Tea Party

[High Lord Tolkien]

Her date tried to bang her on a satanic altar?
That's pretty hot.
Mahar should be trying to interview her date.
Sounds like an interesting guy with a good imagination.
Bet he has some good stories.

[wayfriend]

Wayfriend, as one of the chief advocates here for religious tolerance, I'm surprised you'd go there. What exactly are you trying to say about her religious choices?

I'm trying to say she is a serious problem as an electable conservative candidate.

But now I want to also say: thanks for getting it out there that I am religiously intolerant and/or a hypocrit. I am always glad to discover new ways of exposing to all the wonderfulness that you are.

[Zarathustra]

But now I want to also say: thanks for getting it out there that I am religiously intolerant and/or a hypocrit.

All I said was that I was surprised you "went there." And then I asked you what you meant, for clarification. I didn't say either of the things you claim I said.

I am always glad to discover new ways of exposing to all the wonderfulness that you are.

Again, a question for clarification: what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Are you admitting that you have some personal agenda against me? Let's assume for a moment that I did say that your post was intolerant and/or hypocritical. That somehow makes me the bad guy here? What does that say about everyone (including you, I believe) in the Ground Zero mosque thread that tried to imply that people against the mosque are intolerant? Did they expose their "wonderfulness," too? Or is it just conservatives who aren't allowed to point out intolerance? What exactly do you think you've exposed "for all?"

Back on topic:

September 20, 2010
O'Donnell vs. Coons: Analyzing Extremism
By Selwyn Duke
Unlike for most Americans, the Delaware senatorial primary was not my first introduction to Christine O'Donnell. I remembered her from as far back as approximately fifteen years ago, making appearances on shows such as "Politically Incorrect." So when I heard about her supposed "extremist views," I had to wonder if I was overlooking something. It's hard to forget such a pretty face, but did I fail to recollect some strange aspect of her ideology?


So I did a Google search and quickly found criticism of her at the Huffington Compost. "What better source for getting the dirt, real and imagined, on a Tea Party candidate?" I thought. Yet I figured I knew what I'd find, and I was right. Had she ever proclaimed herself a Marxist? No, that was her opponent, Chris Coons. Had she ever belonged to a socialist party? No, that was Barack Obama in the 1990s. Did she once advocate forced abortions and sterilization? No, that was the president's "science czar," John Holdren. Had she headed up an organization that promoted "fisting" for 14-year-olds and books featuring sex acts between preschoolers? No -- while Obama's "Safe Schools Czar" Kevin Jennings did do that, O'Donnell's sin is far different:


She believes in sexual purity.


To be precise, she is a Catholic who embraces the totality of the Church's teachings on sexuality. I could elaborate on that, as I'm a devout Catholic myself, but this misses the point. To wit: The most the left can do when trying to cast O'Donnell as a danger in government is cite something that she believes has nothing to do with government. She won't propose the "Self-gratification Control Act" of 2011 any more than she will mandate that you must attend Mass on Sundays, fast during Lent, or believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. (Note that former senator Rick Santorum never did, and as a devout Catholic who often attends Mass even on weekdays, he presumably believes all O'Donnell does.) What the left is mischaracterizing as her ideology is actually her theology of the body.


Then, I must say that I tire of how the word "extremism" is bandied about so thoughtlessly. This isn't primarily because the label is often misapplied. It is because it is always misunderstood.


The late Barry Goldwater once said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." But to be more precise, extremism that reflects Truth is a virtue. After all, if you live in a land where everyone believes 2+2=5 and you insist it is 4, you'll be considered an extremist. All being an "extremist" means is that your views deviate greatly from those of the mainstream. It doesn't mean you're wrong.


But we don't talk about wrong, or right, as much as we should in this relativistic culture. Instead, believing that "man is the measure of all things," we naturally take the norms of current civilization as the default and any deviation from them as defect (in fairness, all cultures tend to be guilty of this). But the reality is that while Truth sometimes lies at the center of a culture, at other, times it occupies the fringes. Sometimes, like with an abolitionist in 1800, an extremist is just someone who is right fifty years too soon. Or you could say that an extremist may be someone who upholds the wisdom of the ageless despite the folly of the age.


So saying someone is an extremist relates nothing about his rightness. The problem with Islamic extremists, for instance, isn't that they're extreme -- any truly religious person is thus viewed in a secular time. It's that they're extremely wrong. This brings us to O'Donnell's opponent, Chris Coons.



