Money, Not Culture


She was the head of the pro-abstinence Saviors Alliance for Lifting the Truth (SALT). She became famous for panning masturbation, arguing "It is not enough to be abstinent with other people, you also have to be be abstinent alone" and has bragged about remaining "chaste" in her thirties. She complained that the U.S.A. "took the Bible and prayer out of public schools" and alleged "American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains." She characterized evolution as a "myth" and claimed to have heard "the audible voice of God." She decried homosexuality as "an identity disorder" and opposed abortion even in the case of rape or incest.

So when U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell of Delaware gave her non-concession concession speech Tuesday night, did she urge victor Chris Coons to consider alternatives to embryonic stem cell research, support traditional marriage, or uphold the sanctity of human life?

Hardly. She beseeched Coons to fight reinstatement of the estate tax (which Frank Luntz has taught Republicans to smear as the "death tax") and

reminded him that he is now in a position to help the people of Delaware who are suffering. I reminded him of Victor Rodriguez and Donald and his family and the many small business owners who are very concerned about these tax hikes. And if he does raise them on the top 2%, they'll be forced to close their doors.

This was not Senator-elect Pat Toomey (R-Pa), former head of the Club for Growth, whose raison d'etre is doing the bidding of the corporate sector. Or Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky), who believes it is just plain mean for government to require private businesses not to discriminate. Or Tea Party honcho Dana Loesch who, asked recently (could it be otherwise?) on CNN's "Parker Spitzer" to name her top priority for Congress, instantly cited extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich.

This was Christine O'Donnell, famous for being a "social conservative" (which really is a "cultural conservative"- oh, never mind). And in that brief moment she had with the incoming Senator of her state, she counseled tax cuts for the wealthy, via elimination of the estate tax, or cutting income taxes for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.

It has been making the rounds, this idea that the Democratic proposal hits mom 'n pop stores. In its report submitted to the U.S. Congress in July, the Joint Committee on Taxation noted (page 10)

The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that in 2011 just under $750,000 taxpayers with net positive income (three percent of alltaxpayers with net positive business income) will have marginal rate s of 36 or 39.6 percent under the President's propsal....

Obviously, Christine O'Donnell, who was defeated decisively on Election Day, is yesterday's news. But everywhere through the Republican Party there is one message. It's not gay marriage, or right to life, deficit reduction (insert joke here), or national security. It's one message and one message only: cut the taxes of the wealthy.

It's one of the great storylines of American politics over the past 30-40 years, best told (pp. 6-7) by Thomas Frank in "What's the Matter with Kansas":

Old-fashioned values may count when conservatives appear on the stump but once conservatives are in office the only old-fashioned situation they care to revive is an economic regimen of low wages and lax regulations. Over the last three decades they have smashed the welfare state, reduced the tax burden on corporations and the wealthy, and generally facilitated the country's return to a 19th century of wealth distribution. Thus, the primary contradiction of the backlash; it is a working-class movement that has done incalculable historic harm to working class people.

The leaders of the backlash may talk Christ but they walk corporate. Values may matter "most" to voters, but they always take a back seat to the needs of money once the elections are won. This is a basic earmark of the phenomenon, absolutely consistent across its decades-long history. Abortion is never halted, affirmative action is never abolished, the culture industry is never forced to clean up its act. Even the greatest culture warrior of them all was a notorious cop-out once it came time to deliver. "Reagan made himself the champion of 'traditional values' but there is no evidence he regarded their restoration as a high priority," wroter Christopher Lasch, one of the most astute analysts of the backlash sensibility. "What he really cared about was the revival of the unregulated capitalism of the twenties: the repeal of the New Deal."

Frank recognizes in America generally what he says (p. 249) about his native Kansas :

The state watches impotently as its culture, beamed in from the coasts, becomes coarser and more offensive by the year. Kansas aches for revenge. Kansas gloats when celebrities says stupid things; it cheers when movie stars go to jail. And when two female rock stars exchange a lascivious kiss on national TV, Kansas goes haywire. Kansas screams for the heads of the liberal elite. Kansas comes running to the polling place. And Kansas cuts those rock stars' taxes.

Meanwhile, the daughter of a proud Sarah Palin, the purported grand dame of social conservatism, goes Hollywood to the max, performing on "Dancing with the Stars." There you have it: deregulation, tax cuts, and whatever else is on the wish list of the privileged for the party which once claimed family values as its guiding light.

