WaPo’s Colby King Finds Christine O’Donnell Worse Than South Carolina's Alvin Greene
On Friday’s Inside Washington on PBS, during a discussion of the biggest political mistakes of the year, Washington Post columnist Colby King asserted that the Delaware Republican Party’s choice of Christine O’Donnell for U.S. Senate was an even worse choice than the South Carolina Democratic Party’s selection of Alvin Greene in that state’s Senate election to face Republican Senator Jim DeMint. Greene was facing charges at the time for showing pornography to a college student as he tried to seduce her in a computer lab at the University of South Carolina. After initially declaring it a "tie" between the two, he ended labeling O'Donnell the " absolute worst candidate known to mankind."
Below is a transcript of King's comments from the Friday, December 31, Inside Washington on PBS:
GORDON PETERSON: Any other major foul-ups?
COLBY KING, WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST: Oh, yes, yes, yes, yes. First, there was a tie in my book. I thought that the Democratic Party of South Carolina was the biggest foul-up when they gave us Alvin Green, the unemployed - but I think they were beaten out by the Republicans in Delaware who gave us Christine O’Donnell, who is the absolute worst candidate known to mankind.
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Once again, I wasn't a
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 5:04pm.
Once again, I wasn't a fan of Christine O'Donnell, but the piling on of nasty contempt for her by the liberal media (now this ridiculosly inane comparison) makes me feel sympathy for her I might not have without it.
What?
Submitted by cyborg0012 on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 4:59pm.
Are you kidding me? No way! Green was just crazy. I know, I proudly voted for DeMint.
The weekly stupidity by King
Submitted by Tomorama on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 5:22pm.
Actually stunned that this cluess and factless race baiter even said a negative word about a brother, but when one was as bleeped up as he, even the "believers of the cause" have to at least mention the absurdity.
That in itself shows how absurd he was.
No fan of the O'Donnell at all and she was a brutal mistake, but not buying the it's a "tie" stupidity here.
Christine O'Donnell may have failed to win the seat..
Submitted by gopcongress on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 5:22pm.
O'Donnell may have failed to win...BUT...
One of the things that we MUST get through to people is that the Tea Party does not represent any one individual candidate, or any one individual race. The Tea Party represents a movement to return Congress to its Constitutional roots. As such, the despotism displayed by the Left is only amplified in individuals like Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle, another candidate who also rocked the election.
Just because we lose certain races doesn't discount the candidate's own views and positions. While Monday morning quarterbacks can discuss the technical reasons, it is folly to think that any individual candidate who represents a movement, and that movement was justified by the party's own decision makers (the Delaware Republican Party), then that candidate is a success in advancing the cause.
Now, the key is not in winning or losing elections, but effectively winning the battle in the chambers of Congress. In addition, WE have to do our part in presenting actual facts to the people to ensure the Tea Party candidates aren't not only have to play against the Liberals, but ALSO against the referees, the crowd, and even their own 2nd string teammates. THAT will determine who were ACTUALLY the "worst candidates" or not.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
"Now, the key is not in
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 8:06pm.
"Now, the key is not in winning or losing elections, but effectively winning the battle in the chambers of Congress." Yes, but isn't the key to winning the battle in the chambers of congress a GOP majority in both? I mean, it's hard enough when we have GOP majorities consisting of some squishy Republicans, but it's next to impossible when tthe Democrats are in control. They are not likely to be much influenced by Tea Party sentiment. We have to get more Republicans elected - even if some of them are not 100% conservative on every last issue - then put the screws to them. I'd rather wrestle with that challenge than to try it with a GOP minority.No it is not. Key point follows...
Submitted by gopcongress on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 10:51pm.
The republicans have had majorities in both houses before, but when our side is muddled with RINO's, what's the point? The fact is very simple: people in this country are damn tired of having Washington dictate their lives, and frankly, anyone who is not a conservative or libertarian is NOT on our "side", no matter which letter they put behind their name, and in extension, the majority party makeup of the Congress itself.
Bottom line: If one doesn't vote as one would expect a Tea Party candidate to vote, that person is not on our side. Pure and unambiguously simple.
I would point out the very fact we had an executive branch and a legislative branch that was, by any reasonable measurement, more similar to following the tenets of the Communist Manifesto than the US Constitution is a result of RINO's appeasing the left for over 40 years. Only occasional stopgap measures put out by the election of Reagan and a first-term Bush (43), as well as Congressional Reset, version 1.0 in 1994 kept Obama from happening even sooner. Frankly, I"m thankful it didn't happen in a pre-Internet / Fox news era, as if the Libs had total control in the 70's along with a media monopoly, they would have instituted changes that would have precluded a Reagan from occuring, and possibly entrenching the Manifesto into our country's SOP.
