I know I’ve been accused many times of being a RINO, primarily because of my “hands-off” stance when it comes to social issues outside of entitlement program spending. It is too difficult for me to abandon true fiscal conservatism, particularly in these times, to even suggest a single piece of legislation for the sake of controlling the private behaviors of the people because of the expense of enforcement. That is a small part of the reason why I have had no love for Christine O’Donnell from the very beginning.
The larger part of my problems with her are linked to much more substantial issues than unfortunate turns of phrases on topics like paganism and sex. About twenty years ago, I stepped beyond the little job of passing out literature for political campaigns into the back room, working as a personal assistant to a campaign manager in a state-level race. In hindsight, I know now I was thrown into the deep end, working for a candidate that bluntly had far too many skeletons in the closet for even the most gifted campaign manager to overcome. No sooner would we manage to put out one fire in the media, then another would spring up in its place. By the end of the campaign, I was disillusioned and exhausted. An old friend asked me months later when I had joined him on another campaign, “So, what did you learn?” I looked at him, and said flippantly, “When there’s smoke, there’s usually fire, and when the fire is too hot, it’s time to get out of the kitchen.”
The O’Donnell campaign is full of smoke – sex, evolution, witchcraft, gays, and gaffs. But the fire is more unsettling, and decidedly very hot. While one might be tempted to overlook the accounting issues in her campaign that were brought to light by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, that would be a mistake. Motives aside, the fact remains that they did dig up evidence that should at the very least cause one to pause. Taken together with O’Donnell’s other financial reporting issues with her evangelical non-profit organization, and it shows a troubling pattern.
It is true that the non-profit issue is something that is relatively new – small budget charities had not been required to file tax forms previous to 2007 – it is not something that should be swept aside as it may be for most other organizations. O’Donnell has chosen to run for office, and if we are really looking for change in Washington, the people should expect much more from her than shoddy accounting practices. Otherwise, it is the insanity of doing the same thing, and expecting a different outcome.
The numbers are not in O’Donnell’s favor right now, and that is a good thing. Those financial woes not only point out shortcomings in her accounting skills, they also indicate that she may not be trustworthy – something that should be a standard trait for any candidate, even though we often consider politicians liars. While it is tempting to support her on the merit of some of her ideas, she is not a good candidate for office. If recognizing that an individual is honestly not qualified to hold office has become a sign of disloyalty to the party, the GOP will become the sinking ship that the progressives claimed the party would be not so long ago. The Dems recognize that Alvin Greene is not worthy of their support, in spite of the fact that he is on the ballot for them in South Carolina. While O’Donnell is not quite as bad as Greene, she is not much better. The Tea Party is pushing the idea of changing (or removing) the political establishment. Perhaps instead of really radical change or demolition, the movement needs to examine the parts of the whole. Ignoring the time-tested means of vetting candidates – looking into the backgrounds and ideologies of people before supporting them – isn’t working so well. Maybe it’s time to start using those old tools to push the new message, so at least the messengers are worth supporting.
Secured by