20 September 2010By Keith Johnson
WARNING: I’m going to be cruel.
Republican Christine O’Donnell’s victory in the
Delaware Republican Primary may not be cause for
celebration. A Christine O’Donnell in
Washington may just mean one more vote for
endless war in the Middle East.
This statement was sourced from her 2008 campaign
website by ‘On the Issues’:
Strategy to bring troops home from
Iraq: it’s called victory
Christine has a strategy for bringing our troops
home from Iraq: It’s called victory. Past mistakes
should not deter our need to stabilize Iraq so we can
get our troops home. We can succeed in the future, but
we must accompany our efforts with the honor and
respect we’ve earned as a people. We cannot leave on
the enemy’s terms. We must leave on our terms.
Our Terms? Take a look at what imposing “our
terms” on the people of Iraq has done to that nation
thus far. The United States invaded Iraq under the
pretext of neutralizing Saddam’s
weapons of mass destruction. In the process,
the American military turned an emerging first world
nation into a hellish, third world cesspit. In the
end, no weapons of mass destruction were found. There
was and will be no victory, and suggesting that
America has earned respect and honor within the
context of the
Iraq War
is an affront to the 1,366,350 slaughtered Iraqis and
the 4,736 dead members of our American armed
services. Is this her idea of victory, or will that
only be accomplished after we have shed even more
innocent blood?
Remove the words “Tea Party” from the Christine
O’Donnell equation and you may very well end up with
your garden variety NeoCon patsy. She has been on the
political scene long before the Tea Party was even
heard of. In the last four years, she has made a run
for the senate seat on two previous occasions.
During the 2006 race, Ms. O’Donnell agreed with two
other Republican candidates that
Iran was intent on developing nuclear weapons
and that their government had actually benefited from
the war with Iraq due to its close ties with Iraqi
Shiite leaders. She was, however, the only
Republican candidate to go one step further and assert
that the U.S. should consider military action against
Iran. She stated “You can’t negotiate with the
Devil” and also asserted that
China
has a “carefully thought out and strategic plan to
take over America.” No, that wasn’t
Sarah Palin saying those things…but it may just
as well have been. Keep in mind that ‘establishment’
incumbent Mike Castle was among those three
“Republican candidates,” and even he was not ready to
put his full support behind an attack on Iran. That’s
not to say that it isn’t nice to see
Castle
go—good riddance. But, here is a question that I’ve
posed once before: What are we getting in return?
If this woman still embodies the kind of pro-war
ideology that she spouts in her previous rhetoric—she
will no doubt become a useful idiot to opportunistic
war makers on Capitol Hill—who will exploit her
religious beliefs to advance their imperialist
agenda. Upon her arrival in Washington, the Israeli
lobby and the defense industry will routinely court
her. Give the charming, fatherly
Henry Kissinger ½ hour alone with this naïve
young woman, and she will be eating out of the palm of
his hand and going out of her way to send your sons
and daughters off to die in holy, Christian missions
of conquest against the evil Muslim hordes.
Has Ms. O’Donnell changed her stance on these major
issues? If she has, I can’t find any mention of it.
When I go to her campaign website, I am delivered to a
page that asks for a donation, but no information that
will help me find out where she stands on the issues.
If I put her name into a search engine, I cannot find
any reference to her position on war and foreign
policy other than what I have already shared.
However, I did find plenty of information
concerning her passionate crusade against
masturbation,
gay marriage, pre-marital sex and abortion.
I’ve also learned that she has strongly supported
censorship and applying Biblical principals into
all levels of public policy. But even these
issues don’t help us find out what she really stands
for. As recently as last night, O’Donnell seemed to
be backpedaling on some of the more controversial
positions she previously held in an attempt to clean
up her image, or at least come off as less of a
fanatical religious zealot.
According to this morning’s Washington Post:
In her first post-primary debate against
Democratic nominee Chris Coons, O'Donnell said she has
matured since making controversial statements in favor
of "sexual purity" and against masturbation in a 1996
MTV documentary. "I was very excited and passionate
about my newfound faith," she said about that period
in her life.
O'Donnell said during the debate that she
opposes
embryonic stem cell research and abortion
except if the life of the mother is threatened. But
she said she would adhere to the
Constitution rather than her personal beliefs
if elected, and emphasized her views about taxes and
the size and role of government over her opinions on
social issues.
I find this all a little too wishy-washy for my
taste. Is O’Donnell the kind of “go along to get
along” politician who is taking up the Tea Party
banner just so she gets into a position of power?
