home

O'Donnell Runs For Cover After Witchcraft Comments

By Jeralyn, Section Elections
Posted on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 04:18:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Christine O'Donnell wouldn't have won in November anyway, but even conservatives won't like this one. She's already canceled two Sunday news show appearances.

From one of her 22 appearances on Politically Incorrect (this one is 1999.)

"One of my first dates with with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it," she added. "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."

< Obama Mocks Progressives At Conn. DNC Fundraiser | Sunday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    O'Donnell Runs For Cover After Witchcraft Comments | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    And for those who were wondering (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by scribe on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 04:47:28 PM EST
    how it was she got where she is - nominated by a major party for the US Senate - now we know.

    I'm sure somewhere along the line someone must have told her that reading aloud from that book labelled "Spells" was not a good idea....

    </s>

    You could not make up this stuff. (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 04:59:28 PM EST
    (But whaddya wanna bet that she did?)

    Lordy, the 2010 election season now has officially jumped the shark.  Pop the popcorn for snacks; we've already got the mixed nuts.

    Now Im picturing (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by jondee on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 05:16:27 PM EST
    her going into an autoerotic frenzy in church and blaming it all on a spell Tituba the first lady taught her..

    Parent
    Change the facts slightly, (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 05:19:00 PM EST
    and she's a flower child.

    She has an interesting future ahead of her, but not in elected office.

    Well,, one of her former staff (none / 0) (#9)
    by scribe on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 06:03:56 PM EST
    was quoted yesterday to the effect that "if being liberal was really popular today, she would be liberal".

    She's just hustling for a buck and TV time (not necessarily in that order), just like Palin.

    Parent

    I'm not sure I agree with the staffer (none / 0) (#70)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 09:05:46 PM EST
    I mean on Palin yeah- I can see that, but O'Donnell was whackadoo years ago.

    Parent
    Yikes... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by desertswine on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 05:39:57 PM EST
    Get out the giant butterfly nets.

    Just a youthful indiscretion, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 06:15:38 PM EST
    as fellow winger, the late Henry Hyde, might say in her defense-- if he could.   But, we shouldn't underestimate her, after all, vampires, witches and wizards are in these days.

    Henry Hyde (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by jondee on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 06:41:31 PM EST
    if his existence didn't convince some of the efficacy of the occult and how the undead sometimes walk amongst us, nothing would..

    Parent
    Twilight is big (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 11:39:40 PM EST
    This is just hilarious

    Parent
    I see a lot of Christine Halloween costumes (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 06:57:53 PM EST
    in our future---maybe more than those wonderful Nixon masks. Always a difficult decision, but I now know what I will be.

    IMO she has a pretty generic look (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 07:09:57 PM EST
    I don't see how you could dress up as her.

    Parent
    Well, if you already have (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by brodie on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 07:55:52 PM EST
    a Marie Osmond or Rachel Ray mask, you can re-use it as Christine O.

    Parent
    Easy. It's not the costume (none / 0) (#25)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 07:44:34 PM EST
    In this case, it's the props.

    A couple of pieces of wood, a hammer, some nails, and a bit of fake blood, and you've got yourself a satanic altar to carry around!  Build it wisely, and it can hold your trick-or-treat haul . . . or for the college set, of course, your case of brewski.  Put it on wheels, and wheeeeee!

    Okay, yeh, an Annie (ala the musical) wig would help for recapturing that Crazee Christine in the Last Century look.

    Parent

    Naw, a great similarity between us, (none / 0) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 08:17:18 PM EST
    sorta like in "Twins" (1988), with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny Vito as the title guys:  "only their mothers can tell them apart"

    Parent
    Easy peasy: PTA ladysuit, crown of flapping bats (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ellie on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 01:01:32 AM EST
    ... out of flower wired crepe paper for maxi flapping effect around the belfry region.

    Optional: mp3 player pendant wired invisibly to flat speakers hidden in hairdo or elsewhere on person (eg, discreet shoulder pads). I always like to have the audio assist.

    I was thinking of going as a menacing Sarah Palin this year -- "mwaaaah HAHAHAHAHA I'm comin' to getcha, you betcha!" -- but seeing as O'Donnell copped to being an actual witch, yeee-haaaw!

