PDA

View Full Version : I want to hurt myself


jimM47
10-20-2010, 08:58 PM
Christine O'Donnell speaks about the Constitution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg

I read several news articles about O'Donnell questioning where Separation of Church and State is found in the Constitution, and they were unclear. Could she have been attempting to make a subtler point? That say, for instance: the words "separation of church and state" are not in the constitution (they aren't); that Jefferson's "wall of separation" doesn't describe either current case law or original public meaning (it doesn't); that the first amendment doesn't apply to the states (it doesn't); that establishment clause wasn't meant to be incorporated (applied against the states) in the fourteenth amendment (it probably was, but the evidence is mixed); that current Court precedent over-reads the establishment clause (there's a legitimate debate).

NOPE! Found this video of the whole thing and it turns out the search for subtlety is wishful thinking. The crazy [expletive deleted] just doesn't know a [expletive deleted] thing about the Constitution she's trying to get the chance to swear to uphold.

< / R A N T >

Don Zeko
10-20-2010, 10:40 PM
Christine O'Donnell speaks about the Constitution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg

I read several news articles about O'Donnell questioning where Separation of Church and State is found in the Constitution, and they were unclear. Could she have been attempting to make a subtler point? That say, for instance: the words "separation of church and state" are not in the constitution (they aren't); that Jefferson's "wall of separation" doesn't describe either current case law or original public meaning (it doesn't); that the first amendment doesn't apply to the states (it doesn't); that establishment clause wasn't meant to be incorporated (applied against the states) in the fourteenth amendment (it probably was, but the evidence is mixed); that current Court precedent over-reads the establishment clause (there's a legitimate debate).

NOPE! Found this video of the whole thing and it turns out the search for subtlety is wishful thinking. The crazy [expletive deleted] just doesn't know a [expletive deleted] thing about the Constitution she's trying to get the chance to swear to uphold.

< / R A N T >

Good points all, Jim. Apropos of our earlier discussion about the Tea Party and it's relevance (or lack thereof), Do you think O'Donnell's nomination would have been possible in the pre-Tea Party GOP? If not, do you think that the Tea Party movement is what made her nomination possible, or was it some other cause? If yes, do you think that O'Donnell is an aberration, or is she somehow representative of effect of the Tea Party on the GOP?

operative
10-20-2010, 11:32 PM
While the latter part of her answer showed that she really didn't know anything, her actual initial statement is not incorrect in a literalist reading of the Constitution.

Seriously I don't really want to defend O'Donnell but...

rcocean
10-21-2010, 01:17 AM
Christine O'Donnell speaks about the Constitution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg

NOPE! Found this video of the whole thing and it turns out the search for subtlety is wishful thinking. The crazy [expletive deleted] just doesn't know a [expletive deleted] thing about the Constitution she's trying to get the chance to swear to uphold.

< / R A N T >

Nothing is more humorous than reading or hearing supercilious numbskulls rant - not JimM47 - about the "constitution" when its obvious they know nothing about the constitution or its history.

JimM47 of course is not one of those numbskulls.

NEWSFLASH! Just because current SCOTUS case law CURRENTLY supports an INTERPRETATION of the constitution doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with that INTERPRETATION is an idiot.

There is no "Separation of Church and State" explicitly stated in the 1st amendment. The SCOTUS didn't discover the 1st admendment applied to states until the 1920s; and never used the phrase "Separation of church and state" until after WWII. Prayer in the classroom was 'constitutional' from 1789 to 1962, that is over 170 years. At that point a majority of the SCOTUS ( not all) decided prayer was 'unconstitutional'.

Its too bad liberals think the actual wording and meaning of the "Constitution" is irrelevant and want to mock anyone who disagrees. Althouse has an excellent post here. (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/10/once-you-understand-that-to.html)

Don Zeko
10-21-2010, 01:33 AM
Did you watch the video? If so, did it sound to you like she knew that the 1st Amendment contained the Establishment Clause, but sounded confused because she subscribed to right-wing legal theories? How about the section where she didn't know what the 16th Amendment did?