Fighting taxes and reducing the size of government are
familiar themes that every Republican campaigns on,
and yet—time and again—so many Patriots are swept up
into believing that, “this time will be different!”
I fear that Christine O’Donnell is just the latest
in a series of disappointing Tea Party candidates who
appear to be merely riding on the grassroots
popularity of the movement. How can you take any
candidate seriously about ‘fixing the economy’ and
‘reducing the size of government’ when they support
the very wars that have created the problem? Ms.
O’Donnell, like many other Tea Party candidates, seems
to lack a basic understanding of how our economy
works.
One of the strongest rallying cries among the Tea
Party movement is to take on the Federal Reserve.
They vow to audit it or abolish it altogether. But if
you support the war effort, you have to support the
Federal Reserve. If you interfere with their
counterfeiting scheme, funding for these military
adventures will cease overnight. In his article “The
Hidden Costs of War,” Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
demonstrated that he has a complete understanding of
how this works:
“Without the Fed's ability to create money out
of thin air, our government would be severely
handicapped in waging wars that do not serve our
interests. The money issue and the ability of our
government to wage war are intricately related. Anyone
interested in curtailing wartime spending and our
militarism abroad is obligated to study the monetary
system, through which our government seductively and
surreptitiously finances foreign adventurism without
the responsibility of informing the public of its cost
or collecting the revenues required to finance the
effort.”
Those who are serious about ending the Fed must be
just as serious about ending these wars. Campaigning
to reverse health care and opposing tax increases are
just part of the package, but you can’t cherry pick
which pet projects you’ll allow the Fed to illegally
finance.
Sure, it’s refreshing to see the symbolic message
being sent to the ‘establishment’ incumbents. While
we can rejoice in watching longtime Republicans and
Democrats losing their seats, we cannot afford to put
our support behind someone like Christine O’Donnell.
I personally cannot give my endorsement to someone who
I know will vote in favor of war. Doing so would be
equivalent to loading a magazine into a soldier’s
rifle. I refuse to play the ‘lesser
of two evils’ card when lives are at stake.
One must ask themselves why a virtual unknown is
being given so much press. There is no such thing as
bad publicity. Like Sarah Palin, O’Donnell is being
hyped as a rogue element in the
GOP, someone who will restore old-fashioned
Christian values and rescue us from the fat cat
Republicans that many working class folks have trouble
identifying with. In many ways, the Tea Party has
become a remarkably effective recruitment tool to
attract fence sitters and disgruntled GOP defectors
who have lost faith in the establishment
Republican Party.
This week, the Internet was buzzing over the
pseudo-feud between O’Donnell and former Bush point
man, Karl Rove. During an interview with FOX News’
Sean Hannity, Rove said some very unflattering things
about O’Donnell.
“I’ve met her. I wasn’t frankly impressed by
her abilities as a candidate,” said Rove.
“One thing that O’Donnell is now going to have to
answer in the general election that she didn't in the
primary is her own checkered background. There were a
lot of nutty things she has been saying that don't add
up,” he added.
“Why did she mislead voters about her college
education? Rove asked. “How come it took
nearly two decades to pay her college bills so she
could get her college degree? How did she make a
living?”
Many have concluded that this confirms that
O’Donnell is the ‘real deal.’ After all, if Karl Rove
doesn’t like her, then she must be good, right? Rove
may be evil—but he isn’t stupid. He knows that he
doesn’t enjoy a good public image. Going out of his
way to attack O’Donnell is the biggest endorsement he
could give. It gives her street cred. Besides, look
at the negative things Rove choose to harp on her
about—her unpaid college bills? This only makes her
seem more ‘down to Earth’ to the average working class
stiff.
Now we find Sarah Palin coming out to endorse her
and chastising Karl Rove for all those nasty things he
said. Don’t you see the game here? The co-opted
segment of the Tea Party has become an internal
paradigm within the GOP. Those who consider
themselves Republicans, but have soured on the Party
following the disasterous public relations nightmare
that was Bush/Cheney, now have an alternative to
invest their hopes and dreams in. But at the end of
the day—it’s still the GOP.
Oh—and by the way—just this morning, Rove has reversed
himself and is throwing his full support behind
O’Donnell’s campaign. That places him among
O’Donnell’s other illustrious supporters that include
Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Bill O’Reilly,
Michele Bachman, etc., etc. etc.
Does
Ron Paul get that kind of support from the
NeoCon establishment?
I rest my case.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments
Save