Christine O’Donnell Christine O’Donnell says “nutty” things, has “serious character problems,” lacks “rectitude and truthfulness and sincerity,” and belongs in the United States Senate.
Christine O’Donnell says “nutty” things, has “serious character problems,” lacks “rectitude and truthfulness and sincerity,” and belongs in the United States Senate.
As long as that’s clear.
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Books:
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist
Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
UCLA Homepage
Curriculum Vitae
Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com
View all posts by Mark Kleiman
Given that senators generally vote along party lines, doesn't Rove's approach make sense, as would that of Democrats who supported a whack job who was running for the Senate as a Democrat? Of course, it is much less likely that a whack job would be a Democrat, but that's another matter.
Having O'Donnell out as the craziest makes the Angle / Rand / etc folks seem normal by comparison.
Apparently Mark was thinking someone with those qualifications belonged in the administration or on the faculty of UCLA.
I think we got as much honesty out of Rove as one could possibly expect.
Question for you: Does Dennis Kucinich belong in Congress? To put it as starkly as possible: If the choice for President were George W. Bush or Dennis Kucinich, whom would you vote for?
Dennis Kucinich is objectively disconnected from reality (see his stories about alien abduction), and he has used some weird rhetoric (Department Of Peace), but then again George W Bush fails on the same grounds, if in different ways. It's hardly the same as a match-up between a centrist corporate Democrat and a nutjob tea partier. Now, if Kucinich were to run against Voinovich, that might be a fairer comparison.
That said, I have some sympathy with your position, which is close to Rove's: if you're a partisan, it takes a pretty awesome level of craziness to get you not to vote for your party's nominee, no matter how much you may despise them and regret their nomination – although how much you dislike the opposing nominee also counts. but, even if perhaps they have to back the nominees they've got, that doesn't mean they can't also stand up for the idea of electing sane, informed people who have actual ideas of what policies (not slogans) they want to see happen.
If I wanted a Majority Leader McConnell, I might well vote for this fruitcake in Delaware, hoping that the damage she'd inflict would be limited to a string of embarrassments. But I'd also try to prevent future instances of the inmates running the asylum – and there's the difference. Instead of publicly bemoaning the fact that all of the energy in their party is coming from a herd of raging loonies disconnected from the real world, the Republicans have learned that they'd best Clap Louder, or get driven out of their cushy sinecures and out of the party.
Henry's right. It's basically the same argument as the pro-Lieberman crowd made.
Warren, I'm afraid I wasn't clear. My point was that Mark is being unrealistic. The Democratic leadership in the House no doubt thinks Kucinich is a ding-dong and wishes he'd go away. They don't waste a lot of breath on the subject however.
Well Larry, we never got the choice between Kucinich and GWBush because the Democrats didn't select one of their dingbats in their primary.
The Republicans on the other hand actually did select GWBush twice. (and the American population also voted for GW, more or less.)
I'll keep with the 'chaff' theory though from the party echelons – let the hostile fire go towards the weakest candidate.