AemJeff
10-21-2010, 01:42 AM
Did you watch the video? If so, did it sound to you like she knew that the 1st Amendment contained the Establishment Clause, but sounded confused because she subscribed to right-wing legal theories? How about the section where she didn't know what the 16th Amendment did?

I don't think rc really cares very much about such niceties as whether what he's saying bears any relation to the truth. He just seem to like to bash liberals, even if that requires the occasional non-sequitur.

rcocean
10-21-2010, 02:10 AM
Did you watch the video? If so, did it sound to you like she knew that the 1st Amendment contained the Establishment Clause, but sounded confused because she subscribed to right-wing legal theories? How about the section where she didn't know what the 16th Amendment did?

Wow, Zeek I have absolutely no idea what you mean by the phrase:

"contained the Establishment Clause"

Your statement is so vague and/or ambiguous its meaningless.

To be more specific and relevant to the matter, nothing in O'Donnell's comments indicates she didn't understand the WORDING/Meaning of the 1st Amendment. I can only quote from (GASP!!!) Rush Limbaugh:

RUSH: That's not in the Constitution. "Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, and the fact that people laughed about this is what's really scary. Most of the Framers and the congressmen who were first elected to the House and Senate prayed every day and went to church in Congress on Sundays, and in fact the House is opened every day with a prayer! Apparently back in the day, the Founders didn't know that there was separation of church and state. All the Founders said was that the state shall not establish an official religion. It does not say that people in government shall not practice or cannot practice a religion. The Senate opens with a prayer every day, as does the House. The House has a chaplain, for crying out loud!

So this story was purposely written to make it look like Christine O'Donnell does not know what's in the First Amendment, when she was right. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the words "separation of church and state," and nowhere in the Constitution will you find anything written to convey the meaning that religion is not permitted to be part of government. All it says is that the government shall "establish" one. The United States government cannot proclaim, "This is a Christian nation." It cannot proclaim, "This is a Jewish state," cannot proclaim the official religion of our country is Islam. They cannot do it. But we can have Islamists in government, we can have Christians in government, we can have Jews in government, and they can pray while serving! This has been one of the tricks of the left for as long as I've been alive.

I assume as usual, you won't address the substance of my comments, but simply ask another question.

chiwhisoxx
10-21-2010, 02:20 AM
Did you watch the video? If so, did it sound to you like she knew that the 1st Amendment contained the Establishment Clause, but sounded confused because she subscribed to right-wing legal theories? How about the section where she didn't know what the 16th Amendment did?

I mean...how many politicians today know constitutional amendments off the top of their heads, especially those who aren't lawyers, and especially amendments that aren't part of the bill of rights? It's obviously not great, but it's not particularly shocking either.

As for whether or not O'Donnell was making a subtle point about Establishment Clause jurisprudence or if she's a moron...I don't know, and I'm not sure it's discernible from that clip. I think it is worth reinforcing the idea, however, that interpretation of the Establishment Clause is considerably more complicated than the story we often hear. Jim already went through most of this, but the concept of "separation of church and state" is the beginning of the story, not the end.

Just as an example, here's a case that, if I remember correctly, did make it all the way to the Supreme Court. So somewhere in the northeast, (it doesn't really matter where) there's a state funded voucher program for low income kids. However, some of the kids live pretty far from the school, and being low income kids, can't get themselves to this school. The state decided to provide a school bus for these kids to get them to and from school.

Does this violate the Establishment Clause? I think this is a decent barometer of assessing someones picture of what the Establishment Clause means, and how far it goes.

Don Zeko
10-21-2010, 02:44 AM
Wow, Zeek I have absolutely no idea what you mean by the phrase:

"contained the Establishment Clause"

Your statement is so vague and/or ambiguous its meaningless.

It's not meaningless at all. The (very) charitable reading of O'Donnell's statements is that she knows what the 1st Amendment says, i.e. the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, but doesn't think that those clauses constitute a Separation of Church and State. This would make her a fairly strong conservative that I disagree with strongly, but not an idiot or a lunatic.

