“Unelectable”

Last updated on: September 16, 2010 at 5:03 pm by Fred Clark

“Unelectable” 2010-09-16T17:03:59-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The reaction to Christine O'Donnell's upset win in the Republican Senate primary in Delaware has tended to blur several factors that need to be kept distinct.

O'Donnell is described as both "extreme" and "unelectable" — two things that are related, but separate. Each also contains more than one idea and it may be helpful to separate those out as well.

Regarding O'Donnell's "electability," Tom Ross, chairman of Delaware's Republican Party, said she was someone who "could not get elected dogcatcher." Part of what he meant by that was that O'Donnell has little appeal for swing voters or for Delaware's large constituency of registered Democrats. The numbers seem to bear that out. In her primary victory, O'Donnell won 30,000 votes — about a sixth of Delaware's registered Republicans or roughly 5 percent of the total electorate. That fractious fraction will almost certainly vote for her again in the general election with great enthusiasm, but it's not at all clear that anyone else will.

We should be clear that this is by design. It is intentional and deliberate. O'Donnell's loyal following was created in large measure by assuring them that they and they alone are good, patriotic and legitimate. That approach has limited appeal because it makes a limited appeal. The other 19 out of every 20 Delawareans is unlikely to be enticed to vote for O'Donnell due to her constantly telling them they are evil and not authentically American. O'Donnell may be willing to accept the general election support of those she condemns as anti-American kitten-burners, but it's not likely they will be inclined to offer that support.

So "electability," on one level, has to do with numbers and with the stark pie-chart of Delaware's electorate and what it says about Christine O'Donnell's chances.

The numbers and voters represented by that pie chart are not just due to campaign rhetoric, but also to actual policies advocated by the various candidates. The matter of policy is one place where "extreme" and "unelectable" overlap. O'Donnell wants to repeal health care reform before full benefits kick in. Most voters disagree. She doesn't think full employment is something that governments have a
responsibility to pursue and ensure. Most voters disagree. She vehemently wants to overturn both Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut. Most voters vehemently disagree. Her platform is largely unpopular.

We'll get back to that platform in a later post, but what I mainly want to address here is the other way in which Christine O'Donnell is extreme — completely apart from anything having to do with policy. It is her extreme behavior, not her extreme policy preferences, that make her, in fact, "unelectable" in a way that has nothing to do with polls or politicking. What I mean is that, if the allegations about her are true, Christine O'Donnell is not fit for office.

Every candidate brings a certain amount of baggage — past indiscretions, misstatements, personal failings. O'Donnell has more than the usual share of these. Many of them are substantial — her anti-masturbation crusade, her misrepresentations of her college degree, her misrepresentations of her lawsuit against her last full-time employer, her misrepresentations of her personal finances, tax history and foreclosure, the gap between her advocacy of abstinence and chastity and her apparent living situation, her weird belief that 71-year-old Mike Castle hides in her bushes at night, her lack of gainful employment, her unsubstantiated claims of politically motivated burglary at her home. That's quite a list — and there's more where that came from — but that's not what I mean when I refer to O'Donnell's extreme behavior. All of that, separately or cumulatively, might be characterized as extreme, but that's not the most extreme aspect of her behavior. So bracket all of that.

The real reason Christine O'Donnell is unelectable is that she allegedly has violated campaign finance laws on a daily basis for years, enriching herself and her boyfriend with political contributions.

O'Donnell's home address — the one she lists on her voter registration — is the townhouse pictured above where she lives with her boyfriend (notice it doesn't have bushes). That townhouse is apparently paid for in large measure by campaign contributions, as is her income and that of her boyfriend/aide.

O'Donnell has thus far failed to explain how this apparent arrangement is legal.

The problem, in other words, is not that Christine O'Donnell is too extreme in her policy views or that she has made every effort to alienate the swing voters she would need to be elected. The problem is that she appears to have broken several campaign laws — that she appears to still be breaking those laws. She is still living in a home allegedly paid for with campaign donations and matching public finances. She is still living on income allegedly drawn from those same funds — as is her boyfriend.

O'Donnell has never been forced to answer these allegations or to provide any explanation for them. This was partly due, I suspect, to a misplaced pity. O'Donnell has, for years, been viewed as an earnest-but-dim perennial single-issue candidate who didn't really matter much and thus wasn't worth the effort of exposing or accusing. She no longer enjoys that privilege of being inconsequential.

It's possible that O'Donnell is, in fact, completely innocent of any massive, long-term campaign fraud. The overwhelming appearance of wrongdoing here may be only that — an appearance. She has never corrected the public record that creates this appearance of wrongdoing, but it's possible that everything everyone thinks they know about her unreported income and her dubious living arrangements is incorrect. It's also possible that her boyfriend is a legal savant who found and exploited some loophole in campaign finance law that had heretofore eluded people like Ted Stevens and Dan Rostenkowski and their armies of lawyers. That's all possible.

But it's also possible that the appearance of wrongdoing here is an accurate reflection of actual wrongdoing. It's possible that the allegations that she has never explained or refuted are actually true — that she has been pocketing campaign contributions and federal matching dollars from taxpayers and using them for her own living expenses.

And if that is the case, she may wind up serving a term in a federal institution, but it will be a place far from Capitol Hill.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

September 11, 2010

That e-mail from me is not from me

Next Post

September 17, 2010 I do not trust this Associated Press poll

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: 1 John teaches that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE