******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Friday, October 29, 2010

Not Buying The Crocodile Tears From Gawker's Enablers

I'm not buying all the phony expressions of outrage from left-bloggers and pundits over the Gawker article about Christine O'Donnell.

From the moment she won the primary, O'Donnell was sexualized by the left with the excuse being O'Donnell's 1996 video regarding masturbation.  That 14-year old tape has been the focus of jokes and ridicule without let up.

Rachel Maddow started it off on election night with much fanfare by announcing she had uncovered the video and the left blogosphere followed right along, including liberal feminists (image right).

The New York Times started its lead article about O'Donnell's primary victory by talking about, you guessed it, masturbation.

The attacks from the left-blogpshere based on O'Donnell's sexuality were so intense that columnist Kirsten Powers demanded the bloggers and media "grow up."

The media is so obsessed that as I am writing this post while listening to Jay Leno on television, Leno is joking about how if O'Donnell is elected she will push her "anti-masturbation agenda."

I have no doubt that the people who run Gawker thought they would be heroes for taking another sexual pound of flesh out of O'Donnell, just as Rachel Maddow became a hero for taking the 1996 video national. 

And why wouldn't Gawker think it would be greeted with joyous laughter, after all, exposing and mocking O'Donnell's sexuality had gone mainstream.

But Gawker went too far, with the overstated title of the article (it was not a "one night stand" as that term usually is used) and the details of O'Donnell's pubic hair.

The backlash was inevitable.

I don't believe for a second that the criticisms of Gawker by most of the left-blogosphere are genuine. 

These are crocodile tears from people who are afraid that the backlash will help O'Donnell politically, so they are pretending to unite in her defense on this limited point.  Just read almost any of their posts, and they condemn Gawker while taking pains to point out that O'Donnell still is crazy and dangerous.

The left-blogosphere and media enabled Gawker, and if there is any justice, the monster they created will come back to bite them in the voting booth on November 2.

Update:  I should point out that even before primary night and before the 1996 video was outed by Maddow, I predicted this would happen, Nuts and Sluts In Delaware.  And of course, Gawker led the way in sexualized attacks on Sarah Palin, to the great cheers from the people who now are claiming Gawker has gone too far.  Gawker's attack on O'Donnell is the culmination of two years of misogynistic attacks on conservative women by the left-blogosphere and media.  Gawker is you.

And NOW deserves little credit.  NOW originally refused to condemn Gawker:

“We’re going to pass on this one,” Mai Shiozaki told The Examiner. I asked if this is generally a topic they try to stay away from. “Thanks, we’re passing.”
NOW only issued a statement (in which it also accused O'Donnell of taking positions which are "dangerous for women") after the heat grew too intense.

Related Posts:
Rachel Maddow Sexualizes Christine O'Donnell
"What's up w/obsession about O'Donnell's opinions on sex?"

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share


  1. I don't think the Anonymous D*uchebag boy would have taken 12 photos and kept them for 3 years. They were friends for 12 hours and it was over. Whose photos were they?

    If it was Anonymous D*uchebag who intended to humiliate her, would he not have done it the day after she won the primary?

    This looks like dirty politics given the timing and dirty politics points to the O'Donnell camp. Why would Coons do anything so stupid up by double digits?

  2. I think you are right. They've noticed that women are running from the left in droves and they've put two and two together. But, the left is what the left is. They can't help themselves.

  3. It won't. She's done and an easy target. I like her, would vote for her, but she is not a good candidate for THAT state. This has been an uphill battle from the onset.

    You are asking people of questionable political and moral judgment to suddenly get offended by a questionable act and vote for a person they have dismissed long ago as an "I feel sorry for you" vote.

    Won't happen. That state, states like California and Illinois are doomed to die the death greedy, corrupted liberals are doomed to die. What should happen is we put out lifeboats in the form of moving vans and get the remaining few decent people out of those states, then cut the tow rope and set the states adrift.

  4. Yes, she'll probably lose. But November 2nd will be one battle of a larger war - don't send the troops home yet. For some reason, I think Christine O'Donnell will exact her political revenge ala Sarah Palin. It's almost as if her being elected hasn't been Plan A all along. Maybe Plan A was to build her national profile.

  5. Maybe NOW wasn't sincere in their condemnation of Gawker BUT there is an upside. In the future, each time there is a new sexual attack on conservative women reporters will ask NOW what their position is and, should the attack be similar to this one, it would force them to again denounce the attack. Otherwise the news cycle will center of why NOW doesn't consider this new attack to be as horrendous as the O'Donnell attack.

    The upside to that is 1: the attacks will stop or 2: the debate turns from the attack itself to why there are such sexist attacks on conservative women from supposedly good and tolerant people and why the decent, fair-minded folks at NOW who are defending women from sexism everywhere aren't denouncing the attacks.


  6. Did NOW condemn Joy Behar for twice calling Sharron Angle a "bitch"? I don't think so. No, I'm starting to get on board with the paranoid types who think NOW et al are jumping on this in a too-clever attempt to get conservatives to have second-thoughts about O'Donnell.