But if you watch the video, I think you're putting words into O'Donnell's mouth in order to make her performance here less embarrassing. She doesn't look incredulous about some statement that she understands, but disagrees with. She's obviously genuinely confused, i.e. completely unaware of what he might be referring to. I have even more trouble with someone that's just unaware of what's in the Bill of Rights than I do with someone who interprets those amendments in ways that insufficiently protect the freedoms they are designed to protect.

JonIrenicus
10-21-2010, 02:44 AM
I was listening to Medved the other day and he basically came out and said she was an embarrassment.

He'd still vote for her due to the fact that she will NOT be the guiding light of the senate (just a vote), but he thought she was an albatross around republicans necks and they ought to distance themselves from her.



But before the gloating gets too high, as bad as she is, she is by no means the worst this election season. That prize goes to the one most people choose not to cover and highlight



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDb7l0AAvUY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsNZNLYQzlc



and for good measure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-TeMHys0

Don Zeko
10-21-2010, 02:52 AM
Al Greene's ability to run below the radar is a good example of a flaw in the way we select political arguments and discussions to have. Nobody, and I really do mean nobody, is suggesting that Al Greene would make a good senator, or even that Democrats ought to vote for him. And this means that there's no controversy to cover, there aren't talking heads calling each other names, and there's no way to gin up a big story. Strangely, I think the media is ignoring Afghanistan this election cycle for similar reasons, i.e. that neither party is really attacking the other over it.

JonIrenicus
10-21-2010, 02:55 AM
I mean...how many politicians today know constitutional amendments off the top of their heads, especially those who aren't lawyers, and especially amendments that aren't part of the bill of rights? It's obviously not great, but it's not particularly shocking either.
...

It's not shocking no, but very embarrassing. Embarrassing because anyone running for senate ought to know the Constitution, or at the very least not say something so off as to make the crowd grimace and exclaim loudly in disbelief. Even THEY were shocked at her ignorance.


You could cut her more slack for the specific amendments, pluck most people off the street and I guarantee the bulk will not be able to describe them by number after a certain point. But it still looks really bad. She knows others are going to try and catch her up on such things, shine a spotlight on her weakness of being an intellectual lightweight. The fact is - she is, and now it is even more clear. And while there are plenty of democrats that could be called out in the same manner, what do you expect from such forums where the majority of the interviewers support the democrat?

How many times has Alvin Greene been spotlighted?


Though in fairness, he is so bad it is hard to believe he is real.

graz
10-21-2010, 02:57 AM
But before the gloating gets too high, as bad as she is, she is by no means the worst this election season. That prize goes to the one most people choose not to cover and highlight

To whom are you referring when you say most people?




Based on what?





I smell a liberal straw man or maybe just Medved worship?


/Do you?

jimM47
10-21-2010, 03:13 AM
nothing in O'Donnell's comments indicates she didn't understand the WORDING/Meaning of the 1st Amendment.

This was my reaction when I first read press accounts of the incident. Nothing I saw quoted was inconsistent with a mainstream reading of the Constitution coupled with some needless pedantry. But then I watched the video. I'd love believe that O'Donnell knows what she's talking about but simply failed to communicate that, but I just don't see it. It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of critiques she could be making would hinge heavily on the word "respecting" in the first amendment, but when her opponent accidentally omits that word from his recitation of the first amendment she doesn't leap on it, or even seem to pick up on it. The entire performance, taken as a whole, does make me think she doesn't understand the first amendment and/or is entirely unfamiliar with how it has been applied for longer than she's been alive.

JonIrenicus
10-21-2010, 03:13 AM
Al Greene's ability to run below the radar is a good example of a flaw in the way we select political arguments and discussions to have. Nobody, and I really do mean nobody, is suggesting that Al Greene would make a good senator, or even that Democrats ought to vote for him. And this means that there's no controversy to cover, there aren't talking heads calling each other names, and there's no way to gin up a big story. Strangely, I think the media is ignoring Afghanistan this election cycle for similar reasons, i.e. that neither party is really attacking the other over it.