Since the left is digging up old O'Donnell quotations, it's only fair to delve into Coons' past. And when we do, we find this interesting bit of extremism: An article he wrote titled "Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist." It details how a trip to Kenya that Coons took as a junior in college served as a "catalyst," completing his transformation from "conservative" to communist. Yet while one could elaborate further here as well, as with O'Donnell, this misses the point. To wit: Marxism has everything to do with government, as it is about transforming it through socialist revolution into something tried and untrue, something that slays the light and visits a dark age of a thousand sorrows upon its victims. It's something that killed 100,000,000 people during the 20th century and every economy it ever touched. That is a negative extremism if ever there were one, and it should scare the heck out of every one of us.


And what is this supposedly balanced with on O'Donnell's side?


Oh, yeah, the sexual purity thing.


Of course, Coons' piece was written 25 years ago when he was 21 and will be excused by some as youthful indiscretion. But I'll make two points. First, the ability to profile properly is always necessary when choosing candidates, as the information you will have on them is always limited and managed. A politician certainly wouldn't admit to harboring Marxist passions; thus, in keeping with the maxim "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior," the best yardstick we have for measuring Coons is actions and pronouncements taken/made before he had a vested interest in lying about his aims. (And wouldn't we instinctively apply this when judging someone with a neo-Nazi or KKK history? Would we give David Duke the benefit of the doubt many would give Coons?) Second, when profiling, know this: People who embrace communism but then truly renounce it generally become passionate rightists. Those who remain leftists usually haven't renounced anything but honesty about their intentions.


The reason why we should fear Coons is the exact reason why leftists fear O'Donnell: In their universe, moral statements are synonymous with policy positions. If they don't like salt, fat, tobacco (paging Mayor Bloomberg) or free markets, they play Big Brother and give us a very unfree society. But traditionalist Americans are different: We don't think that every supposedly good idea should be legislated. We understand that government and its coercion aren't the only forces for controlling man's behavior; there is also something called society, with its traditions, social codes, and persuasion, and something else called individual striving. We can preach sexual purity while also practicing constitutional purity. As to this, note that while some snarky leftists have criticized O'Donnell for living in the 1800s, the men who gave us our Constitution lived in the 1700s. And the norm back then was to have traditional sexual mores. But guess what they didn't have: Marxism.


Speaking of which, that great adherent of Marx, V.I. Lenin, once said, "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." Given that we have a government poised to do just this -- with steep tax increases and rapid money-printing that will cause inflation -- should we really be concerned about a candidate's views on sexual propriety? Or should we be more concerned about a candidate who may be harboring Marxist passions?


So all the libertines amongst us should know that Christine O'Donnell will not take their sex toys away. But Chris Coons may want to take all their toys away. To vote for him is to play with fire.

from American Thinker

I had no idea about her opponent, Coons. Interesting comparison.

[wayfriend]

I am always glad to discover new ways of exposing to all the wonderfulness that you are.

Again, a question for clarification: what the fuck is that supposed to mean?

It means I derive a greater deal more personal satisfaction from your personal attacks than any sort of irritation, because it shows how much you are a personal attacking kind of poster. (And, yes, the topic was not about me at all until you introduced the question of my motives for posting something, and so yes, personal attack.) (And notice how I don't imply what I want to say, and then deny saying it later.)

[Cail]

I am always glad to discover new ways of exposing to all the wonderfulness that you are.

Again, a question for clarification: what the fuck is that supposed to mean?

It means I derive a greater deal more personal satisfaction from your personal attacks than any sort of irritation, because it shows how much you are a personal attacking kind of poster. (And, yes, the topic was not about me at all until you introduced the question of my motives for posting something, and so yes, personal attack.) (And notice how I don't imply what I want to say, and then deny saying it later.)

Wait, so someone asking you why you hold a certain position is "making it about you"?

That's kind of the whole point of internet discussion forums.

Wayfriend, as one of the chief advocates here for religious tolerance, I'm surprised you'd go there. What exactly are you trying to say about her religious choices?

I'm trying to say she is a serious problem as an electable conservative candidate.

But now I want to also say: thanks for getting it out there that I am religiously intolerant and/or a hypocrit. I am always glad to discover new ways of exposing to all the wonderfulness that you are.