    (I actually LIKE that about her.)

    Parent

    My eyes read the post title as: (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Anne on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 08:04:54 PM EST
    O'Donnell Runs For Coven After Witchcraft Comments

    I guess the silly season is officially here!

    On the other hand... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 09:20:39 AM EST
    travel by broomstick is environmentally quite sound.

    The Palinization of O'Donnell has begun. (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by ghost2 on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 10:11:17 AM EST
    Yeah, it's pretty funny and crazy.  But I wonder if Bill Maher himself was going to run for Senate, would TL show his crazy clips here?  How about Al Franklin?

    To quote Glenn Greenwald:

    All that said, there are some reactions to the Tea Party movement coming from many different directions -- illustrated by the patronizing mockery of Christine O'Donnell -- which I find quite misguided, revealingly condescending, and somewhat obnoxious.

    ...

    It's hard to avoid the conclusion, at least for me, that, claims to the contrary notwithstanding, much of the discomfort and disgust triggered by these Tea Party candidates has little to do with their ideology.  After all, are most of them radically different than the right-wing extremists Karl Rove has spent his career promoting and exploiting?  Hardly.  Much of the patronizing derision and scorn heaped on people like Christine O'Donnell have very little to do with their substantive views -- since when did right-wing extremism place one beyond the pale? -- and much more to do with the fact they're so . . . unruly and unwashed.

    Yes, Glenn is mostly talking about Rove, but it applies just as well here.

    This is not about O'Donnell's intelligence, but about her being one of the unwashed masses. Still, I think the technique may work in Delaware even if it has failed in other places.  Delaware is not red country.

    Here is an intelligent clip of her from 2008.  Warning: she is on FOX critizing Obama as the media darling:

    Link

    BTW, whatever happened to Democrats being interested in issues, and GOP devoted to the politics of personal destruction?? Oh, I know, Democrats are too spineless to discuss tax policy, or admit that while the banks and corporations getting away with the riches, BO has a commission to gut social security in the name of fiscal restraint.  Then the hapless liberals wonder why Tea Party is so popular and full of misguided notions.  It's because the Democrats (excepting Bill Clinton) have been too lazy and too timid to argue for  compassionate, fair, or even just sane policies.  

    Back to making fun of Palin and O'Donnell. Enjoy the drive off the cliff!

    Franken's clips were (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 09:07:49 PM EST
    run against him- constantly, the problem of course was that many of the clips were from SNL- which as a comedy show isn't supposed to be a forum for ideals. As far as the religious stuff goes, well- hmm.... I sure don't remember people trying to use Obama's pastor aginst him- man its such a double standard.

    Parent
    The positions held by (none / 0) (#56)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 03:09:37 PM EST
    Palin and O'Donnell, as well as Rand Paul, J.D. Hayworth, Sharron Angle, etc. are no laughing matter. People aren't making fun of them for giggles.

    They represent the worst of the country.  It's worth pointing out.

    Parent

    Exactly, they are NOT! (none / 0) (#57)
    by ghost2 on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 03:38:13 PM EST
    And that's the reason liberals should find ways to persuade people that these ideas are WRONG. That's exactly my point.  

    "I dated a witch", or "she is a bimbo" falls squarely into the cateogory of mocking your opponents personally, not their positions.  

    Parent

    Wait (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 09:09:52 PM EST
    the problem is that a lot of the funny stuff is quite frankly a manifestation of her ideas- its like in Arizona- you know how everyone mocks Jan Brewer for the "headless bodies" crap- well its in large part because said crap is a manifestation of her racism on the issues.

    Parent
    Why not do both? (none / 0) (#58)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 03:54:45 PM EST
    Their mean-spirited personalities, their crass anti-intellectualism, hypocritical and cynical "values" rhetoric, and reliance on Apple Pie bromides to cover their hateful politics, are becoming more and more difficultt o distinguish from their positions.

    Perhaps mot galling is the Palin-Paul strategy of outright refusing to answer questions from the media, and then wearing this as a badge of honor, because, you know, the media is out to get them.  