This is by no means the first or last politician with questionable knowledge or ethics to be chosen or elected. The case you want to make is there is something uniquely stupid and backwards with the tea party group as a whole.

That is a shaky case to maintain. All someone need do is show a senator, congressman, mayor, council member that is clueless and or unethical.

I recall some cases where the corrupt politician even got reelected. Were all those republicans?



For this case, Christine O'Donnel was a bad choice, and it says something negative about the people who supported her. Happy?

JonIrenicus
10-21-2010, 03:18 AM
Count the results.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22alvin+greene%22+senate


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22christine+o%27donnell%22+senate



Christine won months after Alvin did, but fine, Alvin is probably seen as a joke candidate.

Don Zeko
10-21-2010, 03:18 AM
Did you mean to direct this at Graz?

jimM47
10-21-2010, 03:31 AM
Just as an example, here's a case that, if I remember correctly, did make it all the way to the Supreme Court. So somewhere in the northeast, (it doesn't really matter where) there's a state funded voucher program for low income kids. However, some of the kids live pretty far from the school, and being low income kids, can't get themselves to this school. The state decided to provide a school bus for these kids to get them to and from school.

I believe the case you are thinking of is Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education), 330 U.S. 1 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3620075287275437211) (1947) (first incorporating the establishment clause). A New Jersey program reimbursed busfair for transportation to school by all school children, regardless of whether they used the fair to go to public schools or parochial schools. The Court affirmed. Notably Justice Black's opinion explicitly invokes Jefferson's "wall of separation."

stephanie
10-21-2010, 12:18 PM
I mean...how many politicians today know constitutional amendments off the top of their heads, especially those who aren't lawyers, and especially amendments that aren't part of the bill of rights? It's obviously not great, but it's not particularly shocking either.

I think I'm easily shocked, because I do find it shocking or at least really disappointing and embarassing. Especially with regard to O'Donnell, given that the ones in question aren't obscure amendments and have been the focus of much recent commentary.

More than that (because I'll admit that I don't think O'Donnell is especially representative of anything, although I find the fact that so many people -- not you, to be clear -- seem to think the kind of ignorance she displays is a positive, makes her more one of us), I do think our Constitution, including the amendments, is short enough that all politicians, especially ones running for national office ought to know what it says. That includes all the amendments, which I remember having to learn in high school. And, of course, when a politician likes to go on and on about standing up for the Constitution (as if those who disagreed with said politician were anti Constitution) it's especially essential that that politician know what it says. I'm a little tired of being told by people who seem not to have read the Constitution that they care about it more than me.

I linked over at the other thread where this was being discussed a take I thought was at least worth discussing from Daniel Larison, including strong words for those who lamely tried to defend O'Donnell as making some genuine point (as rcocean was, I see that you say it was unclear how ignorant she was, which I disagree with but think is a more defensible position). I'd link it here, but since I got no response before probably not worth the trouble. Larison, of course, shares the more conservative view of the 1st amendment.

Edit: for the record, I'm not as conservative as Larison on church and state jurisprudence, but I'm not especially liberal either.

Starwatcher162536
10-21-2010, 12:32 PM
I'm not sure I see the point when people mention that the actual words "Separation of Church and State" do not appear in the Constitution. Given one sees all government action as a type of ephemeral law, then the establishment clause should be read in such a way that makes it synonymous with the phrase "Separation of Church and State".

Random Thoughts (Not directed at anyone in particular); Fine, whatever, if you want religion to be a respectable topic in the public sphere, that's okay, but don't get your panties in a twist when I comment on how dumb those beliefs are. The new atheists didn't arise in a vacuum ya know?

TwinSwords
10-21-2010, 12:45 PM
I linked over at the other thread where this was being discussed a take I thought was at least worth discussing from Daniel Larison, including strong words for those who lamely tried to defend O'Donnell as making some genuine point (as rcocean was, I see that you say it was unclear how ignorant she was, which I disagree with but think is a more defensible position). I'd link it here, but since I got no response before probably not worth the trouble. Larison, of course, shares the more conservative view of the 1st amendment.

