Ethics Dunces: Christine O’Donnell Voters

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.

6 thoughts on “Ethics Dunces: Christine O’Donnell Voters

  1. 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.

  2. Pingback: Chris Plante and the Absurd, Illogical, and Ubiquitous “Favorite Child” Rationalization « Ethics Alarms

  3. Pingback: Dear Christine O’Donnell: No, You’re Not Me, and Please Stop Saying You Are « Ethics Alarms

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.