    Parent

    Wow! (none / 0) (#60)
    by hookfan on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 04:52:09 PM EST
    This reminds me more than a tad of Obama. . .

    Parent
    What exactly is it (none / 0) (#62)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 06:04:24 PM EST
    that reminds you of Obama?  

    Parent
    Several things i guess (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by hookfan on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 07:00:37 PM EST
     He reveals tendencies toward "mean spiritedness" in his lack of empathy, and hostile mocking of positions held by progressives, his lack of open advocacy for the poor and unemployed among minority groups including African Americans, his, imo, cynical backroom deals with big pharma in disallowing drug importation, his establishing a "catfood commission" stocked with right wing zealots with an ax to grind against soc sec, his snake eyed executive order to disallow access to women's reproductive health services, which will impact those most needy disproportionately, and his ordering the CIA to carry out an assassination without due process on an American citizen, his willingness to use coerced testimony in the military commissions, his ongoing use and extension of the radical Bushian states secret approach squelching his pledge for greater transparency in govt, his continuation and extension of Bush's Unitary executive approach, his refusal to curtail the justice dept. war on drugs, etc. Little things like that. You know things that he didn't get himself elected to do at all. . . kinda cynical he is, no?

    Parent
    I agree with most of what you say (none / 0) (#64)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 07:08:18 PM EST
    We're locked as always in the "vote for the lesser of two evils" game.  Not too long ago Maher made an observation that I think highly relevant, the upshot of which is:

    Since the 80s, the Democratic Party has moved steadily to the Right.  During that same timeframe, the Republicans have moved into a mental hospital.

    And so that's what we're left with. Corporate Democrats' lack of empathy for the poor versus full-on, get rid of the Department of Education, get rid of Medicaid and Social Security, start wars for no reason, etc., craziness of the GOP.  Not a great choice.  

    Look, I don't like admitting there's a difference which makes the Dems look good to reasonable people. But it's the truth.  

    Parent

    AND (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 07:23:51 PM EST
    that's not even counting the Torglodyte social issues problem with the GOP.  Obama, like Clinton before him, pays far too much lip service to bourgeoise middle class values, often at the expense of granting respect to the panopoly of citizens and their choices.  But the GOP by contrast remains bent on criminalizing behavior it deems inconsistent with its favorite documentary, Happy Days, and the tenets of its favorite philosphical mind, Jerry Falwell.

    Parent
    True and (none / 0) (#75)
    by hookfan on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 09:41:58 AM EST
    the Democrats treat those with left leaning values and perspectives as their "troglodytes". . .
      I have wondered whether these marginalization attempts on the part of both parties is their strategy to keep the people divided so that their true masters can continue to rule and rain money on each. . . Nothing like keeping the people divided so that the rich and corporations can keep the spoils.
       I doubt much can be done effectively about either party until corporate money and influence is severely restricted. Heck, one has a hard time arguing honestly for actual effectiveness in helping the majority of people for either big or small government approaches as long their is such a corrupting influence of big money.
       The elephant in the room isn't any longer which party is in control, but which element of which party is in control of the government. as long as the corporate wing of either party controls the government, or a combination of both parties' corporate wings, lotsa luck with that change thing. . .

    Parent
    On Troglodytes (none / 0) (#81)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 12:30:18 PM EST
    Democratic leadership treats the progressive base much worse than the GOP machine treats its base.  

    Of course I'm biased: I do not see those who want less corporate control of the country, less US-initiated warfare, and health care for the poor as troglodytes.  But I do see troglodyte behavior in those who follow the Santorums and the Palins, pushing to criminalize homosexuality, demonize the non-religious, get rid of public education, criminalize abortion, end social security, and have a few more invasions to prove we're the best. country. ever.

    The corporate wings of both parties do indeed control the parties: but it seems worth noting that the GOP leadership is much more comfortable with Dobson crowd than a lot of people think.  Meanwhile can call Obama, the Clintons, Harry Reid, etc. corporate stooges an be justified, but we are not justified in saying that they are in allegiance with the Dobson crowd.  I take a modicum of comfort in that, as I'd rather live in a fascist state than a theocracy, if I HAD to choose one.

