Christine O'Donnell: Pearl Harbor, Unemployment Benefits Extension Both 'Tragedies'

On a solemn December 7 marked with melancholy reminders of the 69th anniversary of the attacks on Pearl Harbor and the tragic passing of Elizabeth Edwards, failed Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell deemed the potential reauthorization of unemployment benefits -- as reached in a deal between Obama and GOP leadership -- the day's third and final "tragedy."

"Tragedy comes in threes," O'Donnell said at a publicity event in Virginia. "Pearl Harbor, Elizabeth Edwards's passing and Barack Obama's announcement of extending the tax cuts, which is good, but also extending the unemployment benefits."

O'Donnell continued, explaining why Obama's most important prize from the negotiations could be likened to a Pearl Harbor-like catastrophe.

"The reason I say this is a tragedy is because his announcement of economic recovery was more of a potpourri of sound bytes. It's like he took a little bit of what each party wanted and put it together. It's not a solid plan constructed on sound economic principles."

Unsurprisingly, the comments didn't sit very well, and O'Donnell was shortly thereafter forced to walk them back.

The Hill reports on O'Donnell's about-face:

"That's not what I meant at all," said O'Donnell, who went on to explain that her opposition to the extension of unemployment benefits emanates from how the extension is paid for.

"If we're going to extend the jobless benefits we have got to cut spending programs and that's the flaw in his announcement," she said. "That's the tragedy."

It appears then that O'Donnell is approaching the matter much like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who have both declared their intentions to oppose the bargain because they believe the cost of reauthorizing unemployment benefits for 13 months is too expensive. Instead, they have argued tenaciously for the extension of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and ensuring a minimal estate tax, both which come with a higher price tag over the next two years.

Comments

[Perla]

03:42 PM on 12/29/2010

Her idea of a "sound economic principle" might be living off campaign contributions.

[dragucci]

10:11 AM on 12/17/2010

This twit has walked back so much that she should have eyes put in the back of her head because every time she walks something back she stumbles and falls down and it starts all over again.It's called thinking before you open your mouth,politics 101.

[BestFunnyBlog]

04:07 PM on 12/15/2010

How has she made it this far? Seriously??

[as promised]

06:17 PM on 12/12/2010

Wow. What can you say except "Wow'.
Truly absolutely clueless and classless.
Quite a comparison there.

[Elder Joe Nation]

01:54 PM on 12/12/2010

How is it that this woman is still in the spotlight? She represents the failure of the American political system, not its success. Her own past contradicts who she is now.

The press needs to remove her relevance.

[Katie Bauer]

04:13 PM on 12/12/2010

This.

[KickstandCat]

10:18 AM on 12/12/2010

Yes, tragedy does come in threes: Palin, Bachman, O'Donnell.

[as promised]

06:15 PM on 12/12/2010

Quite a trio indeed.

[Festival]

12:54 AM on 12/12/2010

She's Palin lite, if there is such a scale.

[Kathleen Riley-Daniels]

07:34 PM on 12/11/2010

How about the old adage, engage brain before opening mouth...

[David Borad]

08:57 PM on 12/11/2010

That begs the question, "Does O'Donnell have a brain?"

[KickstandCat]

10:19 AM on 12/12/2010

She's missing one of those components. Sadly it is not the mouth.

[delawarefan]

01:15 AM on 12/11/2010

The biggest tragedy is that you, Christine, are getting any press.

[BinParkRidgeIL]

12:55 AM on 12/11/2010

Let's just be happy she lost and hope she never runs again.

[hmmmmm]

03:43 PM on 12/29/2010

oh she will, if not in jail. she is a career candidate living off of campaign funds.

[GreenKate]

02:45 PM on 01/01/2011

yes, another Newt Gingrich. Perennially speaking out about the wonderful private sector (vs the evil government) while never earning a single legitimate dollar in the private sector.

[stagebandman]

10:18 PM on 12/10/2010

If she never sees another microphone in front of her face, that would be a good thing. No more Christine O'Donnall. She has become a footnote in history. Don't give her any more space, please.

[Todd Behrmann]

06:52 PM on 12/10/2010

She doesn't seem to think the vote against helping 9/11 responders is a tragedy. This woman needs a severe wake up call to reality.

[Alexander DeWolf]

05:36 PM on 12/10/2010

1. This woman has no idea what sound economic principals are
2. Why would anyone want to see the unemployed turned out into the streets, starving. With their children.

[aadunlapesq]

04:36 PM on 12/10/2010

the tea party, neo cons and regular garden variety repubs have to be some of the most moraly bankrupt people to walk the face of the earth. they have no complaint about extending the tax cuts for the uber rich at the price of nearly a trillion dollars but are against the extesnion of unemployment benefits?

[NotJustTalk]

05:24 PM on 12/10/2010

Forget about Christine Odonnell, do you understand how the economy works? We simply can't continue give money to people who are unproductive, we can't afford that. Productivity is what makes the system work and when you pay people for being unproductive, regardless of the circumstances, you just get more of the same.
The government doesn't do anything productive when it takes tax money from people who have earned it, they just take it without commerce occurring. And when they give it to non productive people, they do produce commerce by spending the money, but the money was not earned by producing anything of value. On the other hand, when people keep more of what they have earned by being productive and then they spend that money or create a business, real commerce occurs both ways, by earning the money they have and then by spending it. Thus the economy is stimulated both by the earnings and the spending.
The current tax rate extension won't cost the government anything, it isn't their money to start with! However, not continuing the current tax rates, will COST productive people $700 billion, money that could have been spent stimulating the economy.

Get it?

[Alexander DeWolf]

05:39 PM on 12/10/2010

No one ever got paid more for being "productive". It's about getting more money for the "investors". Who will put that $700 billion into the economy? Not the rich who hope to make more with foreign investments and the dollar being worth less and less. What rich person would ever throw money into any loosing American business endeavor of which most are.

[stagebandman]

10:27 PM on 12/10/2010

You really need to take an economics and / or Government class, because you could not be more wrong. Your works sound like typical Foxian rhetoric.

The government uses taxes for infrastructure, police, military, national parks, libraries, education, health services and hospitals, city services, street cleaning, tree trimming, road paving, bridges, highways, etc. And unless you live in a commune, you have made use of that money. As for "unproductive" people, tell that to the thousands that have been laid off because of factories being outsourced, or just simply closed. Try to find a job in a town that depended on one closed company to support the community. There are towns like that all over the country.

GET IT?

[sonjasmom]

03:20 PM on 12/10/2010

Gee Christine, I would have thought that now that you lost your election, you'd be very interested in making sure unemployment benefits were available.

[delawarefan]

01:17 AM on 12/11/2010

She's never had a real job. How could she collect unemployment benefits?