It’s not a smear or a lie, and it certainly isn’t trivial. The upset winner of Delaware’s Republican Senate primary, Tea Party darling Christine O’Donnell, has a well-established pattern of irresponsible financial conduct, including living off of her campaign funds, a violation of Federal election law. She has not made a bona fide effort to support herself other than running for office, and she has a record of misleading and dishonest statements that show a reckless disrespect for candor and the truth.
In short, she is not trustworthy, and the fact that O’Donnell has her Tea Party rhetoric down pat doesn’t change the fact that it is just plain stupid to trust someone who is dishonest in her public statements and fiscally irresponsible in her private life to bring honor, integrity and fiscal restraint to Congress. Voting for proven liars and corrupt politicians because they advocate the “right” policies is how we ended up with elected officials like Charlie Rangel, John Murtha, and too many others, in both parties, to count. Christine O’Donnell’s record shows us exactly the kind of individual we need to keep as far away from our government as possible.
Passion and anger have thier place, Tea Partiers. Paying attention, however, and voting responsibly are even more important. A movement can’t have integrity if the people who lead it have no integrity.
Voting for O’Donnell in the primary was ethically indefensible, and electing her to the Senate would be a disgrace.
Ethics Alarms 
I think we need a “none of the above” choice on the ballot. If 50% or more of the voters vote “none of the above” a new election is held with new candidates, and the political parties involved foot the bill for the cost (divvied up proportional to the number of votes their lousy candidate was able to dredge up).
We need better candidates, but we have a system that discourages or excludes better candidates. The only people who can run for office are the independently wealthy and the intermittantly employed (or unemployed). Sure O’Donnell supports herself by running for office. If she had a job, she wouldn’t be able to run for office.
I feel sorry for the people in California who have to decide between Barbara Boxer and Carly Fiorina. I want a “none of the above” option.
I fully agree. When your options on the ballot are 1) Fiscally Irresponsible
2) Morally Corrupt
3) Ethically Challenged
How does one vote?
Well, so far I’d suggest that O’Donnell qualifies on all three counts. She mismanages her own finances (1), lies (2) and violates the election laws while misusung funds given for other purposes. (3).
Nevada has a “none of the above” option, but no mandated action if it “wins.” I’d like the option with a mandated new election with only new candidates able to run.
Pingback: Chris Plante and the Absurd, Illogical, and Ubiquitous “Favorite Child” Rationalization « Ethics Alarms
Pingback: Dear Christine O’Donnell: No, You’re Not Me, and Please Stop Saying You Are « Ethics Alarms