     

    Parent

    Sad thing is (none / 0) (#65)
    by hookfan on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 07:21:39 PM EST
    Obama, and apparently most of the Dem congress, opted for the "bipartisan unity" approach for most of this term, to the point of adopting republican frameworks (which Obama bragged about to the republicans) for major legislative initiatives. If they are "crazy" what does that say about the President and the Dems who want to parley with the crazy? What we are getting now is rhetoric, when all the action was based on similarity.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#68)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 07:27:22 PM EST
    I share your disgust.  I don't however know what can be done about it.  We had a chance to seek ideological progressivism in he Democratic primary and what we got instead was a classic fight over identity politics, ovaries versus pigmentation.  Obama and Clinton made sure the field was bought out before any true progressive could make a play (I preferred Hill, but let's be honest, she's only marginally less corporate/status quo).  But in the end it was us, the voters, at fault, for allowing ourselves to fall prey to identity politics of the most banal kind.

    Maybe Dem voters have something to learn from the GOP base after all, about the importance of ideology to voting?

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#74)
    by hookfan on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 09:23:39 AM EST
    we're about to see the importance of "ideology" (hopefully that is interpreted as "principle") to non-voting in the upcoming election. . .

    Parent
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#76)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 10:01:28 AM EST
    I do think that a lot of progressives will explain a GOP landslide as a product of progrssives abstaining from the vote, if indeed a landslide happens.  And maybe that will be the reason.

    But that in itself stands to achieve very little, I think--especially since there are going to be so many other competing explanations.

    I guess I am skeptical at best about the wisdom of abstaining from general elections.  All we have to do is think about 2000-2008 to understand that, while there isn't enough difference, the difference is important.

    By that same logic I think that in the end, primaries may be the only recourse we have, as progressives.  Maybe we will begin to be serious about our primaries next time around, not only for the Presidency, but for Congress as well.

    Parent

    Progressives will try (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 11:16:47 AM EST
    To frame it as "progressives didn't vote, so that's the difference."

    Of course, that won't exain the droves of Indies and middle of the road voters (who voted for Obama and the Dems in 2008) who suddenly vote for the Republican candidate.

    Parent

    Its kind of like (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 12:22:09 PM EST
    the Conservatives who blamed 2006 and 2008 on the base sitting out.

    Parent
    You're right (none / 0) (#78)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 12:20:17 PM EST
    It won't explain it.  It's very strange to watch people ion all ends of the political spectrum attempt to explain losses.  After 2008, the Republican meme immediately became, that McCain wasn't conservative enough and that's why they lost.  Then they started with the Bush wasn't conservative enough either.  In some ways we could say that this talking point was the originary impulse for the "Tea Partiers," who only 4 years previous had after all been referred to as "values voters."

    I don't know what the answer is any more than anyone else on this board, what to do about the fact that we had Dem controlled Congress and White House and still wound up with locstep corporate policies.  

    I do think that primaries are a logical place for us to start, however; those of us who did not get caught up in the identity hooplah of 2008 saw immediately that we weren't going to get a progressive set of policies from the next President.

    As has been noted time and again, the GOP is going to call any Democrat a hard-left socialist.  But applying that term to the Clintons, to Harry Reid, to Barack Obama, robs the term of any coherent meaning.  Given this commitment on the part of the GOP compromise seems next to impossible.

    Parent

    Naw (none / 0) (#61)
    by hookfan on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 04:57:24 PM EST
    dealing with issues is so 2008. . .What we need is personality assassination to cover the lack of accomplishment for most of us by a Democratically controlled congress and White house. How else do you show republicans are worse, if you also support the Corporate hegemony?

    Parent
    Hollywood politics as usual (3.00 / 2) (#53)
    by diogenes on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 12:55:00 PM EST
    If this witchcraft stuff really mattered then maybe Maher would have pulled it out of the archive BEFORE the primary in Delaware.  Just politics as usual.

    He was on break during the primaries (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 03:04:59 PM EST


    Parent
    break for months??? (none / 0) (#66)
    by diogenes on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 07:23:49 PM EST
    Hardly.

