Bill Maher digs up [Senate candidate] O'Donnell 'witchcraft' clip

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beau_Ouiville
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gnjsdad said:
Bill Maher isn’t the first, nor is he going to be the last, to do something like this. And, although you may be correct as to his motive, it really is beside the point.

Don’t you want to know as much as possible about a candidate before making an emotional investment in them?

I’ve read the coverage of O’Donnnell up to now and what they’ve described as her “crazy” beliefs regarding sexual morality actually correspond closely with what I believe. They made me wish I could vote for her. I don’t live in Delaware. Having said that, this latest revelation raises real character issues, at least for me. What has she really done since “dabbling in witchcraft” in 1999? I’m not at all saying she still does so, or that her conversion isn’t sincere. But I need to see more out of a candidate for such a high public office.

She was a total unknown until now. There’s a lot we still don’t know about her. Please don’t fall in love with the NARRATIVE she and her promoters are presenting.
Click to expand...
Sadly, i agree with you.
 
The third party candidacies of the tea party members, some of whom have won primaries, means that there are some less well-know people standing for high elective office. Their background should be examined closely, as has been done for most candidates.

It is not character assassination to ask for clarification of a statement a candidate made in context, as an adult, in regard to his or her background. Further, I think it is hypocritical that the conservatives seemed to seize on any point in a liberal candidate life (and ofter create false mythology about it) but cry foul at the legitimate inquiry into the history of a conservative person standing for office.

Make no mistake about it – O’Donnell and Paladino in NY have some incidents and positions taken in their history about which they need to be much more forthcoming and about which they need to be closely questioned. And this questing needs to be done by the disinterested media so citizens can make an informed choice in November.
 
Personally, I think it’s wonderful that the left and Mr. Soros are focusing on witchcraft and dopey stuff, while Christine O’Donnell goes about demolishing the professional, voting record, and fiscal irresponsibility of her opponent(s).

She is a beautiful woman, and that must be why her opponents take leave of their senses and bring up dopey stuff while allowing her to focus on their abortion issues, and their anti-gun votes, and the impossibility of their government mismanagement.

But more on that later.

By the way, I didn’t make up all of this campaigning by misdirection: they go for misdirection, while she goes for their “jugulars”.

Anyway, read here:

datechguy.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/any-attack-that-gives-stacy-an-excuse-to-embedd-python/

Thank you, leftists & liberals, socialists and “others”, for creating the opening.

I’m sure that in chess and in karate there is a word for when you fall for one of these false openings.
 
If O’Donnell were a liberal, democratic candidate and someone- like say- Glenn Beck had dug up past New age or Witchcraft dabbling, the left would be screaming “Hateful, intolerant Right- Wing Christians who want to start a witch hunt!”

BTW, in my youth I dabbled in tarot card readings and New age philosophy before I gave my life to Christ in 1989 to become a strong evangelical protestant now looking into the Catholic church, Guess I’d never better run for office.
 
"Unlike fellow tea party upstart Sharron Angle in Nevada, O’Donnell does not have a legislative track record in local government. Unlike Rand Paul in Kentucky, she does not profess a working philosophy crafted from the nation’s vast array of domestic and foreign affairs issues.

Instead, O’Donnell has been devoted to the conservative and religious social issues that have been her political currency on the local and national stage. She has spoken passionately about promoting abstinence, reducing AIDS funding and the drawbacks of allowing women into military academies…

As the race has so far focused more on O’Donnell’s stunning victory and her past missteps — she earns little income, uses campaign funds to help pay for housing that doubles as a campaign office, and has faced outstanding college bills — the 41-year-old candidate has at times seemed frustrated that she cannot turn the spotlight onto policy issues.

Last week, she was named to a list of “most crooked candidates” by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which is circulating an online petition to ask the U.S. attorney in Delaware to open a criminal investigation into O’Donnell’s use of campaign funds. The group also plans to ask the Federal Election Commission to review the campaign spending."

latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-odonnell-20100919,0,683191,print.story
 
Ah, yes, the crew from CREW:

To quote myself:

The “so-called” watchdog group is actually linked to George Soros AND Joe Biden.