What this past election proved was that, for the first time, the Republican Party finally were getting back to their roots: restoring this country to a REPUBLICAN form of democratic government. So it's not a matter of individual victories that count, nor is it a matter of controlling the Senate. RINO's are, by definition unpredictable as to their conservative traits, so just the party that that the Tea Party MOVEMENT is attached to has a majority, it does not mean that the MOVEMENT is a majority...YET.
But the best way to derail any movement is NOT with absolute opposition (like a communist or nazi) but with cunning, media-assisted "moderates".
The key will be HOW the Tea Party acts for the next two years. If they vote over 96% of the conservative economic tenets, and vote on the side of individual liberty on the non-economic issues as much as possible (in other words, a Constitutional approach), and don't let the mainstream media demonize or derail the agenda, then we will advance in the future. And THAT is FAR more important than a pragmatically fictitious majority in the Senate.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
With that stringent belief
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 10:58pm.
With that stringent belief system, yo are bound to go through the next few years constantly frustrated and enraged.
You mean "engaged," not "enraged"
Submitted by gopcongress on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 2:50pm.
I don't know how to clarify the situation any more. I do agree: If a good portion of the 70-80 new Tea Party movement candidates turn into RINO legislators to appease the mainstream media, then I will be enraged. In addition, I fully understand the absolute full force nuclear attack the mainstream media will be unleashing on our guys. Indeed, the only place I seem to get any "concern" about whether the Tea Party candidates will actually "do as they say" are from the media themselves, and not from any reliable conservative or libertarian sources.
However, I sense the New Breed is not going to concern itself with electability. Keep in mind they are aware that their constituents are fully cognizant of the brazen attempt to turn the USA into the USSA, and will not let that fact go without constant monitoring of their representative.
I had talked to over 300 Congressional candidates over the course of a year and a half, so I have a personal guage to assess, not just what I read on media accounts or campaign websites. These guys are not going to back down, AS A WHOLE. There may be a few defections, but I don't see it, frankly.
Finally, what is not talked about in the same context, but is frankly just as important, are the MASSIVE state legislature makeovers across the country, particularly in the swing states. The amount of legislative input that the state governments have, cumulatively, will greatly input the legislation activity in the US Congress. And states like California, which perversely has gone 100% democrat in every branch of office for the first time since 1932, will quickly feel the national heat, and the Tea Party movement will come full force once they understand that the free lunch is over. Either that, or devolve into anarchy, which would have to be national in scale before it happens.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
Irrelevant
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 1:12am.
"The republicans have had majorities in both houses before"
This is completely irrelevant since it is insufficient to make partisan law.
The correct question is "when have the Republicans had a majority in the House, a Cloture majority [60%] in the Senate, and the Presidency at the same time"? The answer to this question is 1921-1922. the Cloture rule was adopted in 1918. Prior to that time a filibuster was unbreakable.
The Democrats have enjoyed this advantage in approximately 14 Congresses since 1918 incuding the 111th.
--> All the Partisan law of the last 75 years is Democrat and the Republicans have never been able to govern in this period without Democratic consent. If you do not like how things are going, blame the Democrats because it is their laws you do not like.
Memo to GOP:
Submitted by LibertyAtStake on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 5:36pm.
Defund PBS so we don't have to listen to this claptrap on our dime.
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
As with Joe "the plumber"
Submitted by lnthomp on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 5:48pm.
As with Joe "the plumber" Wierzbicki, if not for the outrageous venom of the "progressives", Christine O'Donnell might not now be in a position where most Americans think well of her, or at least sympathize with her.
Lee T / USN(ret) /Midland, TX,
He's got a point
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 5:55pm.
I hate to say it , but he has a good point. The Democrats didn't have anyone in their primary who could beat DeMint. The man O'Donnell beat in the Republican Delaware primary would have easily beat the Democrat Coons in the general election.. I believe Charles Krauthammer would back me up on this
Easily beaten Coons?
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 9:35pm.
I don't know that that would have happened at all, and neither does Krauthammer, no matter what he might say on the issue. Even if true, it kind of defeats the purpose. We want to get rid of RINOs, not elect more of them.
This was one battle in the war, and it served it's purpose, even with Christine losing. The message has been sent: straighten up and fly right, or we'll get rid of your ass. It will be painful in the short term, but in the long term, it is necessary for the survival of this country.
Yay. You won!
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 9:11pm.
ckc1227: We did not get a RINO. We got a liberal Senator! Celebrate! In your face Krauthammer. We got a liberal Democrat Senator elected. He will be in that position for six years. Ha!
You get called an idiot out in meatspace too don't you?
Come on B_m_g, clean it up,
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 6:06pm.