    Parent
    It would seem so, diogenes (none / 0) (#69)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 07:56:16 PM EST

    Changes in 2010

    HBO has renewed Real Time for an eighth season, which began Friday, February 19 at 10:00pm Eastern with an encore at 11:00pm.[7]

    On April 9, Maher skipped a monologue and, instead, had three one-on-one interviews. Chris Rock, Alice Waters, and Billie Joe Armstrong.

    The show went back to going on a summer hiatus beginning on June 11. The final half of the season will begin on September 17.



    Click Me

    Parent
    I was watching (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 04:52:35 PM EST
    this in amazement not having a hard time believing that there is someone that whacked out but I take it at face value--she is a nut job.

    BTW, out of context it looks like (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 05:21:49 PM EST
    she's saying that she dated a woman. I wonder what her "base" will have to say about that?

    You mean because she said (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 06:24:58 PM EST
    witch instead of warlock?  I'm a little hazy on this, but I'm pretty sure Wiccans, at least, call both males and females witches.  OTOH, I'm pretty sure Wiccans don't do Satanic altars, either, so who knows who she was consorting with.  But "witch" does not automatically mean a female, FWIW. A warlock is a whole different deal, as I understand it, more like an evil wizard than a benign witch.

    We must have somebody at TL who knows this stuff!

    Parent

    Witch or Warlock.? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 09:34:59 PM EST
    it is hard to know which is witch.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 06:51:41 PM EST
    In common usage, "witch" refers to a woman. Of course, I have no idea what O'Donnell means.

    Parent
    Neither does she (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by scribe on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 08:06:53 PM EST
    have much of an idea what she means.  She epitomizes the acme of Republicanism today:   a vapid, good-looking person who vomits forth predigested strings of words - code phrases market tested to motivate Republican voters and who does what she is told and when.

    She is the result of an educational system which considers intelligence the ability to recite propaganda devised by others for the others' benefit and deems those best able to do that, more intelligent.

    Parent

    That's what shows (none / 0) (#21)
    by hookfan on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 06:58:10 PM EST
    her statement as false--wiccans do not believe in the doctrines of sin or the personal devil.lin
    k     Men are considered "witch" as well as women-- there is no difference. You also may be interested that the wiccan rede (their basis of their ethics) is very libertarian ("as long as it does not harm, do what you will"), are not generally opposed to homosexuality (Scott Cunningham, who is a major wiccan writer, is also gay), are staunch supporters of separation of church and state, are tolerant and accepting of alternative lifestyles, believe in equality of men and women (their major "gods" are the Lord and Lady= male and female), have a great respect for environmental concerns, are egalitarian. They are better classified as nature worshippers, NOT DEVIL WORSHIPPERS. Although their view of "magic" can suffer from irrationality, many wiccans limit their understanding of magic to forms of "creativity", and interpret "spells" in terms of ritual structuring influencing primarily their own or their groups psychological states, similar in form to many interventions of Jungian psychology. Some, of course, go off in flights of fancy, just like new ageists in the democratic party.

    Parent
    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 10:18:02 PM EST
    she didn't say the person was a Wiccan as far as I know, she just said "witch."  I think it's safe to say that if there really was something the witch, not O'Donnell, termed a "satanic altar," he/she was definitely not a Wiccan.

    But there are all kinds of people running around inventing their own little goth-type groups and appropriating bits of this and that for the fun of it.  I suspect that's what she got tangled up with, not any genuine spiritual group.

    But who knows, she may just have read something somewhere and invented the whole thing.  She's not tightly wired.