What I see is Z asking if you see any disconnect between your two very different positions, and you responding with a personal attack. You just made it clear that you're not interested in debate, just "exposing" other people here as....whatever you happen to think of them.

In fact, you've just violated at least three of the Rules & Guidelines posted at the top of this forum....

-Do be sure to read what the other person is actually saying and not what you think they may be saying.

-Don't get personal; a good general rule: "criticize ideas, not people".

-Don't make posts that are inflammatory just to wind people up.

[wayfriend]

lWait, so someone asking you why you hold a certain position is "making it about you"?

That's kind of the whole point of internet discussion forums.

Yes, asking me about me is about me.

But, no, questioning my motives with an additional implication that they might be dubious is not "asking why I hold a certain position" at all. First of all, it's asking why I hold it. Second of all, a suspicious reason is attached, leaving me to rebutt or leave it out there unrebutted. Gosh, I hope that those things AREN'T what internet discussion forums are all about.

What I see is Z asking if you see any disconnect between your two very different positions

What I see is Z striving to show that there is a disconnect between what he has pretended are two very different positions, and that this disconnect is suspect. (I actually don't have two different positions at all.)

What I see YOU doing is trying to rewrite what happened.

And also trying to substantiate his claim that I have different positions by repeating his claim.

You just made it clear that you're not interested in debate, just "exposing" other people here as....whatever you happen to think of them.

I am interested in debate. But not tolerating personal attacks has nothing to do with that.

Thank YOU for volunteering to tell people why I do what I do, in order to completely invent a reason to disparage me.

-Do be sure to read what the other person is actually saying and not what you think they may be saying.

Your recent post failed in that respect.

-Don't get personal; a good general rule: "criticize ideas, not people".

Zarathustra failed there, when he started discussing WHY I posted something. I merely pointed out that he did.

Your recent post failed in that respect, too, in that you took it upon yourself to tell everyone a lie about why I do things. ("You aren't interested in discussion, etc.")

-Don't make posts that are inflammatory just to wind people up.

Zarathustra failed there. I merely pointed it out.

Your recent post fails in that respect as well.

You're both inventing things, and teaming up as well, merely to put down someone who wasn't responding to either you or Z until you started discussing me.

[Cail]

lWait, so someone asking you why you hold a certain position is "making it about you"?

That's kind of the whole point of internet discussion forums.

Yes, asking me about me is about me.

He didn't ask about you, he asked how you reconciled two very different positions.

But, no, questioning my motives with an additional implication that they might be dubious is not "asking why I hold a certain position" at all. First of all, it's asking why I hold it. Second of all, a suspicious reason is attached. Gosh, I hope that those things AREN'T what internet discussion forums are all about.

Yeah, pretty much it is. Just because you see malice behind everyone questioning you doesn't mean it exists.

What I see is Z asking if you see any disconnect between your two very different positions

What I see is Z striving to show that there is a disconnect between what he has pretended are two very different positions, and that this disconnect is suspect. (I actually don't have two different positions at all.)

What I see YOU doing is trying to rewrite what happened.

Nope, which is why I quoted exactly what the both of you said.

And also trying to substantiate his claim that I have different positions.

So if you don't, clarify that. You stooped to the insults, not Z.

You just made it clear that you're not interested in debate, just "exposing" other people here as....whatever you happen to think of them.

I am interested in debate. Not tolerating personal attacks has nothing to d with that.

None was made.

Thank YOU for volunteering to tell people why I do what I do, in order to completely invent a reason to disparage me.

I quoted your words, the intent is pretty clear ("I am always glad to discover new ways of exposing to all the wonderfulness that you are.") I'm taking what you typed at face value...That you're making it a point to point out someone else's perceived thoughts.

-Do be sure to read what the other person is actually saying and not what you think they may be saying.

Your recent post failed in that respect.

Nope, I quoted you verbatim. If you'd like to change or clarify your position, you're free to do so.

-Don't get personal; a good general rule: "criticize ideas, not people".

Zarathustra failed there, when he started discussing WHY I posted something. I merely pointed out that he did.

Nope, he asked you to clarify and explain your position. You not only failed to do so, you attacked him.

Your recent post failed in that respect, too, in that you took it upon yourself to tell everyone a lie about why I do things.

Nope, I quoted you verbatim, but you just broke another one of the Rules & Guidelines by calling me a liar.

Don't make slanderous statements, or anything else that might violate someone's privacy.

-Don't make posts that are inflammatory just to wind people up.

Zarathustra failed there. I merely pointed it out.

Nope, he ased you to explain your position.

Your recent post fails in that respect as well. Your inventing things, and ganging up, merely to put down someone who was't responding to either you or Z until you started discussing me.

Nope, I think both of us would be quite happy if you would either join the discussion or gracefully bow out. You have a complete disregard for common courtesy, general discourse traditions, and the Rules and Guidelines of this forum.

If you think that people are "making it about you" when they want to know what motivates your positions, why are you posting them on an internet forum?

[wayfriend]

lWait, so someone asking you why you hold a certain position is "making it about you"?

That's kind of the whole point of internet discussion forums.

Yes, asking me about me is about me.

He didn't ask about you, he asked how you reconciled two very different positions.

Yes, and the subject of how I reconcile things is a subject that is about me. (Can you reask the question without mentioning me? No. Proven.)

Keep trying? Or quit because you actually have nothing here?

But, no, questioning my motives with an additional implication that they might be dubious is not "asking why I hold a certain position" at all. First of all, it's asking why I hold it. Second of all, a suspicious reason is attached. Gosh, I hope that those things AREN'T what internet discussion forums are all about.

Yeah, pretty much it is. Just because you see malice behind everyone questioning you doesn't mean it exists.

Everyone? Now you exaggerate to belittle me. I see the malice in that.

Keep trying? Or quit because you actually have nothing here?

What I see is Z asking if you see any disconnect between your two very different positions

What I see is Z striving to show that there is a disconnect between what he has pretended are two very different positions, and that this disconnect is suspect. (I actually don't have two different positions at all.)

What I see YOU doing is trying to rewrite what happened.

Nope, which is why I quoted exactly what the both of you said.

Yes, you quoted him stating, not asking me, my apparent discrepencies of opinion. And then you restated it as if he asked about it. Your butting in to explain what Zarathustra meant, and recasting it to be something different, is there in black and white

Keep trying? Or quit because you actually have nothing here?

And also trying to substantiate his claim that I have different positions.

So if you don't, clarify that. You stooped to the insults, not Z.

Just clarified it.

Keep trying? Or quit because you actually have nothing here?

You just made it clear that you're not interested in debate, just "exposing" other people here as....whatever you happen to think of them.

I am interested in debate. Not tolerating personal attacks has nothing to d with that.

None was made.

None? Really? Let's see, I was accused of changing my position to fit my argument. Then I was told I missed the whole point of internet discussion forums. I was accused of not being interested in debate, but only visiting these forums accuse people of imaginary things. Then I was told I was violating guidelines I was not violating (while ignoring two posters who were violating them). And just recently I was accused of seeing malice "everwhere". And I haven't even finished reading your post yet.

Keep trying? Or quit because you actually have nothing here?

Thank YOU for volunteering to tell people why I do what I do, in order to completely invent a reason to disparage me.

I quoted your words, the intent is pretty clear ("I am always glad to discover new ways of exposing to all the wonderfulness that you are.") I'm taking what you typed at face value...That you're making it a point to point out someone else's perceived thoughts.

And you then accused me of having no reason to visit these forums except to do that. That was you, I never said that.

Keep trying? Or quit because you actually have nothing here?

-Do be sure to read what the other person is actually saying and not what you think they may be saying.

Your recent post failed in that respect.

Nope, I quoted you verbatim. If you'd like to change or clarify your position, you're free to do so.

Quoting me verbatim, and then replying as if I said something else, doesn't qualify as following this rule.

Keep trying? Or quit because you actually have nothing here?

-Don't get personal; a good general rule: "criticize ideas, not people".

Zarathustra failed there, when he started discussing WHY I posted something. I merely pointed out that he did.

Nope, he asked you to clarify and explain your position. You not only failed to do so, you attacked him.

He asked me a question after he stated his opinion of my supposed tactics, as I've said, and as we both have quoted, many times. Furthermore, I am not going to explain a position that I don't have. And I replied to that effect many times now. But thanks for implying one more time that I have such a position.

Keep trying? Or quit because you actually have nothing here?