Sloan [the “CREW-chief” ] used to work for Joe Biden, whose former Senate seat from Delaware is now being applied for by Christine O’Donnell. And now Sloan, using George Soros’s money, is attacking Christine O’Donnell who demolished Mike Castle, the most leftward RINO in Congress. [Sloan also used to work for Conyers and Chuck Schumer. So Sloan got REALLY good training in political tricks. All Democrats by the way, effective campaigners but not very effective government managers, but that’s irrelevant.]

My goodness.

Read on:

Over at the nonpartisan-sounding Minnesota Monitor - that outfit funded by a totally nonpartisan-sounding outfit known as the “Center for Independent Media”; which in turn “shared office space” with the totally non-partisan sounding Media Matters: A George Soros Joint -

Well, that’s not really accurate. …who is bringing the suit: something called Minnesotans for Responsible Government (MRG). MRG is a Republican / Conservative front organization used to file silly lawsuits against Democraticic public officials.

Let’s not bog down with the details of the lawsuit or its defendant. For purposes here, it’s irrelevant. more concerned about our potential to make Minnesota the first state where the number of votes cast in an election actually exceeds the number of residents in the state than I am about who he links to on his official website.

Let’s start from the beginning.

When Minnesota Monitor exposed some rather exotic financial relationships between TelePastor Mac Hammond and his church that could conceivably damage the church’s 501(c) status, they forwarded the documentation they found to a group called “Citizens for Responsibility in Washington” (CREW).

… thought it odd at the time, since a normal person would have either a) done nothing at all; or b) reported the information to the appropriate enforcement agency (in this case, the IRS). Odder still, was the fact that a minister playing fast and loose with his nonprofit status in Minnesota has little to do with ethics in Washington.

So who is CREW? Well, according to their website, CREW:

…targets government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests. We will help Americans use litigation to shine a light on those who betray the public trust…

And a quick check of its press releases, shows us that they tend to target government officials of one particular party. Presumably Democratics never ever sacrifice the “common good” to “special interests.”

… continued confusion as to how Mac Hammond fits into that mission.

Now, let’s take a look at CREW’s principals:

Melanie Sloan, Executive Director

Melanie Sloan serves as CREW’s Executive Director. Prior to starting CREW, she served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia where, from 1998-2003, she successfully tried cases before dozens of judges and juries. Before becoming a prosecutor, Ms. Sloan served as Minority Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, working for Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI) and specializing in criminal justice issues.

In 1994, Ms. Sloan served as Counsel for the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by then-Representative Charles Schumer (D-NY). There, she drafted portions of the 1994 Crime Bill, including the Violence Against Women Act. In 1993, Ms. Sloan served as Nominations Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, under then-Chairman, Senator Joe Biden (D-DE).

So the Executive director is a well-traveled Democratic operative. There’s a shock! What else can we dig up? Oh, how about this:

Naomi Seligman Steiner, Deputy Director and Communications

Director Naomi Seligman Steiner serves as CREW’s Deputy Director and Communications Director. She has worked extensively as a communications professional, developing and managing media strategies for campaigns, elected officials and nonprofit organizations. Prior to joining CREW, Ms. Seligman Steiner was the communications director for the nonprofit, media watchdog group, Media Matters for America. -

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

There’s Media Matters again. Funny how that name keeps popping up.

Oh, but I’m sure it’s nothing. After all, the nonpartisan-sounding Center for Independent Media, which bankrolls the nonpartisan-sounding Minnesota Monitor only “shared office space” for a little with with the nonpartisan-sounding Media Matters of which the second officer listed on the website of nonpartisan-sounding Citizens for Ethics in Washington lists as a resume bullet.

Or maybe - just maybe - they’re constituent parts of a bigger machine. A sort of “left-wing attack machine” if you will. CIM is the propaganda arm. CREW does the legal wet work and hatchet jobbery. We’re starting to get beyond coincidences here.

So what?

Good question. George Soros can spend their money however they want.

[Well, not always. It should be noted that Sloan is NOT going after Al Franken for using convict labor… felony ex-cons are not permitted to vote, except for Franken. Oops.]

The fact that these folks are bought and paid for by George Soros or some Vast Left Wing Conspiracy to pump out some uniform message that they think will lead to a glorious socialistic future is ultimately of no moment.

But when same people assail someone else’s cred by claiming they’re a “paid Republican operative” or a “party hack” just link back to this post and laugh at them.

Gotcha.

So Sloan used to work for Joe Biden (D), whose former Senate seat from Delaware is now being applied for by Christine O’Donnell (R). And now Sloan is attacking Christine O’Donnell. And Sloan is using money from George Soros.

