With last night's debate in Delaware, it has become apparent that the basic tactic of the Republican Party is the same as that used by magicians for years...misdirection. Some are just better at it than others, though, right Ms. O'Donnell?
No matter the subject, if anybody notes your involvement, or that of your party, in some heinous activity, just suddenly veer off in another direction or point out some perceived (or blatantly made-up) flaw with your opponent. Several times, O'Donnell was asked questions about specific issues yet managed to completely avoid the topic or just blew it off as something that just doesn't matter, even if it was something that seemed to matter to her in the past. When all else failed, she just threw out things like "Marxist" or some other nonsense.
Of course, there were the "gotcha" moments thrown at O'Donnell from the liberal mainstream moderators, things like "hey, you said this - do you still believe it?" or other such things meant to catch O'Donnell off-guard. But at least they didn't ask her what magazines she reads; that kind of question is too difficult for anybody but an elitist to answer and is just totally unfair. One of the biggest bombs they threw in her direction was asking what recent Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with - the nerve! Why would anybody who rants about legislation from the bench know anything about legislation from the bench! Still, she did manage to veer off the freeway and head for California, where a judge found that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was unconstitutional. O'Donnell stated that this was legislating from the bench, even though a judge's job is to interpret prior decisions and, yes, even the Constitution. When a Republican goes off about "legislating from the bench," what they are, in fact, saying is "they made a decision I do not agree with" and nothing more. Legislating from the bench would be something like "Let's make corporations into pseudo-humans, with rights and everything but actual responsibility!".
And about that DADT decision...she thinks that the military should be free to make their own decisions about anything that might impact them? Really? So, any oversight committees in Congress should just be eliminated, correct? After all, why should they be horning in on what the military wants? They want to buy a billion Ospreys? Go for it...who cares if they crash, it will make my Uncle Dave money and that would be good for morale, at least his. They want to ban women from the military? Or Latinos? Or Irish-Americans? Well, if they think any of that might hurt discipline, let them decide! This is what she thinks a Senator should feel? What if they think Congress is harming their ranks? Would it be OK if they just got rid of it? Who, Ms. O'Donnell, do you think should be in charge of the military? Just themselves? Great idea.
Let's take a look at Ms. O'Donnell and some of the other things she says she stands for. O'Donnell seems to think that lying, under any circumstances, is unforgivable...unless she does it, of course. Maybe she thinks that bending the truth is not lying...? How about that education, stuff, Ms. O'Donnell? When did you actually earn that degree you've been telling everybody you had for years? What's up with that Master's you were supposedly working on at Princeton? How about that Oxford education? Why in the world would you even boast of attending classes at Princeton or Oxford and then attack your opponent for his Ivy League education? What about bogus information on your LinkedIn profile that you initially claimed you didn't have? On a different tack, how about that witch stuff? The story about how you were in a coven and the altar with the blood and the Satanic worship and all that? How does that work out when, according to my understanding, witches don't involve themselves in Satanic worship since they don't believe in Satan? Is there no end to your lies? And what beliefs will you actually stand up for? You were asked a few questions last night that you simply refused to answer, saying your feelings or beliefs are not important in a Senate race - are you kidding? Maybe you don't believe in half the stances you have previously espoused, or perhaps you are just afraid of turning off even more voters - in either circumstance, it makes what you have previously gone on record as feeling are important to you as not that big a deal to you. That is called hypocrisy in some circles, Ms. O'Donnell. I guess what Christine O'Donnell really stands for is running for political office...she seems to be getting better at it, but that's what practice will do for you, right? Scary.
Another question that seems to come up is how Ms. O'Donnell manages to get by. There are reports that she is using campaign money for, say, things that have nothing to do with her campaign. That would not be a good thing. But, if she isn't, how does she get by on a reported $5,800/year? Wow, that's even less than those socialist liberals hand out to the freeloader unemployed! My, my, how can you even pay for food, much less rent? Please let us know! If you can do it, perhaps you have the secret for how to eliminate poverty, and you should share that secret!
All this being said, one hopes that O'Donnell's brief moment in the sun will soon be over. While I am not sure what she will do if her political "career" should come to an end, I'm sure that the Lord will provide. Perhaps she can rename herself Miss Direction and become the head of the RNC.