Share|

Article Of The Week

The point of William Saletan's article in Slate is not the title, "Church and Stupid," which is borderline misleading. The argument, proven beyond a reasonable doubt, is in the subtitle "Christine O'Donnell's cocky ignorance of the First Amendment."

It's not that a disingenousRamesh Ponnuru of National Review claims, "What she denies is that the First Amendment requires “the separation of church and state," that a cynical Michelle Malkin contends "all you’ll hear from the MSM today is that Christine O’Donnell — correctly — questioned Coons’ claim that the phrase “the separation of church and state” appears in the First Amendment," or that a defiant Rush Limbaugh exclaims "It's not! Christine O'Donnell was absolutely correct. The First Amendment says nothing about 'the separation of church and state.'"

In Tuesday's Delaware senatorial debate (extended video of segment below), GOP nominee Christine O'Donnell did not note merely that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the first amendment of the United States Constitution. Coons never said that this phrase appears in the Constituion; he did, however, argue "the federal government shall not establish any religion." As Saletan explains, Coons was referring to the line "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." and "has the gist right." (Ironically, the exact wording- "respecting an establishment of religion"- makes Coons' argument even stronger.)

Referring to the privacy concept embedded in the Supreme Court's Griswold and Roe v. Wade decisions, Coons explains

The zone of privacy is something that the Supreme Court interpreted the Bill of Rights and several of those amendments to create. It is important for us in modern times to apply the Constitution, in my view, as it exists today and as it has been interpreted by our judges and if there are settled pieces of constitutional law, like the separation of church and state, like individual rights, like the individual right to reproductive freedom that Roe v. Wade represents, that we live with and have lived under for decades, it is important to know that you have, on my side a candidate who believes and supports those things and on the other side...."

Here, O'Donnelll interrupts Coons (who continues speaking, but whose words are hard to discern) to state "let me just clarify- you're telling me, that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment."

Coons responds "the government shall make no establishment of religion." O'Donnell is convinced that she has caught Coons in a major gaffe, believing that she is the cat that has caught the canary (old metaphor). Turning toward the audience and smiling broadly, even smugly, she disbelievingly replies "that's in the First Amendment," certain she has clinched the argument, if not the entire debate.

Ignorance of the First Amendment, Saletan observes, is not what is "disturbing" because, he believes, her "ignorance has now been repaired" with "her damage-control interview." Rather,

What's disturbing is the bemused confidence with which she mocked the truth. It's the same confidence with which she dismisses evolution, claims that America has gone socialist, and asserts that "American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."

This is how it typically is in modern conservatism, extreme edition, which is to say, modern conservatism, as demonstrated by Ponnuru, Malkin, and Limbaugh. Sloppily and/or dishonestly, they eagerly quote only a portion of the relevant exchange and allow for no possiblility of a different interpretation- or even that they may not have the described the full dialogue. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but always certain. The late Dr. Carlton Fredericks would condemn "opinionated ignorance." William Saletan says the same thing, only a little differently: "Ignorance is temporary,but imperviousness is forever."

Share|

Assessing Delaware

It's not only extreme conservative ideology or hatred (steeped in racial bigotry) for our President that sets Rush Limbaugh apart from- well, no, other conservative talk show hosts are outrageous, but don't display as much of their program on the Internet. (Limbaugh's are not traditional transcripts, but fairly close.)

Therefore, it's easy to point out how Limbaugh frequently and grossly misleads his listeners. It may not be intentional but if not, would be due to ignorance or stupidity off the charts.

And so it was that Rush on Monday commented on one of the most high profile, and one of the least important, U.S. Senate races of this cycle:

Okay, we got a new polling result in from Rasmussen in Delaware. Before the debate, what was Christine O'Donnell down? Was it 20? Twenty or a little bit higher than that? It was 19 or 20, whatever it was. She's now down 11. Since the debate she's now down by 11. She nearly cut that gap in half, and that's why Obama and Bite Me are in Delaware today.

