RSS Feed Menu
I’m not a fan of Christine O’Donnell and until this moment (actually, including this moment) considered her an embarrassment to the GOP.
However, if it is possible for a tabloid gossip site to lower itself any further than Gawker habitually does, it scored big today.
Here we have a completely anonymous story, posted less than a week before the mid-terms, by a man who claims he hooked up with Christine O’Donnell on Halloween a few years ago.
Nice timing, bud! You even managed to get the Halloween news hook in!
I obviously have no idea whether any part of this story is true. But if it or any part of it IS true, given its explosive effects not only on the election but upon O’Donnell’s career and reputation, Gawker has a duty to come clean (sorry—that may be impossible) or at least verify every sordid fact in it.
It’s a sorry moment in political journalism when we must look towards the National Enquirer as a standard-bearer in reporting ethics.
A thought to consider as you read the story:
Let’s say every detail in it is true. O’Donnell was (and is) a single woman at the time this alleged incident happened. She did not commit adultery. She did not become pregnant out of wedlock. She did not even masturbate. Indeed by the guy’s own telling, she didn’t even violate her views on abstinence — not with him, and not subsequently in the alleged year-long relationship with his roommate. Yes it’s true she might have violated her own self-professed sexual ethics — getting drunk and giggly and naked, like some 1950s sorority girl — but really! Is this the standard we are now going to hold public figures to? Are we really going to get into a public debate about private dating behavior, and whether or not one sticks to a standard on a consistent basis?
Either way this whole story reeks as a pre-election plant, a completely made-up fiction, and Gawker should own up to the identity of this cowardly sexual creep. If only so that Christine O’Donnell’s older brother can find him and give him a well-deserved punch in the face.
Although I wouldn’t put it past O’Donnell to be able to level that punch herself.
midcon: Totally agree with you about science and religion. I have no trouble whatsoever believing there is a Divine Power, God, in the universe…the Ground of Being… and my total and unequivocal support of scientific advancement. One does not have to negate the other.
But both science and religion can become dogmatic…then it becomes static and suspicious. I abhor the trend of intrusion of religion in politics – it can be a dangerous and lead to fascism. On the other hand, I also dislike atheists mocking any individual on the face of the earth – with no discriminatory thought – who believes in God as being some kind of ‘nut.’
The truth is the human being knows *nothing* about who and what we are…. and if anyone says they do they are lying through their teeth. We don’t even know half of what’s under the oceans on earth, or whether we are nothing but a puny ‘blue dot’ in the vastness of space, surrounded by vastly more highly advanced sentient beings. We know less than we think we know.
Arrogance on either side – dogmatic religionists or entrenched atheists are absurd in the face of it all. We can all put a big heap of Humble Pie on our dishes if we really were smart.
WaynesWhirled: Hypocrites are a-plenty in politics. If a politician sets up a standard to preach by – then they should be living up to it themselves first. I don’t care what Christine O’Donnell does or doesn’t do in her private life….I DO care if she wants to impose her personal religious beliefs on the rest of the country, and try to ‘trick’ her opponent on Constitutional principles.
That just makes her look like the arrogant jerk she is.