Your recent post failed in that respect, too, in that you took it upon yourself to tell everyone a lie about why I do things.

Nope, I quoted you verbatim, but you just broke another one of the Rules & Guidelines by calling me a liar.

You said, "You just made it clear that you're not interested in debate, just "exposing" other people here as....whatever you happen to think of them." That's patently untrue, and you have no position in which you can know otherwise. What would you like me to call it when you say something that's not true just to level an unjust accusation against me? And it's not slanderous if it's true. Therefore, you have slandered me. I have not slandered you in stating that you have slandered me.

Keep trying? Or quit because you actually have nothing here?

-Don't make posts that are inflammatory just to wind people up.

Zarathustra failed there. I merely pointed it out.

Nope, he ased you to explain your position.

Once again, he made the statement that I objected too, and then asked a question. I objected to the statement that went with it. You keep trying to rewrite what happened; this is a demonstration of this.

Keep trying? Or quit because you actually have nothing here?

Your recent post fails in that respect as well. Your inventing things, and ganging up, merely to put down someone who was't responding to either you or Z until you started discussing me.

Nope, I think both of us would be quite happy if you would either join the discussion or gracefully bow out. You have a complete disregard for common courtesy, general discourse traditions, and the Rules and Guidelines of this forum.

If you think that people are "making it about you" when they want to know what motivates your positions, why are you posting them on an internet forum?

A better question might be, why do I keep posting in this forum when it's clear people are trying to drive me out through tactics involving attacking my character and then making out like I am at fault when I subsequently defend my character? The answer is, because that's not going to win.

[Cail]

Yes, asking me about me is about me.

He didn't ask about you, he asked how you reconciled two very different positions.

Yes, and the subject of how I reconcile things is a subject that is about me. (Can you reask the question without mentioning me? No. Proven.)

Keep trying? Or quit because you actually have nothing here?

Then why waste your time posting here? Seriously, if you aren't going to explain how you come to your beliefs, all you're doing is being a gadfly.

And you do so in an incredibly immature and insulting way. You accuse everyone of making it about you, but you make proclamations which, to be blunt, border on lunacy, then refuse to explain them.

The question can't be asked without referencing you because without doing so, your statements and positions make no sense.

Without understanding your motivations, it's impossible to understand your positions. If you have any desire to be taken seriously, you'd do well to explain yourself (as everyone else here has).

By the way, do you see the irony in accusing Z and I of mischaracterizing you, then proceeding to post about what our intents are?


Seriously Wayfriend, it's clear that you're out of your depth here. In the 5 or 6 years I've been here, you've made some tremendously insightful (beautiful in some cases) posts about SRD's writing, but you have absolutely no grasp of politics or human discourse.

[Zarathustra]

Yes, asking me about me is about me.

How is this question about you:

What exactly are you trying to say about her religious choices?

??

But, no, questioning my motives with an additional implication that they might be dubious is not "asking why I hold a certain position" at all.

I didn't question your motives. I questioned your meaning.

First of all, it's asking why I hold it.

No, I didn't ... but so what? There is no personal attack in asking someone why they hold a particular position. Avatar wrote in the guidelines: You will however probably need a reason why you hold that particular opinion.

Second of all, a suspicious reason is attached, leaving me to rebutt or leave it out there unrebutted.

I didn't attach a "suspicious reason." I'm not even sure what that means in this context. I noted my surprise, given your previous stances. Your "beating a dead horse" comment seemed to imply that you were joining in on the ridicule along with everyone else in the thread, and your post was obviously directed at her religious choices. Given your championing of relgious tolerance elsewhere, this was surprising to me. I didn't expect it, and couldn't fathom it. Hence the question about what you were saying ... which implied nothing more than my own confusion. You supplied the rest.

[sindatur]

You guys keep chucking spears at each other like that, and you're gonna put someone's eye out. SHEESH

[Farsailer]

Reaching for my jar of dill spears....

[Avatar]

Whoa! Chill out huh? I haven't plowed through everything there, but I think the (apparent) starting point was not anything that anybody needed to take negatively.

Let's stick to the topic, and not make it about others or ourselves. Questions are fine. They merit answers.

Easy now.

--A

[High Lord Tolkien]

Probably kicking a dead horse at this point, but:

O’Donnell in 1999: I dabbled in witchcraft

(CNN) – Newly-minted Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell – who already has had to contend with a string of controversial statements she has made in the past – once said she “dabbled into witchcraft.”

The latest eyebrow-raising comment was revealed Friday by liberal comedian and talk show host Bill Maher, who, as host of the now-canceled show “Politically Incorrect,” had O’Donnell on his program several times as a guest.

“I dabbled into witchcraft - I never joined a coven. But I did, I did. ... I dabbled into witchcraft,” O’Donnell said during a 1999 appearance on the show, which ran on ABC. “I hung around people who were doing these things. I'm not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do.”

She then described one of her first dates – with a witch “on a satanic altar.”

“I didn't know it,” she said. “I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that. We went to a movie and then had a midnight picnic on a satanic altar.”

Maher showed the clip Friday on his HBO show, “Real Time with Bill Maher,” and pledged to unveil additional clips every week if O’Donnell does not appear on his current show.

A spokesman for the O’Donnell campaign did not respond to CNN’s request for comment.

O’Donnell, the Tea Party-backed candidate who scored a surprise win over establishment pick Rep. Mike Castle on Tuesday, has largely run on a socially conservative platform.

It doesn't seem to be affecting support from her base... at least all my religious friends don't seem to care, and are defending her on this point.

What Wayfriend's article doesn't make clear is that she "dabbled in witch craft" in .....high school.
If shit we did in HS disqualifies us as adults then 90% of us are out.

[Cail]

I seem to recall that Obama's cocaine use was inconsequential. Is boning on an altar worse than that?

[wayfriend]

What Wayfriend's article doesn't make clear is that she "dabbled in witch craft" in .....high school.
If shit we did in HS disqualifies us as adults then 90% of us are out.

I agree with that 100%. On the other hand, if Obama had dabbled in witchcraft in high school... think anyone would let that fly by? What we dabbled with in high school ought to mean zip... but it will be an election issue she has to address. Hopefully quickly.

[High Lord Tolkien]

I seem to recall that Obama's cocaine use was inconsequential. Is boning on an altar worse than that?

At the risk of angering the few Wiccans we have on the Watch by portraying witchcraft as a negative, I thought this article from the American Thinker was pretty funny.

*******************************

Things Christine O'Donnell didn't do
Cliff Thier
The press is obsessed that Delaware Republican Senate nominee, Christine O'Donnell said that as a high-school student she hung out with kids who styled themselves witches.

For this we're now to conclude that she's unfit to serve in the Congress of the United States A body composed of individuals of the most admirable rectitude. Apparently none of them ever did anything silly in high school.

Furthermore, we do know that O'Donnell similarly falls short of standards set by Democratic law makers and chief executives because she never

* drove drunk off a bridge.
* left a woman to drown to death because she was unsure of how it would affect her career.
* took a bribe.
* used her office to protect a bank her husband owned shares in.
* had sex with an intern
* cheated on her taxes
* did cocaine and then wrote about how hilarious that was.
* pardoned felons in exchange for campaign contributions
* destroyed evidence of a crime
* perjured herself before a grand jury
* belonged to the Ku Klux Klan


It's as clear as can be that his woman just doesn't belong in Washington

[Avatar]

WF, do you mean that people voting for her in the Rep (primary?) might consider it an issue? Conservative christians and all that?

--A

[Stone Magnet]

Does anyone see how it might actually HELP her in extreme conservative circles? Or at least not count against her.

I mean the fear of "Ritual Satanic Abuse" and the whole "witchcraft/D&D is out to get our kids" is a classic traditional 80's/90's conservative line...her saying that this stuff exists and that she was sucked in by it sounds pretty standard to me. All the more reason to bring your kids up "right." How is going to diminish her popularity in Christian/conservative circles?

[wayfriend]

WF, do you mean that people voting for her in the Rep (primary?) might consider it an issue? Conservative christians and all that?

She won the primary. I'm saying all of these things people are digging up will be used in the general election, whether or not they are valid. She has to have an answer to it.

Certainly, the people who wrote up what HLT posted are already counterattacking on the issue. (Poor Ted, he can't even rest in peace.) Which basically proves my point.

Apparently, O'Donell has withdrawn from the public for the moment. I'm sure she's being Palin'd up as we speak. She'll re-emerge well trained and armed with quips to deflate any attack she can't refute. Also like Palin, she probably won't get past it all... but she might.