the internet write compelling, well-written material on important topics.
<
p>You have written uncompelling, poorly written material on a topic that is best a distraction. And you’re proud of it, too!
<
p>On October 15 you “wrote”:
That does not square with “As far as the the lifespan of the Tea Party Movement is concerned, it is far to early to declare it dead or moribund…” You’ve been sounding its death knoll for months.
“Generally, people who crosspost all over the internet write compelling, well-written material on important topics.
You have written uncompelling, poorly written material on a topic that is best a distraction. And you’re proud of it, too!”
<
p>SJG: However If you go back and look at the comments it’s basically only you who complains about my style, weird, huh? Generally, on the blogs, I have had far more complements that comments by detractors, that is the proof in the pudding, so to speak.
<
p>I suggest you take your beef to the people who run this blog and see what they have to say to you. Or you can take the advice that I myself gave you, dont read my posts! See how that works, simple no?
Not only do you not understand how to title replies, but you don’t understand the rating system at BMG. It is manifestly not true that no one agrees with me or that no one has signaled agreement. You just haven’t figured it out yet.
<
p>You might also find it instructive to compare the reception your diaries get with those of other writers on BMG. I have exchanged email with people, who have confessed they stopped reading you long ago.
Thinking about all this, it seems as if you are somewhat insecure about your intelligence and have thus decided to create a little industry of writing about how you are smarter than the Tea Party.
<
p>It’s a double appeal to vanity: You get to say you’re smarter than someone else and you get to publish it all over the web.
<
p>You must be quite charming in real life.