    Parent

    Also to be fair (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by hookfan on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 09:29:18 AM EST
    it is a common misattribution of conservative Christians to accuse wiccans or neo pagans of Devil worship, animal sacrifices, and other extremisms that often do not apply. Heck, how do you think the devil got portrayed with horns and hoofs?
       Nevertheless, you are right, as the church of Satan established by Anton LeVey is often confused wittingly or unwittingly by the religious right with wicca, when it's really an intentional bastardization of Christianity.
      Since the columbine tragedy, goth culture has also gotten a bad name. However for a fair assessment of the difference between classic goth culture and what was occurring there see link. Notably, goth culture is not satanism, nor necessarily wiccan either.
       The whole story fits nicely into the pseudo dramatic portrayals ginned up by many Conservative Christian sects-- especially conservative charismatics. Although to be fair, I've heard nearly identical stories told by conservative Baptists.
       In fact, I've heard so many stories involving "dates" by Christian youth with "witches" involving "satanic rituals" it seems to be a basis for a developing a new oral tradition. There seems to be a "satanist" or "witch" hot to trot with any Christian youth, that I'm surprised any Christian would be found home on Friday night!
      Naw, I think O'Donnell was merely relating something that has become common mythology in her social group. My first wife's nephew is a youth pastor for a Conservative church. He relates hearing increasingly frequency stories in similar vein.

    Parent
    Oh, interesting (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 10:37:04 AM EST
    "I've heard so many stories involving "dates" by Christian youth with "witches" involving "satanic rituals" it seems to be a basis for a developing a new oral tradition."

    I did not know this. I wonder whether the "satanic altar" of her date might have just been a bed...

    Parent

    Possibly (none / 0) (#52)
    by hookfan on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 11:29:32 AM EST
    since conservative religious beliefs are highly correlated with higher teen birth rates (link). But it also may be related to obtaining enhanced social prestige in conservative religious social groups (especially charismatics). Since the 80's there has been an ongoing phenomenon in the charismatic movement of "prayer warriors", and "spirit warriors" where one gains enhanced prestige in the social group by having "confronted" demonic forces, especially by deliverance ministries to those considered "possessed"-- primary candidates being those who practice witchcraft or the real prize, "satanists" (atheists need not apply-- you're only considered bait for evangelism).
       Since enhancement of social power occurrs in this way for advancement in their authoritarian social structure, it's no wonder that a mythology develops around encounters with witches or satanists involving satanic rituals. That doesn't rule out the use of the bed. Probably actually enhances it as the proffered explaination becomes "seduced by evil". Thus setting up the means to restoration within the social group.

    Parent
    We've had (none / 0) (#8)
    by Left of the Left on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 05:41:26 PM EST
    Presidents with confessed/known drug use in their past. If people believe she stands for what she is saying now thats all that does or should matter. Lets keep perpetuating the notion where anything in your past outside the norm is a disqualifying offense for office. Oh my, what if she experimented with her sexuality! Now there would be a story!

    Not even a question (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 06:07:45 PM EST
    of what "we" think, it's a question of what "they" think.  I have no problem with witchcraft, past drug use, lesbianism or whatever, but that's not the way she's pitched herself to the folks who voted for her.

    Parent
    idk (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Left of the Left on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 06:34:48 PM EST
    are witches fiscally conservative or tax and spend liberals?

    Parent
    Since Wicca (none / 0) (#23)
    by hookfan on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 07:11:40 PM EST
    supports highly individualistic lifestyles it has no official stand on those issues. However, due to their egalitarian social values I doubt they fit well in the more authoritarian approaches preferred by conservative rightwingers. They do come from all economic strata but that is not a determining factor for their functional level in wicca.

    Parent
    Let's not forget that (none / 0) (#12)
    by caseyOR on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 06:21:04 PM EST
    the Right is big on forgiveness and redemption for those they embrace. That's why Bristol Palin's out-of-wedlock child is acceptable, and John Ensign's adultery goes unpunished, and GW Bush' drug use and alcoholism were not deal-breakers.

    If Christine O'Donnel is currently singing the tune the Right wants to hear, her past will be forgiven. And, the "lamestream" and "elite" media, to say nothing of the Democrats,  will be castigated for attacking her.

    Parent

    You generally have to make (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 10:19:29 PM EST
    at least token presentations of remorse and apology, though, before you're forgiven and rehabbed.  She hasn't done that for any of the myriad weirdnesses in her life that I know of.

    Parent
    She could always quote Thoreau (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 10:58:23 PM EST
    He's been dead long enough that people forget that he was probably a 19th Century forerunner of the Hippies:

    If a man loses pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured, or far away.



    Parent
    Great Linda Ronstadt song (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MKS on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 11:42:47 PM EST
    Different Drum.

