Chris Coons isn’t just the Democratic nominee for US Senate in Delaware; he’s a superb candidate in his own right, and a great way to defeat the Tea Party. Let’s help him out.
In Delaware, the winner is….
….wingnut right-wing crazy Christine O’Donnell, fresh from endorsements by Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint, whose most high-profile political position is her suggestion that the government should ban masturbation. (UPDATE: a couple of readers object to this, pointing out that she has never explicitly said this. Okay; they have a point. So: she has spoken out against masturbation and said “abstinence is not enough”; she said that age-appropriate sex education would teach children that strangers with candy are “not so creepy”; she helped market The Passion of the Christ; she thinks that stem cell research is human cloning; and she repeatedly made anti-gay slurs against Castle and questioned his sexuality. That’s bad enough).
In this election cycle, one GOP Senate nominee (Joe Miller) thinks unemployment insurance is unconstitutional; another thinks that major parts of the Civil Rights Act are unconstitutional (Rand Paul); and a third thinks that citizens should resort to “Second Amendment remedies” if they don’t like the federal government and sponsored a bill based upon the ideas of L. Ron Hubbard (Sharron Angle). And they all are mainstream in comparison to Christine O’Donnell.
Fortunately for the country, Delaware is still a blue state, and the Democrats have an outstanding candidate: New Castle County Executive Chris Coons, about whom I have blogged before. I’ve known him for 20 years. He is extremely intelligent, dynamic, and committed to public service. (He also has a wicked sense of humor that he will probably keep concealed on the campaign trail, unfortunately).
When he announced for this race, no one gave Chris much of a chance; Mike Castle has it in the bag, they said. But they didn’t count on the GOP’s immolation at the hands of its Frankenstein Tea Party.Â
Chris hasn’t gotten much help from the national Democratic Party. That will change, of course, but we should make sure we don’t blow this great opportunity to get a great Senator. Help out Chris here.
Author: Jonathan Zasloff
Jonathan Zasloff teaches Torts, Land Use, Environmental Law, Comparative Urban Planning Law, Legal History, and Public Policy Clinic - Land Use, the Environment and Local Government. He grew up and still lives in the San Fernando Valley, about which he remains immensely proud (to the mystification of his friends and colleagues). After graduating from Yale Law School, and while clerking for a federal appeals court judge in Boston, he decided to return to Los Angeles shortly after the January 1994 Northridge earthquake, reasoning that he would gladly risk tremors in order to avoid the average New England wind chill temperature of negative 55 degrees.
Professor Zasloff has a keen interest in world politics; he holds a PhD in the history of American foreign policy from Harvard and an M.Phil. in International Relations from Cambridge University. Much of his recent work concerns the influence of lawyers and legalism in US external relations, and has published articles on these subjects in the New York University Law Review and the Yale Law Journal. More generally, his recent interests focus on the response of public institutions to social problems, and the role of ideology in framing policy responses.
Professor Zasloff has long been active in state and local politics and policy. He recently co-authored an article discussing the relationship of Proposition 13 (California's landmark tax limitation initiative) and school finance reform, and served for several years as a senior policy advisor to the Speaker of California Assembly. His practice background reflects these interests: for two years, he represented welfare recipients attempting to obtain child care benefits and microbusinesses in low income areas. He then practiced for two more years at one of Los Angeles' leading public interest environmental and land use firms, challenging poorly planned development and working to expand the network of the city's urban park system. He currently serves as a member of the boards of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (a state agency charged with purchasing and protecting open space), the Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice (the leading legal service firm for low-income clients in east Los Angeles), and Friends of Israel's Environment. Professor Zasloff's other major activity consists in explaining the Triangle Offense to his very patient wife, Kathy.
View all posts by Jonathan Zasloff
Um…can you substantiate that O'Donnell said that the government should ban masturbation? Because it's not in that story you linked to.
Nice try. She has called for government regulation of sex, and has said that it shouldn't stop at abstinence. As I said, it's a suggestion. Keep clapping louder, though.
I second angel eyes's request. Can you substantiate that she had "called for government regulation of sex", even? Again, not in the linked article.
And what precisely do you think angel eyes "nice try" was "trying" to do, and what evidence do you have that she is clapping her hands at anything? I read the same story, and do not see the suggested "suggestion." For all I know, angel eyes would love to be able to substantiate that O'Donnell wants the government to ban masturbation, the better to clobber her in November.
Guys, this is getting a little silly. This is deconstruction gone amok: she has spoken out against it. She repeatedly used anti-gay slurs against her primary opponent. She thinks that stem cell research is human cloning. She did marketing consulting for The Passion of the Christ. I'm not sure you can have a sharper dog whistle there. But I'll update.
I am in no way disputing that she is a crazy homophobe. And I am aware that she has spoken out against masturbation. But that is not the same thing as advocating that the government ban masturbation, and it isn't "deconstruction" to point that out.
Yikes, Jonathan, you're better than that. Thinking something is immoral isn't the same thing as saying it should be illegal. In fact, that understanding used to be at the heart of liberalism. So sad to see that it's such an alien idea now that a modern left-liberal like yourself believes that it's some form of extremism.
I want to hear more from Christine O'Donnell about masturbation before I make up my mind. Laws against it, or masturbation w/ the aid of a device, do still exist in some jurisdictions. Is she an abolitionist or not? In her lawsuit against the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, she (reluctantly) refers to "artificial male sexual organ[s] used by some females in order to act like a male in sexual acts." Would she ban them? My understanding is that she both supports state-funded advocacy of abstinence & holds that abstinence properly includes abstinence from masturbation. Would she support government training on the subject?
Thomas, I think the point is that O'Donnell isn't any kind of liberal, & comes from a tradition that views the distinction between private disapproval & public intolerance differently than liberals do. Zasloff didn't say she thinks masturbation is immoral but shouldn't be illegal, & is an extremist for making the distinction. He thinks she's an extremist because she authentically is one, as has also been widely noted in the conservative press. Give up.
Thus far Christine O'Donnell makes Sara Palin look normal,,,, and that scares the "H" out of me. I did not like the "put your Man Pants on" comment Christine made, or the "Hootig" that followed,,,,,, and it appears after the Karl Rove Epiphany, told to us at a higher and more trembling Pitch,,,he took "got the message".
The face of the Ladies of the GOP has changed from June Cleaver to a to a group of straight shooting Lorena Bobbitt pitbulls in lipstick that have put fear into the hearts and other vital parts of all Republican Men. From what I have seen from O'Donnell supporters,,,, I would worry more about their views on Castration than Masterbation.