I find Gawker vile and generally don’t read them, but I saw this story – “I Had a One Night Stand With Christine O’Donnell” listed at Memeorandum and wanted to respond.

Where’s the proof?  Are they ready to provide any verification?  Accusations like this not only hurts political careers, but they destroy lives so are they ready to back themselves up?  The timing of this makes it even less credible.  It seems like a pre-election hack job written by somebody with the maturity level of a 13-year-old.

You know you have a crap story on your hands when even the left thinks its awful (not to mention not credible).  Even though it is hard for public figures to sue for libel, I hope she does.  They deserve to lose a ton of money over this.

Update: Michelle Malkin lists Gawker’s history of having, ahem, problems with the truth.

Also O’Donnell’s campaign responds:

“This story is just another example of the sexism and slander that female candidates are forced to deal with. From Secretary Clinton, to Governor Palin, to soon-to-be Governor Haley, Christine’s political opponents have been willing to engage in appalling and baseless attacks — all with the aim of distracting the press from covering the real issues in this race. Even the National Organization for Women gets it, but Christine’s opponent disturbingly does not. As Chris Coons said on September 16th he would not condone personal attacks against Christine. Classless Coons goons have proven yet again to have no sense of common decency or common sense with their desperate attacks to get another rubber stamp for the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda. Such attacks are truly shameful, but they will not distract us from making our case to Delaware voters — and keeping the focus on Chris Coons’ record of higher taxes, increased spending, and as he has done again here, breaking his promises to the voters.”

The National Organization for Women (NOW) on Thursday condemned the tabloid website Gawker for publishing an anonymous account: NOW issued a statement late Thursday stating that “sexist, misogynist attacks against women have no place in the electoral process, regardless of a particular candidate’s political ideology.”

“NOW repudiates Gawker’s decision to run this piece. It operates as public sexual harassment. And like all sexual harassment, it targets not only O’Donnell, but all women contemplating stepping into the public sphere,” said NOW president Terry O’Neill.

8 comments
  1. The left may publicly condemn these type of actions but secretly I think they approve of them. We are seeing
    just how low, how down and dirty they will get when they see their power slip from their hands!!

  2. I wish this kind of stuff stayed behind closed doors, but let’s see, I believe she’s been against condoms, masturbation, pre-martial sex, homosexuality, etc. These positions seem to make inconsistencies in her private sexual life at least a little bit relevant. (Although I’m not sure I’d call it a one-night stand since she didn’t have sex.) So unfortunate, but I wouldn’t call it anything near a new low.

      1. The proof is the the guy said it. Eyewitness testimony, assuming it’s believed, is all that’s needed to convict in criminal court.

      2. The anonymous nature of the original story is actually the biggest problem here (although the accuser has been now been identified). I would hope that the reporter and editor took steps to assess the credibility of the accuser before publishing the story. If they didn’t, they were absolutely wrong to go with it. It’s most likely true — it’s telling that O’Donnell hasn’t denied the basic facts. If true, I think there is at least marginal relevance to the extent it shows her not to practice what she preaches. That said, I think the story only shows she’s a human like the rest of us. In fact, she showed a lot more self-control than most people, as she had the strength to say “no” even after drinking and hopping into bed. There are a lot of reasons for liberals to be against O’Donnell — this ain’t one of them.

      3. The anonymous nature of the original story is actually the biggest problem here (although the accuser has been now been identified). I would hope that the reporter and editor took steps to assess the credibility of the accuser before publishing the story. If they didn’t, they were absolutely wrong to go with it. It’s most likely true — it’s telling that O’Donnell hasn’t denied the basic facts. If true, I think there is at least marginal relevance to the extent it shows her not to practice what she preaches. That said, I think the story only shows she’s a human like the rest of us. In fact, she showed a lot more self-control than most people, as she had the strength to say “no” even after drinking and hopping into bed. There are a lot of reasons for liberals to be against O’Donnell — this ain’t one of them.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Rubio Wins Third GOP Primetime Debate, CNBC Loses

Shane Vander Hart: U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) distinguished himself during the CNBC GOP debate, the CNBC debate moderators not so much.

Mark Jacobs Donated to Jon Corzine

Mark Jacobs claims to be a lifelong Republican, but donations to Democrats…

Ted Cruz Sweeps Remaining Wyoming Delegates

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) won the remaining 14 delegates at the Wyoming Republican State Convention bringing his total to 23 delegates from the state.

The Disturbing Reliance Upon Political Polling

So much is being determined on political polling for the 2016 race, are these polls something that we can really rely on? Shane Vander Hart says no.