    Parent
    Maybe, but their voters (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 06:48:27 PM EST
    are out to bust status quo.  Will they consider being snowed by her more status quo?

    Parent
    I disagree with you. Now that she's the nominee, (none / 0) (#13)
    by steviez314 on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 06:24:52 PM EST
    "they" only care about winning, so she could be a druid right now.

    Unlike "us", whose feelings get hurt by Obama and "we" pout.

    (I'm not directing the above at you, just looking at most of the comments in the last blog entry and shaking my head.)

    Parent

    This is just one of many intersting (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 06:50:54 PM EST
    clips that Bill Maher says are available.

    Parent
    If you caught his last statement (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by scribe on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 08:09:43 PM EST
    you'll note he says "this is like a hostage situation.  Until you come on the show, Christine, I'll toss out a body each week"

    She was on something like 20 or more shows with Maher.  Lots of material there.

    Parent

    Why was she such a frequent (none / 0) (#31)
    by caseyOR on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 08:13:48 PM EST
    guest on Maher's show? Until this recent primary I had never heard of O'Donnell. What am I missing? Why did Maher even know her?

    Parent
    1) She gives you (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by brodie on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 08:31:26 PM EST
    99 44/100% pure right-wing wacko philosophy, consistently, energetically, articulately, and all with a smile at the end.  2) She's young und purdy.  3) Bill's other RW wacko girlfriend Ann Coulter was only available twice a week and they had 5 shows/week to fill.

    Parent
    Casey (none / 0) (#34)
    by DFLer on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 08:57:05 PM EST
    I believe the "appearances " are on the politically incorrect show, not as a guest on the Bill Maher show.

    Parent
    If they (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 07:12:41 PM EST
    cared about winning they wouldn't have nominated her. Frankly, at least the GOPer's around here, seem more interested in ideological purity than winning elections.

    Parent
    So totally agree, stevie314 (none / 0) (#36)
    by christinep on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 10:02:55 PM EST
    and, I thought "we" were the representatives of the "reality-based community." Thanks.

    Parent
    So a man who believes in (none / 0) (#26)
    by itscookin on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 07:55:48 PM EST
    Magic hats and underwear is a credible candidate for president, but a woman who experiments with a religion that is based on nature worship is too crazy to become a senator?

    Short answer: Yes! (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ghost2 on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 10:14:26 AM EST
    As Atrios says:

    This has been another episode of simple answers to simple questions.

    Parent

    Same as (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ghost2 on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 10:16:59 AM EST
    Chris Mathews famously said that the reason Hillary Clinton was a Senator, the reason she was a candidate for the presidency, was that her husband messed up.

    Then Chris seriously considered running for Senate in PA in 2010.

    In his mind, he was qualified, while Hillary was not.  

    Parent

    It is the conservatives (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 11:45:28 PM EST
    who will need to answer that....

    I thought it innocuous.....but hilarious because it so contradicts her religious shtick.

    Parent

    Christine O'Donnell and the like . . . (none / 0) (#44)
    by Doc Rock on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 09:12:08 AM EST
    Maybe the world will come to an end in 2013 as predicted . . . or we may just wish it had.

    Argh 2012 was meant, not 2013! (none / 0) (#45)
    by Doc Rock on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 09:12:54 AM EST


    Parent
    $hit, for a minute I thought we had an (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 03:04:14 PM EST
    extra year.

    Parent
    Guess I'm a (none / 0) (#59)
    by dead dancer on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 04:04:11 PM EST
    nazi

    Parent
    oh really? (none / 0) (#73)
    by cpinva on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 05:03:30 AM EST
    Christine O'Donnell wouldn't have won in November anyway

    oddly enough, i thought she wasn't supposed to win in sept, according to the accepted wisdom. you ignore these kooks at your peril, because there are a lot of other kooks out there that might vote for them.

    logically, a life-long loser like g. bush should never have been elected to any public office, much less gov. and president, logically.

    I guess irony is lost (none / 0) (#80)
    by CST on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 12:29:19 PM EST
    on some people.

    O'Donnell Runs For Cover After Witchcraft Comments | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment