No, really, wow.
Christine O’Donnell’s candidacy is evidently dead because of something she said on “Politically Incorrect” (quick, take note of the show’s freakin’ name) in the 1990s — but only because Tea Partiers are evidently small-minded religious bigots who will be so OUTRAGED by this ANTI-CHRISTIAN DEMON WORSHIP that they’ll forget all about fiscal conservatism and smaller government and remain home election night, allowing an unrequited Marxist to win the state.
At least, that’s the argument — and it’s one that speaks poorly of the small-minded religious bigots who have essentially just KILLED O’Donnell’s candidacy with their small-minded religiosity. Meaning, those who backed her. The Tea Partiers.
Whereas on the other hand, Patrick Frey would, as he tells us, still vote for O’Donnell despite her brush with the Great Horned Beast. Because unlike the small-minded Tea Partiers (crazed, simple-minded bitter clingers that they are) to whose attention Patterico (and Maher) are hoping to bring this shocking information, Frey is far more broad-minded and fair. He’s about the issues. He is sophisticated enough to see how this means exactly nothing, politically speaking — except, of course, insofar as it will kill O’Donnell’s chances once she loses support of the small-minded religiously bigoted Christian Tea Partiers who make up O’Donnell’s constituency, those who will now (unlike Patrick) recoil in horror at these “revelations.”
This is what the Republican voters of Delaware get for not listening to those who know better.
Listen: I’m loath to get involved with anything Frey-related ever again. But this kind of response — where Frey declares her candidacy dead because of her “witchcraft” revelations while at the same time noting that, of course, he’d still vote for her over a socialist/Marxist — is demonstrably insulting to those who backed O’Donnell in the first place, or to those who might respond favorably to her political and policy messages going forward. (Honestly, is having “dabbled in witchcraft” — and really, who takes this seriously to begin with? — somehow supposed to stop, say, independents and the more thoughtful Democrats from voting for O’Donnell’s small government message over a bald Marxist tax raiser?)
Does Frey really think much of O’Donnell’s support comes from a powerful Delaware anti-witch voting bloc, whose bluenose members would rather either stay home or throw their lot in with a godless Marxist, than to cast a vote for someone who was once young, but who now ostensibly represents their small government interests?
Because that doesn’t speak well of who he — and others like him, who are revealing themselves of late — thinks make up the Tea Party movement.
And in that regard, he’s not much different from many in the mainstream press.
O’Donnell may turn out to be a total loon. That’s not what I’m concerned about. Nor do I believe she is beyond criticism. What bothers me is the attitude about who is supporting these grass roots conservative candidates that is being made manifest by putative conservatives.
Oh. And incidentally, let me say this: anticipating all of the valid responses one would have to these revelations doesn’t discredit the valid responses. That is, just because you’ve anticipated that someone will say, “so? She’s on Bill Maher, for Chrissakes!” doesn’t mean that when someone says, “so? She’s on Bill Maher, for Chrissakes,” it isn’t a valid response.
Of course, YMMV.
update: Naturally, I could be wrong. So let me ask you social cons who frequent pw: does this revelation really hurt O’Donnell? Or does it simply show who those on the left — and certain conservatives — believe you all to be?
update 2: related.
My own dealings with the fellows at Powerline have always been amicable; but as this “story,” such as it is, seems to be about the workings of the party insiders, I feel obligated to note these things.
update 4: Mark Levin reminds us (pointedly) that Barack Obama dabbled in cocaine — and that doing so (and our knowledge of such) didn’t kill his career.
So I guess there’s hope for Ms O’Donnell yet.
update 5: Hillbuzz, with some free advice.
update 6: In an update, Frey writes:
UPDATE x4: Jeff Goldstein claims that I am saying O’Donnell will lose because Tea Partiers will be turned off by this. Of course, that’s not what I’m saying at all — as I thought was perfectly clear from my post. I doubt Tea Partiers will care about this. As I say in the post, I think they will defend her to the nth degree. But Tea Partiers aren’t a majority in Delaware. I think voters in the middle will think it is plain weird, and laugh at her. And not want to vote for her.
I hope I’m wrong. I don’t think I am. We’ll see.
Of course, this is quintessential Frey. The fact is, I didn’t merely cite his post. I linked a comment Frey made under the post itself, which I’m happy to quote here in full:
When I first heard about this I thought it was a practical joke. I read a PowerLine post saying Maher said he had video, and I thought: oh, he just wants to test the Tea Partiers to see how outrageous a thing she could say, and still get support from the True Conservatives.
Even though the video is real, THIS STILL TESTS THAT PRINCIPLE. I think this kills any chance she had dead. But I know the Riehls and Levins of the world will find some way to brush this off. It will be interesting to watch how they do it.
The bolding and the ALL CAPS has been added by me at no extra charge.
Frey then updates again:
UPDATE x5: Shockingly, Mark Levin has linked Goldstein’s flawed reading of this post. And he said he was done with me. LIAR!!!
For what it’s worth, I not only sent a trackback to Goldstein when I published UPDATE x4, but I also e-mailed him since then, to specifically direct his attention to the fact that the author of this post disagrees with his interpretation. He acknowledged receipt of the e-mail but has not updated his post to reflect my disagreement with the way he portrayed what I wrote. INTENTIONALISM!!!
What has that to do with intentionalism?
And this, too, is typical Frey. When he says I “acknowledged receipt of the e-mail but” haven’t updated my post to reflect his disagreement, what he doesn’t tell you is that I asked him if his disagreement was noted in the post I’d already linked. Which it is.
So why in the world do I need to update my post to reference something that is posted in a post I’ve already linked to?
I mean, the disagreement is at the link I gave. Meaning, I already acknowledged it. Before he even wrote it!
Seriously. What the hell is wrong with this guy?