Follow all that?

[source: the internet. But you can use Google just as well as I can.]
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
I think this a unprecedented for a senate candidate.

"WASHINGTON — Tea party favorite Christine O’Donnell, whose Republican primary upset in Delaware’s Senate race shocked the GOP, canceled appearances Sunday on two national news shows. Meanwhile, comedian Bill Maher dug up a clip of O’Donnell appearing on his “Politically Incorrect” show in 1999 in which she says she “dabbled in witchcraft.”

The context of what led to her comments is not clear, and O’Donnell is laughing while she talks. “I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven,” she said. " … I hung around people who were doing these things. I’m not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do," she said.

“… One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn’t know it. I mean, there’s little blood there and stuff like that,” she said. “We went to a movie and then had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar.” Since O’Donnell’s upset of nine-term Rep. Mike Castle, opponents have unearthed unflattering age-old television clips. Her campaign didn’t immediately return a telephone message Saturday, but she has in the past dismissed her previous comments."

google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i9rv3pJ0e0ju_X-K2vMUfo7Mah-wD9IAMCMO1
Click to expand...
Anyone that knows anything about BM (Bill Maher) knows he is a condescending hack. I won’t even watch him no matter who’s program he’s on, the last straw for me is when he was complaining that Obama was not taking a stronger stand on an issue (can’t even remember which one) and said all he has to do is take a strong stand because the American people are not smart enough to figure it out anyway.:rolleyes:

I guess there are people that think he’s credible but…🤷
 
www.christine2010.com

Actually, you need to know your enemies. Who are these people. Are they legit? Or are they hiding behind a false flag and using money from dubious sources to smear a citizen candidate who is up against a raft of career politicians.

Important stuff.

Here are some smears and O’Donnell’s responses:

christine2010.com/christine-counters/

Not sure if she qualifies as a community organizer; possibly she does.

But here is some biographical information. Read the bottom paragraph.

christine2010.com/meet-christine/
 
In the recent Republican primary, O’Donnell got 55% of the vote to Castle’s 45%.

Keep Castle’s 45% in mind when reading the following which is dated July.

And if you’re wondering why O’Donnell has generated so much hostility, then perhaps her pro-life credits explain.
Delaware Senate Candidate Christine O’Donnell Gets Pro-Life Endorsement
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 16, 2010

Dover, DE (LifeNews.com) – Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell has received the endorsement of the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life women’s group. O’Donnell faces pro-abortion and pro-embryonic stem cell research candidate Mike Castle in the Republican primary for the chance to take on Democrat Chris Coons.

The three are vying for the seat currently held by pro-abortion Democrat Ted Kaufman, who was named to the seat by the state’s Democratic governor to replace pro-abortion Vice President Joe Biden.

However, Kaufman has decided not to seek a full term.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA List Candidate Fund, told LifeNews.com that “Delaware families deserve the pro-life leadership Christine O’Donnell so capably provides."

“Unlike her primary opponent, who has an explicitly pro-abortion voting record, O’Donnell has expressed her strong determination to be a vocal advocate for women and unborn children in abortion debates on the floor of the U.S. Senate," she said.

“A new women’s movement which affirms its original pro-life roots is making its way to the U.S. Senate and O’Donnell is one of its brightest new stars," Dannenfelser added.

O’Donnell is a marketing consultant and nationally known as a regular political commentator and a strong voice for the pro-life perspective on cable and network television. She promoted the pro-life ethic as a member of the Board of Directors for Birthright of Delaware until May 2008 and has led delegations to the U.N. to lobby on behalf of pro-life causes.

Dannenfelser said Castle’s voting record shows negligible support for laws protecting the unborn. He voted for the Foreign Relations Authorization Act which funds abortion overseas through the Office of Global Women’s Issues and supported the public funding of abortion in the District of Columbia.

O’Donnell will face Mike Castle in the September 14th Republican primary and either candidate comes out ahead against Coons for the November general election.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in Delaware finds Castle with 47% support, down eight points from late April. Coons gets 36% of the vote, his best showing to date. In April, Castle held a 55% to 32% lead over Coons. Prior to this month’s findings, Castle has earned between 53% and 56% of the vote in surveys back to January. Support for Coons has ranged from 27% to 32%.

Coons runs virtually even with O’Donnell who picks up 41% of the vote to the Democrat’s 39%.
 