Come on B_m_g, clean it up, huh? You can make your point without the excrement.
BK, he frequently makes some
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 6:12pm.
BK, he frequently makes some good points, but those points are usually buried in the accompanying pile of "excrement" Is there such a thing as Comment Tourettes Syndrome?
I know Chris. It's not as if
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 6:18pm.
I know Chris. It's not as if he's unintelligent, but his writings often make him seem that way. I was hoping that if I didn't reply directly, he'd take the opportunity to use the "edit" function. And as someone who admittedly often lacks tact, I do try to keep it under wraps when I comment on these pages. I'm sure he could do the same.
BK, I was off this site for
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 6:44pm.
BK,
I was off this site for awhile over the past year due to my job. I was kind of shocked when I returned and found so many new people here and the language some of them were using. I'm no prude and I've been known to use some fairly edgy language around friends in private conversations, but I would never think to write here in that same language. Some of the exchanges read like drunken frat boys at a beer bust. I'd hope that a commenter couuld make his point without all the profanity and ugly descriptions like "skank", ad nauseum. Comments like that are written with more testosterone than thought. It's a shame that a site meant to address a serious topic like media bias is being undermined by over-the-top nasty language in the comments section. I was first drawn to this site not only by the main topic, but by the intelligent and witty comments section. At one time, the hosts here would warn a commenter when his language got a little raw. Now, much worse language stays in without a peep. We can't criticize the comments at Kos and Huffington if the comments here are just as nasty in their own way.
Chris-
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 6:50pm.
100% agreed. I'm here less and less lately; the degradation of the comment section has a lot to do with it. Throw in the fact that every time I click on a "recent comment" it takes me to the bottom of the page and... well...
BK, Yeah, I used to just
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 7:08pm.
BK,
Yeah, I used to just read the NewsBusters site. Now I fight it - and it fights back. :)
Yeah Chris
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 6:55pm.
I totally agree. People are using filthy language to get their point across. It is pretty said in my opinion.
It is not often I accuse somebody else of being filthy :-) Happy New Year Chris.
I'm glad there are some of us
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 7:11pm.
I'm glad there are some of us who want to see NewBusters stay a site for intelligent comments and exchanges. It's hard to see that some nights when the stuff starts flying. Happy New Year Shawn.
I know you do Chris
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 7:18pm.
It must be frustrating for you, to not only see the profanity, but its hard to even politely disagree anymore.
I remember you tried to politely say you were not that impressed with Palin, and people started accusing you of giving comfort to liberals.
Stuff like that is almost as frustrating as the profanity.
That was a development I've
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 7:33pm.
That was a development I've noticed over the past year. There's no doubt that along with the language, several people here have become so strident as to attack their own for not agreeing with them 102%. I mean, it's good to stick to conservative principles, but when people are told that they have to support a certain candidate before that person even runs at the penalty of being decclared a RINO, well, it becomes as bad here as it does on some of the most .fanatical left web sites. There's no one who is much more conservative than I am, but, some nights, I feel like an outsider here and I'm left shaking my head.
Bk and Chris*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 6:58pm.
You guys are not alone in your thinking. I never thought of myself as a prude but this kind of language is disturbing and that may be his point. A number of regular NBers have reported this guy as well due to profanity and racist comments. My concern is that this site is unique and has a special draw. People from many different professions and points of view share their thoughts and I have learned much from their contributions. I believe that that kind of discourse will be even more important in the next two years. As a result, many lefty trolls will be showing up as well. But people like that above mentioned fellow can only incite and derail any courteous discourse.
Caj-
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 7:06pm.
Looks like they yanked his comment. Hopefully someone will send B_m_g a respectful reminder of the rules for commenting and hopefuly he'll continue to contribute on a level deserving of this site.
If you're reading this B_m_g: I'm not advocating banishment, just that you comment with appropriate respect for others. I'm sure it won't require any more effort and your points will be better received.
agree Bk*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 7:25pm.
Everyone has a right to speak out but we should all be required to follow the rules. No one is seeking the fellows bannishment just that the profanity and racism is offensive.
We live in difficult times and often NB is a great place to express anger and fear in a rant. But if we allow the degradation of respectful discourse then NB becomes no better than the many other sites that are nothing but vitriol. The posts at NB are generally informative and respectful and hopefully we can hold on to that especially in the diffcult times ahead.
cajun, If we all try to
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 7:19pm.
cajun,
If we all try to keep our comments within the bounds of propriety, maybe we'll win in the end. Unfortunately, some nights I see some of the best comments sitting there ignored (I try to let them know they're appreciated) and the really nasty comments get all the attention - and that may be causing the problem.
We all know Colby King would vote for an Alvin Green...
