1. Well her ads say Christine O’Donnell is me… does this mean I’m also an idiot? Or is it cynical politicos trying once again to appeal to the anti-intellectualism of the hoi polloi?

    The really sad thing here is that for every fault of O’Donnell that surfaces, her Democrat counterpart/opponent is likely to be a fun house mirror of equal stupidity.

    Sarah Palin’s brand of stupidity is a horrible cancer that has metastasized.

    1. She’s right, but it’s her definition of “theory” that’s skewed. Science’s definition of “theory” is a hypothesis that has successfully been used to predict future behavior, thus as close to a fact as science can come without actually being enshrined as a law. Via extension, I’m guessing her definition is closer to “educated guess”, or what science calls a hypothesis. So just like the whole First Amendment thing, it boils down to her antiintellectualism preventing her from actually knowing what the hell she’s really saying to an educated human being. Her pedagogy may work on sheeple, but some of us USE our heads for something other than a hatrack

      1. People who spout of about how historical evidence is theory are usually the one’s who know the least about history or what constitutes “evidence” to begin with. For fuck’s sake, she’s a textbook case of flim-flammery.

        I think O’Donnell is a prime example of the education failure in this country. When federal office candidates are this blantantly ignorant and proudly use that as their main appeal to the legitimate populist wave of dissatisfaction with the ruling class, it’s time to throw the cards on the table and call the dealer a cheat.

        The sleazy tactics being used to shred legitimacy of the Tea Party are working.

  2. Also, I don’t think these are sleazy tactics meant to discredit the Tea Parties. I think this is the Tea Parties doing what they do. We need to get off that fun bus and stay off.

    1. I say if we can’t steer the bus, we should at least exert some effort tossing the right people under it.