We can't accuse Limbaugh of lying- some polling did have Christine O'Donnell down by "19 or 20, whatever it was" (real attention to detail) before her debate with Democrat Chris Coons. Unfortunately for Rush's story, it wasn't Rassmussen- which does in fact have O'Donnell down by 11 now- that had her down by close to 20 points. Revealing results of his firm's survey, Scott Rassmussen reported on October 15 that

Coons posted a similar 49% to 40% lead three weeks ago when Congressman Mike Castle whom O’Donnell defeated in the state GOP Primary was still pondering a write-in candidacy. Five percent (5%) supported Castle at that time. Castle has since announced that he will not run but has not endorsed O’Donnell, a conservative activist who remains a long-shot candidate in the traditionally moderate state.

The previous lead in the poll now showing an 11% gap was "similar" (in fact, slightly smaller at 9%). Not only does the Repub-leaning Rassmussen observe the GOP nominee "remains a long-shot" but "the contest remains Solid Democrat in the Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 Senate Balance of Power rankings."

Whatever the motive for Obama and Biden to join the campaign to defeat the GOP nominee in Delaware- and for Biden, that he is a favorite son comes into play- it's surely not because "she nearly cut that gap in half." She did not cut the gap in half and will not win.

Christine O'Donnell is neither an underdog nor even a long-shot to win. She will not win. Will not. Five Thirty Eight's Nate Silver, who was until a couple of months ago writing a lone, though highly respected, blog but now is writing it for The New York Times, evaluates every gubernatorial and senate race. He has projected the vote for the Democratic and the Republican nominees for each Senate race, as well as the likelihood that seat will be lost by the party now holding it.

Silver estimates that Democrat Coons will garner 57% of the vote while Republican O'Donnell gets 40%. And after cranking up the computer for 1,000 simulations, he has concluded that O'Donnell's chance to win the election: 0%. (That's not a typo.) Apparently, O'Donnell came out on top no more than 4 times out of 1,000, assuming he would have rounded up at 5 out of 1,000.

Now for the bad news: there are 17 Senate seats now held by Democrats in which there is a better chance than in Delaware that the GOP candidate will win. But that also indicates the absurdity of Rush's theory (stated, of course, as a fact). After eliminating the five seats which Silver estimates have a 94% or greater chance of turning over (and thus an appearance by Obama/Biden presumably would be fruitless), there remain 17 contents which are more uncertain than the one in Delaware. (These consist, obviously, of ones in which the Democrat has very little, but at least some, chance of winning to ones in which the Republican has very little, but at least some, opportunity.)

Notwithstanding characteristics of particular races, trends move nationally. Do the math: if O'Donnell were to come behind and win, she probably would become not the critical 51st Republican vote. Or the 52nd. Or the 53rd. Or the 54th- or even the 58th Republican senator. She theoretically would become the 59th member of the Republican caucus.

Possible reasons for Obama and Biden to direct their attention to Delaware abound. Certainly, President Obama and Vice-President Biden are more popular in Delaware than in most states. And if Christine O'Donnell and 17 other Republicans were to win seats now held by a Democrat, the GOP would become, with 59 votes, a mere eight Blue Dogs away from overturning a presidential veto. (Laugh if you wish. No, laugh anyway.)

Admittedly, there are only so many times Obama/Biden can visit any one state, given the risk of over exposure and the risk of diminishing returns. And defeat of the Democrat in Delaware would be embarrassing to Joe Biden, who formerly occupied the seat. Meanwhile, if Silver is to be believed (as he normally should be), there is a 54% chance that the seat then held by United States Senator Barack Obama will be won by the Republican, Mark Kirk, in the state of Illinois.

Arising is the obvious question: why isn't Barack Obama, if loss of a Senate seat in Delaware would be embarrassing to the Vice-President, focused on Illinois?

Fast-forward to November 3- or, better yet, November 4, two days after the election, in which Senate Democrats will lose few seats, lose several seats but retain the majority, or lose even more seats and relinquish majority status. Members of the media will analyze the election in the context of the President's popularity, viewing it in part as a referendum on Barack Obama's leadership. They will do it in the simplest, most superficial manner possible, by creating a won-loss record. President Obama will be heralded as, perhaps, 7 and 4 (7-4); or diminished by, for example, 3 and 8 (3-8), the totals depending on the number of states in which Bideb/Obama campaigned. Being seen and heard in Delaware starts Obama off at 1-0, a nice start for the President (though probably insufficient for the San Francisco Giants).