Well, I'm not so sure. I would sound like a broken record, and aggravate you and others enormously, if I said "great links!" and "thanks!" and "good point!" in response to everything I appreciated from other posters. I did read the Larison link you posted and found it quite interesting, but not having said anything to indicate my appreciation, I can understand that you might have felt it was not noticed by anyone.

Here's the link (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/10/19/newsflash-odonnell-doesnt-know-very-much/) for anyone who missed it the first time.

chiwhisoxx
10-21-2010, 12:48 PM
I'm not sure I see the point when people mention that the actual words "Separation of Church and State" do not appear in the Constitution. Given one sees all government action as a type of ephemeral law, then the establishment clause should be read in such a way that makes it synonymous with the phrase "Separation of Church and State".

Random Thoughts (Not directed at anyone in particular); Fine, whatever, if you want religion to be a respectable topic in the public sphere, that's okay, but don't get your panties in a twist when I comment on how dumb those beliefs are. The new atheists didn't arise in a vacuum ya know?

You realize it's not particularly persuasive to just say "the establishment clause has to be read this way because of something about ephemeral law" right?

TwinSwords
10-21-2010, 12:49 PM
I think I'm easily shocked, because I do find it shocking or at least really disappointing and embarassing. Especially with regard to O'Donnell, given that the ones in question aren't obscure amendments and have been the focus of much recent commentary.
Especially among tea partiers.

And, of course, when a politician likes to go on and on about standing up for the Constitution (as if those who disagreed with said politician were anti Constitution) it's especially essential that that politician know what it says. I'm a little tired of being told by people who seem not to have read the Constitution that they care about it more than me.

Perhaps you're too polite to mention this, but it's the tea partiers especially who have wrapped themselves in the Constitution and who, as a movement, not only claim to care more about it and understand it better than the dangerous Marxists in the Democratic Party, but they have made the defense of the Constitution from "the liberal threat" one of the cornerstones, if not the cornerstone, of their whole wingnutty movement. Given this fact, it's especially remarkable to see O'Donnell flounder around like she did.

The tea party's embrace of the Constitution is an empty rhetorical device closely akin to the Republicans' previous "I'm more patriotic than you" line of attack.

chiwhisoxx
10-21-2010, 01:44 PM
Especially among tea partiers.



Perhaps you're too polite to mention this, but it's the tea partiers especially who have wrapped themselves in the Constitution and who, as a movement, not only claim to care more about it and understand it better than the dangerous Marxists in the Democratic Party, but they have made the defense of the Constitution from "the liberal threat" one of the cornerstones, if not the cornerstone, of their whole wingnutty movement. Given this fact, it's especially remarkable to see O'Donnell flounder around like she did.

The tea party's embrace of the Constitution is an empty rhetorical device closely akin to the Republicans' previous "I'm more patriotic than you" line of attack.

There's a difference between the tea party and "tea party candidates". What constitutes a "tea party candidate" is much more ambiguous than I think most people realize. It's generally thought "oh well any insurgent candidate who wins against the establishment is a tea party candidate". That may be the case to some extent, but that doesn't mean that every outsider insurgent type candidate subscribes to every tea party view. Politics often involves picking between the lesser of a number of evils.

bjkeefe
10-21-2010, 02:03 PM
[...] I'd link it here, but since I got no response before probably not worth the trouble. Larison, of course, shares the more conservative view of the 1st amendment.

Edit: for the record, I'm not as conservative as Larison on church and state jurisprudence, but I'm not especially liberal either.

I'll second what Twin said. It is sometimes hard to bring oneself to respond when all one has to say at the moment is "great post" or "thanks for the link." It would be nice if vBulletin added a Like button to individual comments, a la Facebook, IntenseDebate, etc.