Submitted by OxyCon on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 6:07pm.
...every time, because Green possesses the one qualification that's most important to him.
But he'd never, ever vote for Christine O'Donnell because she lacks that qualification.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot this gem.
Submitted by cyborg0012 on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 6:37pm.
Check this out for a good giggle. We still get a great laugh over Alvin Green's little rap video. Too rich!
Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar09czbfE8o
Enjoy!
Even if Christine O'Donnell
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 9:09pm.
Even if Christine O'Donnell lost the election, she served a valuable purpose in American history. Once again, she proved beyond the reasonable doubt that the mainstream media is sexist against women unless they are unattractive she-men (i.e. Hillary, Janet Reno, Napolitano, Boxer, Feinstein, Kagan, etc).
Utter destruction
Submitted by nkviking75 on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 9:35pm.
O'Donnel was a flawed candidate, but she stirred up passion among conservatives. That's a huge sin in the minds of libs, and it requires that any such candidate must be utterly destroyed.
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
What is an "unflawed" candidate?
Submitted by gopcongress on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 10:58pm.
I challenge anyone to find an "unflawed" candidate who runs at the macro level. In addition, how do you define "unflawed?" For instance, ANY GOP candidate with the pedigree of Barack Obama would be destroyed in virtually any primary for any federal office. In extension, at least 80% of all Democratic candidates have more flaws than Lady Gaga's wardrobe.
If you mean flaws such as not being able to get past the mainstream media's built-in "gotcha" journalism, which epitomizes the "damned if you do/don't" phraseology, then that's frankly not possible. Yes, I agree: GOP candidates, and Tea Party candidates in particular, will have the largest media scrutiny, while the Democratic and Socialist candidates will have the largest media public relations interviews. In short, "Our bad against their good" has been the template for years, and this is thankfully going to stop, as LONG as the current Tea Party contingent hangs tough.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
Any Liberal Democrat.
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 11:03pm.
.
Saul Alinsky. Personalize
Submitted by Cowboy on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 3:34am.
Saul Alinsky.
Personalize your opposition.
They attack the Tea Party by associating it with specific people, and then attacking them,
Racist jerk off
Submitted by philipjames on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 2:40pm.
Colby King is a black racist. A diehard, racist jerk off. Simple. I have come to the conclusion that Conservatives can not have any mercy in crushing the racist, marxist, black liberation, socialist, Democrat, redistribution, progressive agenda. They have to be destroyed..... right along with totally upending the stranglehold the liberals have on the national media and entertainment industry. Defund the arts. Defund NPR. Defund the Federal Departments that just duplicate State functions. Defund the sonofabitches.
FORTY PERCENT IN BLUE DELAWARE
Submitted by laree on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 3:41pm.
Christine O'Donnell got 40% of the vote in bluest Delaware. What did Alvin Greene get in South Carolina? 27.65 percent of the vote compared to Jim DeMint who got 61% of the vote.
How is Alvin Greene still better than Christine O'Donnell? Did Jim DeMint mount a huge smear campaign against Greene? No he didn't have to...but the same can't be said for Coons.
If people don't get that O'Donnell left a mark on the Democrat Party - more so the progressives, they didn't read the resutls of the Delaware Senate Race. O'Donnell a staunch conservative got 40% of the vote for Joe Biden's vacated Senate seat, his own son wouldn't run for his father's Senate seat, he didn't want to experience the backlash from Delaware voters.
Colby King and the rest of the progressives are angry O'Donnell made a such a good showing in Delaware against all odds. They threw everything including the kitchen sink at O'Donnell to protect that Senate seat, and they are Poor winners. I can't wait for O'Donnell's book about what was happening in Delaware leading up to the Mid Term Elections. I am guessing the statis don't want that book to see the light of day. O'Donnell has become recognizable on the National Stage, chances are her book will be highly promoted, and an eye opener for the rest of the country about how down and dirty progressive politics really gets.
It appears King is into revisionist history, and they are still smarting from the O'Donnell insurgency into Bluest Delaware. She softened Delaware up for the next conservative candidate to run for National Office from Delaware. Next time Delaware may tip like Mass., and New Jersey.
So King finds a candidate pending a trial . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 5:51pm.
. . . on pornography charges a better candidate than Christine O'Donnell.
Who woulda guessed? ;-)
Guam
Submitted by in2themystic on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 3:27am.
If we're talking intelligence, You have to go no farther than the esteemed Democrate rep Hank Johnson from Georgia. He thinks Guam might tip over if we deploy too many troops there.
Ole Hank just got re-elected with 75% of the vote. How does this Happen? A total moron recieved 3/4 of the votes in that district. Anyone else worried about the future of our Republic?