Is this post, therefore, about the election in Delaware or about Rush Limbaugh's convenient, partisan fantasies? You already knew Christine O'Donnell is going to lose, didn't you?

Share|

Message Sent, And Received


Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them. Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

"When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' So he got up and went to his father.

"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

"The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'

"But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'" (Luke 15:11-24a, NIV)


************************************************************************************


Adam Hanft dissects Christine O'Donnell's latest televised spot (video below) and finds in the second sentence

She asks us to ignore the firestorm, the archival Bill Maher videos, the attack ads. “Take me as I am” she is saying, as I take you for who you are. It’s a savvy presentation of faux-nakedness, a high-school girl telling a guy not to believe the rumors that she’s slutty.

Hanft notes the Republican candidate's "daring leap of mutual self-identification" in her second sentence, then

Having established the “I’m you” bond – a cosmic one-ness with her audience – O’Donnell then performs a fantastic rhetorical pivot. She says, simply:

“None of us are perfect.”

This is a central, errr, stake of the commercial. It’s a direct acknowledgment of the flawed nature of humanity – we are all sinners – we are all living with the consequences of, as Milton put it, “Man’s First Disobedience, and the Fruit Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal taste Brought Death into the World, and all our woe.”

I’m not being grandiose here. O’Donnell is sending out a Christian dog-whistle that calls upon a whole brain attic of memory and desire. Then, having established the enduring power of Original Sin, she shifts to a statement of mutual dismay at the current state of affairs.

The subtle message embedded in "none of us is perfect" is followed, apparently illogically, by "but none of us can be happy with what we see all around us," with no evident connection to the statement immediately preceding it.

But as Hanft would understand, "none of us is perfect" is a signal to all who would believe

For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God... (Romans 3: 22b-23, ESV).

This passage is preceded (emphasis mine) in Romans 3: 10b-11 (Paul harkening back to Psalm 14:3) by

None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.

O'Donnell's strong, but subtle, message to her base is recalled by the first statement of this ad:

I'm not a witch.

In O'Donnell's most famous video (way below) on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect, she blurted out "I was a witch because I dabbled in withcraft," though clarifying "I never joined a coven."

Now generally viewed as a gaffe, the remark was made in 1999, seven years before O'Donnell would run (unsuccessfully) for the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate and nine years before she would run unsuccessfully in the general election against Senator Joe Biden- but three years after she attended the Republican National Convention. Perhaps in 1999 Christine O'Donnell did not admit to withcraft but bragged about it, suggesting to conservative Republicans a kinship to the prodigal son.

Recently, Mike Newall of the Philadelphia Inquirer visited a few of O'Donnell's fellow graduates from Moorestown (N.J.) High Shool, class of 1987. He reported

"It's been hysterical, actually," said Matthew Brickner, 41.

The Class of '87 had only about 265 students.

"Everyone knew each other," said Jennifer Wichterman, 41, of Moorestown, another classmate and a former Inquirer newsroom employee.

And nobody remembers any witches.

"Who were they? That's what we want to know," she said.

Oh, now it's possible that these students were not in the know about witches covens, though, as the sort of students planning an (informal) reunion, they probably were not oblivious to school gossip. They could have been lying, though in these days of "hey, look at me" non-reality Reality Television, it is more likely they would have claimed knowledge, rather than ignorance, of odd behavior at their school.

Or it could be that a prescient Christine O'Donnell was making it all up. Not probable, but possible. In some quarters, once a witch, now a Christian is a powerful and compelling story.

Share|

O'Donnell vs. Gingrich

O.K., o.k., Newt Gingrich was playing to the audience and fomenting fear for political gain when he recently declared at a gathering sponsored by the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.

We should have a federal law that says sharia law that under no circumstance inany jurisiction in the United States will sharia be used by any court to apply to any judgement made about American law. And we should make clear to Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan, who both seem confused on this topic, that no judge will remain in office who tries to use sharia law to interpret the American constitution.

Neither the President nor Congress is expressly given permission in the U.S. Constitution to remove a judge from office. And removal of a judge "both of the supreme and inferior Courts" because of bad judgement might be a little tough given Article III, Section 1 of that American constitution Newt claims to hold dear:

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation.

But at least Newt, who may seek the GOP nomination for president, may be nominated, and may be elected (a sequence of events highly unlikely) probably doesn't see any likelihood of sharia law being imposed by any judge upon the United States. It merely served its purpose as a good applause line for a Values Voter Summit sponsored by a culturally conservative interest group.

