Glenn Greenwald are among those who are concerned about how Christine O'Donnell and other Tea Party candidates are being treated. They feel there is some uncomfortable elitism and patronizing going on. This really helps them since being "victims" (while scorning others who claim to be) is a core thing they do. [Palin, now O'Donnell, has the "us v. them" shtick down. BTW, the woman QUIT HER JOB ... why doesn't that disgust more people?] The movement, misguided as it is in various respects, expresses some real concerns and grievances. We might add that they are akin (since they are really but a representation of it, pretending something truly novel is here aside) to "family values voters" or the "moral majority" and so forth on that front.
Sure. There are some real grievances and concerns. But, the cynicism and disdain is earned as well. Take this new video from the "Citizens United" (remember them?) crowd. As I noted in comments, the preview is filled with platitudes that could easily be said by left leaning women. Also, let's not forget some of the women glorified here did things like block the ERA -- women power indeed. Bottom line, they are promoting bad things. This much like why naturally conservative black people are so loathe to support the Republican Party. True populism mixes the conservative with the socialist, government guaranteed health care with various hands off government sentiments. This is faux populism.
I will say it again, even if I said it a lot in the comments of GG's posting -- O'Donnell is targeted for a reason. It isn't just elitism, or really that much at all. What after all has she spent her public life doing, other than running for office? [Greenwald cited Alan Grayson as a newcomer to the Congress too; a moronic comment given the guy has an impressive resume, down to serving as a law clerk.] She was a promoter of socially conservative values. And, not just as a matter of faith. She also wanted to affect public policy. To cite an example:
Christine O'Donnell opposes gay marriage and extramarital sex. She gay-baited primary opponent Mike Castle. She has issued statements opposing that which "legitimizes a homosexual lifestyle." She worked with people who "cure" gays. She once said a gay ambassador appointee had "ties to the pedophile-rights movement." (Lest there be any doubt: It was a complete fabrication.)
More here. Oh, by the way, she has a lesbian sister. Cheney has a lesbian daughter but actually publicly opposed anti-homosexual legislation, if going along for the ride when in a support position (that is, as a vice president, who doesn't make final calls on policy). O'Donnell opposed public policies promoting condom distribution because it would help the spread of AIDS. She is not atypical in this regard. Rachel Maddow has reported about how extreme many Tea Party candidates are in respect to abortion rights, even as compared to Republicans normally (recall how the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in NH was a "moderate" conservative for supporting exceptions in the case of rape and incest). See also, here.
Again, I refer you to the book on the SSM fight ("gay marriage" being misleading, since again, you need not be gay to have one) where various conservative* leaning folks supported civil unions. It is quite possible to do so and/or have "values" (some voices at the value voter meet-up going on now, notwithstanding**) while not being a Democrat too. It is almost amusing reading some people (see Glenn Greenwald yesterday -- another piece that didn't quite work for me given this very point ... and why don't he respond to kneejerk comments from this crowd?) who think Obama has done nothing "progressive," while people are voting for people who think he and his ilk are a bunch of "socialists."
I would be able to respect, but still oppose on policy grounds, some people who vote for Republicans who are not so hateful and supportive of restricting our rights (while crying about "liberty" ... the individual mandate fight is particularly ridiculous here, given how few actually are "forced" alone). They can be against same sex "marriage" (wrongly, but so be it) but still understand the importance of some sort of civil union benefits:
The couple had always avoided doing any legal planning, but this summer, after an operation to remove part of Ms. Glazer’s kidney, they realized they had to. They wanted to protect themselves and their joint property, and they wanted to give Ms. Bacolas the right to make medical decisions on Ms. Glazer’s behalf. Registering with the city as domestic partners was the obvious solution, but it sounded as impersonal as a trip to the D.M.V.
They can be wary about federal power, but be consistent about it. For instance, if a state allows same sex marriage (fill it in for Canada) in a case like this, federal benefits should apply:
Lee Kandu never wanted to be a crusader for same-sex marriage. The Castle Rock, Wash., woman just wanted to file for bankruptcy protection so she could keep her house after her spouse - a woman she married in Canada - was diagnosed with terminal cancer.
But her case thrust her into the national debate when a federal judge in Tacoma ruled that Lee and Ann Kandu, a lesbian couple, can not file jointly for bankruptcy protection as a married couple. Federal law, the judge ruled, defines marriage as a "legal union between one man and one woman."
Catholics are a particular group who know the importance of respect for individual freedom as well even as they respect the importance of faith. After all, their views on divorce aren't quite generally accepted, though of course, many in this country are actually "cafeteria Catholics" anyways. This should be understood as O'Donnell and others put themselves out as victims, criticizing their desire to force their personal religious views on the rest of us the ultimate reason why we care about their views on masturbation or the like. I don't doubt that she is a "nice" person in certain respects, but someone who supports very mean policies.
It all seems like the stereotypical dumb blond who couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time. But, many people can; they have nuanced positions, some which I don't agree with, while not being tools. I know some of these people personally. I don't see enough of them in many of the candidates out there. Their flaws might explain why they are so camera shy, so unwilling to actually be honest and upfront outside of their comfort zone (as implied above, I don't think they are fully honest overall). And, I fear November partially for that reason.
---
* Sometimes, I have to deal with people who debate over labels such as "conservative" or "liberal" (or "left" or whatever). Some will define "conservative" in a certain way. So, if a person supports same sex marriage, let's say Ted Olsen, they can't be "conservative." "Conservative" is more like the people covered by John Dean's book, in effect "conservatives without a conscience." But, this isn't really how many people define the term. To not call George Bush's solicitor general "conservative" is a bit ridiculous.
** Keith Olbermann played something said by Huckabee comparing the requirement to provide health insurance to those with a pre-existing condition to getting fire insurance for a burned down house. Oh, it pissed me off. I thought it was sick. A person all for Christian values, even supporting some government spending for that purpose (the horror), compared a person needing health care to someone's house or car.
A rather selective reading of Jesus, I would say.