I'll also observe that sometimes people miss a link, whether because they didn't notice it in the first instance, forgot to click it, didn't read the thread in which it appeared because there was too much noise in that thread, or any of a bunch of other possible reasons. It also seems to me that it takes about as much effort to repost a link as it does to type a sentence saying you're not going to, but maybe that is just because I am better at keyboard shortcuts than typing.

In any case, glad to see another reader of Larison. I, too, am not as conservative as he is on some issues, but I almost always think it's worth hearing what he has to say.

And, of course, when a politician likes to go on and on about standing up for the Constitution (as if those who disagreed with said politician were anti Constitution) it's especially essential that that politician know what it says. I'm a little tired of being told by people who seem not to have read the Constitution that they care about it more than me.

Perhaps you're too polite to mention this, but it's the tea partiers especially who have wrapped themselves in the Constitution and who, as a movement, not only claim to care more about it and understand it better than the dangerous Marxists in the Democratic Party, but they have made the defense of the Constitution from "the liberal threat" one of the cornerstones, if not the cornerstone, of their whole wingnutty movement. Given this fact, it's especially remarkable to see O'Donnell flounder around like she did.

The tea party's embrace of the Constitution is an empty rhetorical device closely akin to the Republicans' previous "I'm more patriotic than you" line of attack.

Excellent point by both of you. And Larison (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/10/19/newsflash-odonnell-doesnt-know-very-much/) (emph. added):

Christine O’Donnell is a professional political activist who has no real grounding in the fundamental law she has been repeatedly invoking as the core of her beliefs during this campaign season, and as far as respecting the Constitution is concerned she is simply a phony. Anyone on the right who wants to keep defending her as anything else is wasting his time and embarrassing himself.

And for sheer comedy:

Update: O’Donnell’s campaign put out a statement explicitly denying that O’Donnell believes what her defenders claim she believes: [...]

All three of you, however, miss an even more key point among the teabaggers: as I understand it from more than a year's observation, it is considered a virtue among them for their leaders to be ignorant. The only other choice, as they see it, is elitism, and we can't have the people who we chose to run the country being any more well-informed about anything than the average slob. That would make them Out Of Touch. Also, feelings would be hurt.

bjkeefe
10-21-2010, 02:22 PM
There's a difference between the tea party and "tea party candidates". What constitutes a "tea party candidate" is much more ambiguous than I think most people realize. It's generally thought "oh well any insurgent candidate who wins against the establishment is a tea party candidate". That may be the case to some extent, but that doesn't mean that every outsider insurgent type candidate subscribes to every tea party view. Politics often involves picking between the lesser of a number of evils.

However true that might be, there is no getting around the reality (http://www.google.com/search?q=o%27donnell+tea+party) that Christine O'Donnell is a teabagger darling.

Also, I'm giving you a Lambchop for saying "It's generally thought ..." This may have been said by a few gasbags on the teevee, but I would like to think we have not yet sunk to the depths where they speak for the general populace, much less for the reasonably well-informed.

Also, your last sentence is a non sequitur. Picking the lesser of two evils in American politics rarely involves picking an "outsider insurgent type candidate." When we are forced into this lesser of two evils sort of choice, it is much more likely the case that we're choosing someone who is merely not quite as much in the pocket of whatever collection of special interests we think have their talons too deep already into control of our government. In the rare case that we have the choice of an actual outsider, that is not usually considered a lesser evil. It's considered a good thing, at least by his or her supporters. (Assuming most outsiders are somewhat more knowledgeable than Christine O'Donnell, I mean.)

stephanie
10-21-2010, 02:38 PM
Here's the link (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/10/19/newsflash-odonnell-doesnt-know-very-much/) for anyone who missed it the first time.

Thanks for adding that, and I really don't expect "great link" comments. I just thought it was funny that it addressed the arguments that rcocean, especially, was making, and that no one expressing the kind of interpretation he was had responded before when I linked it for that purpose, even to say why they thought Larison was wrong. Clearly Larison isn't unaware of the more conservative interpretation of the amendment or the legitimate discussion that could be had over its application in certain circumstances.

