It really is no wonder that so many of the new breed of Tea Party/Republican candidates avoid being interviewed by anyone other than Fox News. When they are removed from that partisan environment their ignorance becomes almost painful to witness.
I'm sure she will put them up on her website today, once someone tells her who they are.
Republican candidate Christine O'Donnell's lack of political experience was exposed last night in a nationally-televised debate with her Democratic candidate.
Although she escaped from the 90-minute debate without a major gaffe, she was repeatedly caught floundering and stumbling in her answers on domestic, foreign and economic policy.
In one of several incidents reminiscent of Sarah Palin's embarrassing television interview with CBS during the 2008 White House race, O'Donnell looked blank when asked to name a recent Supreme Court she disagreed with. "There are lots," she said but admitted she could not recall any of them. She added she would put them up on her website today.
I am obviously only reading about this debate - I haven't actually watched it - but what I am reading makes it sound like a car crash.
So, she thinks that it's unfair to bring up things which she said "a decade and a half ago", whilst calling Coons a Marxist because of a self portrait from his student days. That's hardly consistent.
With such a commanding lead, Coons, a dull candidate, had been expected to play it safe and avoid being overly critical of O'Donnell. But he quickly dispensed with that strategy and accused her as holding "extreme positions" and accused her of lying about him.
She in turn called him a Marxist, in part because of a self-portrait when he was a student and partly because she said he favoured higher taxes.
It was a rare public appearance by her, having largely kept out of the public eye after being mauled by the media in the immediate aftermath of her primary win, in particular her admission that she dabbled in witchcraft as a youth.
When the witchcraft issue came up during the debate, she said that the election "should not be about comments I made on a comedy show a decade and half ago". Asked why she had made a political ad that started with the statement 'I am not a witch', she replied: "To put it to rest, to put it behind me."
On conservative views on sex she advocated in the 1990s, she said: "While I have made statements, my faith has matured."
Pressed on whether she still believed that evolution is a myth, she insisted: "What I believe is not relevant."
And it's a bad day when any person running for high office is reduced to stating, "What I believe is not relevant."
Really? Then why should we elect her? I have always thought that we elected people precisely because of what they believed. That they described the kind of society which they wanted to live in - and create - and that we embraced or rejected their world view. She appears to be turning that whole notion on it's head.
We have seen this with several of the Tea Party/Republican candidates. The minute they are put under any kind of scrutiny, they simply fall apart.
Click here for full article.