Some interesting stuff here also:

marklevinfan.com/

Keep in mind that the primary election was only last week. After the primary, O’Donnell only had somewhere around $20-50K available remaining for her campaign.

However, in the few days that followed, her attackers were so strong that people looked into her candidacy and finding things to be favorable, donations flooded in and her campaign treasury is now almost $2 million. Not bad for one week for someone that no one had heard of except for the pro-life community.
The point I wanted to make when I distracted myself is that a lot of the campaign literature and Web info and etc is based on O’Donnell’s challenge to Castle.

It will take a few days to update every thing to bring Chris Coons accomplishments (or lack of them) to the fore.*
 
Just curious as to what is better. A person who was curious about paganism in their youth and now tries to live as a Christian, or a person that was Catholic in their youth that is now a strident anti-Christian?
 
JeffreyGerard said:
Just curious as to what is better. A person who was curious about paganism in their youth and now tries to live as a Christian, or a person that was Catholic in their youth that is now a strident anti-Christian?
Click to expand...
👍:cool:😛
 
JeffreyGerard said:
Just curious as to what is better. A person who was curious about paganism in their youth and now tries to live as a Christian, or a person that was Catholic in their youth that is now a strident anti-Christian?
Click to expand...
🙂
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Your entire post is an irrelevant ad hominem attack. May we deal with Ms. O’Donnell’s background, not those who have issue with it?
Click to expand...
Actually, the background of the people making the accusation against O"Donnell IS relevant. It shows the possibility that whatever “dubious” things she has done, whether those things are indeed “dubious” or not could depend on the political leanings and agenda of the people making the allegations and accusations against her.
Many folks, who were, let’s say, PRO-CHOICE Liberals would definitely be willing to OVERSTATE an apparent (but not proven) aalegationa against to meke it look like it had more “strength” than it would normally have. The same would go to a Conservative watchdog group amking accusations against a Liberal candidate, :rolleyes:
 
gnjsdad said:
…Don’t you want to know as much as possible about a candidate before making an emotional investment in them?

…But I need to see more out of a candidate for such a high public office.

She was a total unknown until now. There’s a lot we still don’t know about her. Please don’t fall in love with the NARRATIVE she and her promoters are presenting.
Click to expand...
I suppose you make valid points and caution wisely. After all, had the same cautions been heeded nearly two years ago, we may have dodged a bullet and avoided the election of the current occupant of the Oval Office.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
The third party candidacies of the tea party members, some of whom have won primaries, means that there are some less well-know people standing for high elective office. Their background should be examined closely, as has been done for most candidates.

It is not character assassination to ask for clarification of a statement a candidate made in context, as an adult, in regard to his or her background. Further, I think it is hypocritical that the conservatives seemed to seize on any point in a liberal candidate life (and ofter create false mythology about it) but cry foul at the legitimate inquiry into the history of a conservative person standing for office.

Make no mistake about it – O’Donnell and Paladino in NY have some incidents and positions taken in their history about which they need to be much more forthcoming and about which they need to be closely questioned. And this questing needs to be done by the disinterested media so citizens can make an informed choice in November.
Click to expand...
It should be right to ask candidates on BOTH sides of the political spectrum to clarify statements about their pasts.
Therefore, it is then Ok for reporters and other to ask Barry to clarify whatn his years in Indonesia were all about, why he seems to favor the Muslim viewpoint in certain policy decisions, and why he seems to have a “dislike” of the religion he professes to be believe in (see the ordering of covering up of Christian symbols when he spoke at Notre Dame.)
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
It should be right to ask candidates on BOTH sides of the political spectrum to clarify statements about their pasts.
Therefore, it is then Ok for reporters and other to ask Barry to clarify whatn his years in Indonesia were all about, why he seems to favor the Muslim viewpoint in certain policy decisions, and why he seems to have a “dislike” of the religion he professes to be believe in (see the ordering of covering up of Christian symbols when he spoke at Notre Dame.)
Click to expand...
First of all, it is uncharitable and rude to refer to the president as ‘Barry’, since that is not his name.

Overzealous aides covered up the symbols at Georgetown – don’t read into that some type of reference to Islam. And I think the president’s background was thoroughly covered and he answered a raft of questions about it. There was bi-partisan review of the candidates.

But you are still at it – this thread is on O’Donnell. Can’t you stay on her?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top