TwinSwords
10-21-2010, 02:50 PM
All three of you, however, miss an even more key point among the teabaggers: as I understand it from more than a year's observation, it is considered a virtue among them for their leaders to be ignorant.
Good point. Stephanie said much the same above:

More than that (because I'll admit that I don't think O'Donnell is especially representative of anything, although I find the fact that so many people ... seem to think the kind of ignorance she displays is a positive, makes her more one of us), I do think our Constitution, including the amendments, is short enough that all politicians, especially ones running for national office ought to know what it says.

The second people start laughing at her for being stupid, the more the wingnuts love her. There are a lot of people in this country who feel stupid, never went to college, resent being looked down upon by their "smart" siblings, friends, neighbors, etc., and they really resent educated people who act like they have all the answers.


Correction: Original version seemed to attribute to Stephanie something she didn't say.

chiwhisoxx
10-21-2010, 03:35 PM
However true that might be, there is no getting around the reality (http://www.google.com/search?q=o%27donnell+tea+party) that Christine O'Donnell is a teabagger darling.

Also, I'm giving you a Lambchop for saying "It's generally thought ..." This may have been said by a few gasbags on the teevee, but I would like to think we have not yet sunk to the depths where they speak for the general populace, much less for the reasonably well-informed.

Also, your last sentence is a non sequitur. Picking the lesser of two evils in American politics rarely involves picking an "outsider insurgent type candidate." When we are forced into this lesser of two evils sort of choice, it is much more likely the case that we're choosing someone who is merely not quite as much in the pocket of whatever collection of special interests we think have their talons too deep already into control of our government. In the rare case that we have the choice of an actual outsider, that is not usually considered a lesser evil. It's considered a good thing, at least by his or her supporters. (Assuming most outsiders are somewhat more knowledgeable than Christine O'Donnell, I mean.)

This is like the scene at the end of Fatal Attraction, when Glenn Close emerges out of the bathtub with the knife when everyone thought she had been drowned.

bjkeefe
10-21-2010, 03:44 PM
This is like the scene at the end of Fatal Attraction, when Glenn Close emerges out of the bathtub with the knife when everyone thought she had been drowned.

The only difference being: you weren't attracted to me, even in the beginning.

Don Zeko
10-21-2010, 04:10 PM
You realize it's not particularly persuasive to just say "the establishment clause has to be read this way because of something about ephemeral law" right?

But again, you have to give O'Donnell a lot of credit to read her the subtext of her question as "sure, the Establishment Clause is in there, but not Seperation of Church and State" as opposed to "Wait, what does the 1st amendment say again? I thought it was free speech..." Watching the video, I think that the 2nd reading is a far more reasonable reading of her behavior.

chiwhisoxx
10-21-2010, 04:20 PM
The only difference being: you weren't attracted to me, even in the beginning.

Hah, that's true. Anyways, only joking...

Are you back back or just passing through?

chiwhisoxx
10-21-2010, 04:23 PM
But again, you have to give O'Donnell a lot of credit to read her the subtext of her question as "sure, the Establishment Clause is in there, but not Seperation of Church and State" as opposed to "Wait, what does the 1st amendment say again? I thought it was free speech..." Watching the video, I think that the 2nd reading is a far more reasonable reading of her behavior.

Er I was more talking about general Establishment Clause jurisprudence than O'Donnell's statement. I'm perfectly willing to accept she has no idea what the hell she's talking about. I honestly think it's kind of ambiguous from the video. But I don't really have a dog in this fight, (what O'Donell meant) and to be honest, don't really care.

badhatharry
10-22-2010, 01:06 AM
Nothing is more humorous than reading or hearing supercilious numbskulls rant - not JimM47 - about the "constitution" when its obvious they know nothing about the constitution or its history.



It's a good thing John Conyers was never asked about the constitution (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/03/john-conyers-go.html)during his election campaign.

I bet most of the folks on capital hill would fail a test about what is actually in the constitution.