But how is this for an expression of American and Judeo-Christian values?

I‘ll tell you, I just came back from the Middle East, and it was refreshing. With all that is going on, it was refreshing not to be constantly bombarded with smut all the time.

That was Christine O'Donnell, discussing with talk show host Lionel on (Joe) Scarborough Country on March 23, 2004 the claim by shock jock Howard Stern that Oprah Winfrey had aired a piece which, had he himself aired it, would have prompted a huge fine from the FCC. (There was no clarification from O'Donnell, Scarborough replying "All right, Christine, we‘re going to have to leave it there". Heck of a job, Congressman.)

Perhaps that is the short answer to the criticism of the title- "American Taliban" of Markos Moulitsas' new book. Christine O'Donnell- not a child, not a college student, but someone introduced by Joe Scarborough as a "conservative columnist," was just fine with the sexual mores and punishment- and, hence, the status of women- in oppressive Muslim societies. Gingrich was arguably inventing, inarguably vastly distorting, the threat of sharia law in American society. O'Donnell was expressing sympathy, if not support, for the more onerous manifestations of sharia law.

And that is the state of the Republic Party, circa 2010.

Share|

Christine O'Donnell, In Brief

Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday took a call from a man who was critical of Delaware's GOP candidate, Christine O'Donnell, for "many outlandish and ridiculous statements." The conversation in part went like this:

RUSH: Well, give me some outlandish, ridiculous statement that Palin's made or that O'Donnell's made.

CALLER: Well, you can go back and there's a whole --

RUSH: Give me a couple, 'cause I can quote all kinds of ridiculous stupid stuff Biden said that Obama has said, that Ted Kennedy said, Harry Reid said, and they don't demonize them, they laud them, they make them heroes. Tell me something outrageous and outlandish Christine O'Donnell said.

CALLER: Well, I think it's outlandish that she was involved in witchcraft and that's not been taken to issue, for example, with the Fox network, whereas if that had been a Democrat who was running Fox would be all over it, they would have a witchcraft special. I think a lot of her comments on abstinence --

RUSH: You know, she dabbled in witchcraft and found out she didn't like it. She had a boyfriend dealing with it. She did it in high school! In the meantime, we have president who's destroying the United States economy! To me, that's outlandish! We have a man who's lying through his teeth about what he's doing with health care. We've got a disconnect. Outlandish? Witchcraft? And Joe Biden says he's number two in line for the presidency when he's number one? God, I wish he was number two, but that would make Pelosi number one. We're screwed! Snerdley, I appreciate that you want to try to find liberal callers. Can you find some that are not filled with cliches? Maybe it is impossible.

Just before cutting his caller off (you didn't expect anything else, did you?), Rush asked him to "Tell me something outrageous and outlandish Christine O'Donnell said."

We'll start with monkey cloning and move on to condoms.

On November 15, 2007, Bill O'Reilly interviewed Dr. William Morrone, a family doctor and medical researcher in Michigan, and then-political consultant Christine O'Donnell:

O'DONNELL: ... these groups admitted that the report that said, "Hey, yay, we cloned a monkey. Now we're using this to start cloning humans." We have to...

O'REILLY: Let them admit anything they want. But they won't do that here in the United States unless all craziness is going on.

O'DONNELL: They are -- they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they're already into this experiment.

O'REILLY: Alright. Doctor...

MORRONE: That's an exaggeration.

O'REILLY: ...do you understand — do you understand her concern that there are people who are unethical who will do this kind of stuff for whatever reason? Do you understand her concern?

MORRONE: I understand her concern, but to me, the position of head in the sand is saying, "Don't do it; don't get involved; and don't set up guidelines." I'm saying this is the time to talk about it and this is the time to take it into alot of consideration.

O'Donnell's claim doesn't pass the smell test even with O'Reilly, who then remarks "I think it has to be very closely regulating (sic)."

Ms. O'Donnell has had a few things to say about condoms over the years:

According to Media Matters, she was quoted in The Washington Times on 12/1//95 as saying

We're doing a great disservice to our young people because the only protection is abstinence, as condoms have been proven fallible....The federal government should not be telling young people to use condoms....It's also an insult to teenagers, reducing them to the level of a dog that can't control its hormones.

Apparently, O'Donnell not only finds condoms distasteful, she also has a couple of misconceptions about them. According to Think Progress, on 12/17/99 she remarked on GOP TV's Hannity & Colmes

Even not from a moral perspective, if you take it just purely from a health perspective, condoms will not protect you from sexually transmitted diseases. There’s a 20 percent failure rate that it will protect from pregnancy.

Condoms, apparently, are to be disliked, misunderstood, and falsely compared to drunk drivers (also on Hannity & Colmes and according to Think Progress, on 6/6/00):

go ahead and have a condom. That’s like saying, don’t drive drunk but if you do, make sure you wear your seat belt. It’s going to kill.

(Condoms, Christine, don't kill. But you already knew that. Presumably.)

Those are only a few of Christine's greatest hits, as noted by Think Progress, on subjects that range far beyond her favorite topic. Evidently, the nation is "having weekly shootings, practically" because of the absence of prayer in the public schools; the ACLU is "trying to institute a communist country;" and President Obama is "anti-American."

The Sopranos, however, "shows that America still has a longing for that traditional upbringing.” Because Barack Obama may be un-American but nothing says family values better than murder for fun and profit. Especially for a pro-life political consultant.

Share|

Manhood

Michael Dukakis riding in the tank, Al Gore allegedly being encouraged by Naomi Wolf to become an "alpha male," John Kerry with the sneers about windsurfing and looking "French."

Until recently, however, we had been spared most of these inferences, not coincidentally in the age of the first black president of the U.S.A. But the tide may be turning.

Carl Paladino, the Republican nominee for Governor of New York, has sent an open letter to challenger and favorite Andrew Cuomo, goading him into a debate. He wrote

Frankly, i dont think you have the cojones to face me and the other candidates in a open debate. I dont think you have the cojones to answer direct questions regarding the mistakes you made at HUD in pushing a sub-prime mortgage scheme that cost taxpayers $2.4 trillion dollars and cost most New Yorkers the value of their 401-Ks. I dont think you have the cojones to answer questions about why you embraced ethically-challenged Charlie Rangel while pledging to clean up corruption. I don't think you haved the cojones to defend why some were prosecuted in the Hevesi Pension scandal while others - including many of your key supporters - were not.

So Andrew, for the first time in your life be a man. Don't hide behind daddy's coattails even though he pulled strings to advance your career every step of your way. Come out and debate like a man.

And in case we weren't sure that Paladino, at least, is a real man, the Republican claimed that he never has debated in his life "except maybe in a bar." Because, aside from frequent and spontaneous sex, nothing proves masculinity more than arguing over a beer or two.

And speaking of sex- as she historically has not been reluctant to do- Christine O'Donnell got into the act in her recent (succesful) Senate primary campaign against Representative Mike Castle in Delaware. On the website of a consulting that previously had represented O'Donnell, a video (below) appeared in which a man off-camera asks "Isn’t Mike Castle cheating on his wife with a man?" The female actress playing a newscaster smiles coyly and responds "That's the rumor."

Upon hearing that the GOP in Delaware, supporting Castle, had filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against her

O'Donnell blasted the legal action as "cheap, underhanded," and "unmanly." She added, however, that she would expect no less from "Obama's favorite Republican -- Mike Castle."

The conservative Senate candidate concluded: "Mike this is not a bake-off. Get your man-pants on."

Then there is the former half-term governor of Alaska. On August 2, the New York Daily News reported

President Obama doesn't have the "cojones" to protect America's border with Mexico, Sarah Palin charged Sunday.

In lashing out at the President's manhood, the former Alaska governor was lamenting a federal judge's decision last week to toss key parts of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's controversial immigration law that lets cops detain people who they suspect are illegal immigrants.

"Jan Brewer has the cojones that our President does not have to look out for all Americans, not just Arizonans, but all Americans," Palin said on "Fox News Sunday."

The last thing you would want to do, we're supposed to believe, is vote for those effeminate, maybe even gay, Democrats. Stick with us tough guys. And what is it with these "cojones" references? Surely, the Republicans who use it must know that it is a profanity in Spanish. Imagine, the GOP offending minorities- I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

Probably coincidentally, the religious right appears to have returned to prominence in the Republican Party- just as their sex-crazed candidates are returning.

Share|