1 Totally O/T: Just heard that Tom Bosley has passed away at 83.

2 Did you bring bandages for everyone, Mr ace?

3
Just more 'gotcha!' slandering.

4 I'll bet our new troll Greg has something to say about this.

5 Reposted from below (with apologies) the Establishment Clause was written into the First Amendment in order to prevent nonsense like this: ...forty-five Baptist preachers suffered persecution in Virginia during the eighteenth century when the Anglican Church stood as the state church of Virginia... The stories of James Ireland and Joseph Craig remind readers why it is vital to protect religious freedom in the modern era... On one occasion, authorities arrested and imprisoned Ireland because he preached an unauthorized sermon... Linky In colonial Virginia any minister wanting to preach had to pass a theological exam administered by the Church of England on behalf of the government. If he passed and was allowed to preach he also had to pay a tax- not an offering, not a tithe, but a TAX (as in you go to jail of you don't pay) to the Church of England. The founders wanted none of that kind of nonsense...

6 The context is bad.  It sounds like O'Donnell was defending the teaching of creationism as science.  That's not going to attract a lot of moderates either.

7
our new troll Greg

No doubt it's one of the same old.

8 Why continue piling on O'Donnel? We get it -- you don't think she's fit for office. Let it be. It's a little more than two weeks until you can do the "I told you so" dance if she loses.

You think anyone on the left is posting chin-pullers whether an admitted advocate for the most genocidal political regime in history is qualified for office? (OK, so they count that AS qualification for office, still...)

9 Linky for no. 5

10 You know, I'm getting really tired of this "CO'D is a kook and a lackwit" meme.

I mean -- c'mon, people, this is Biden's old seat....isn't it, like, a prerequisite?

11 Coons could'nt list any of the other "rights" in the 1st Amendment ... 

12 Never mind all that - it's time for another "pray at the mosque" field trip!

13 Ace,

Christine's wrong-headed answer about this said wall will only serve to help our opponents build a political wall, thus stopping the Red Wave. 

If Christine isn't up by 5 now, that means the wave has crested and will soon crash upon the shores of reality.

14
I don't know.

If she said, "The Constitution does not say non-citizen-parents of babies born here are automatically citizens," a) she'd be right, and b) she'd receive the same 'gasp' from the audience.

15 Ace, she has 2 million dollars to get it across to her potential constituents!

16 O/T but amusing and interesting:

German "heatball" wheeze outwits EU light bulb banA German entrepreneur is bypassing a European Union ban on light bulbs of more than 60 watts by marketing his own brand as mini heaters.

Siegfried Rotthaeuser and his brother-in-law have come up with a legal way of importing and distributing 75 and 100 watt light bulbs — by producing them in China, importing them as "small heating devices" and selling them as "heatballs."

To improve energy efficiency, the EU has banned the sale of bulbs of over 60 watts — to the annoyance of the mechanical engineer from the western city of Essen.

Rotthaeuser studied EU legislation and realized that because the inefficient old bulbs produce more warmth than light — he calculated heat makes up 95 percent of their output, and light just 5 percent — they could be sold legally as heaters.

-------

I wonder if somebody in the U.S. can do this.

17 I'll bet our new troll Greg has something to say about this. I haven't seen him in ages!

18 Yep, repubs not only have to be technically correct, but be correct about how any non-thinking person my perceive of any statement.  Of course, the dems have no such restraints, you will see no "Coons doesn't know the words in the Constitution" articles.

19 More importantly, what is the justification for allowing a check on Federal power to determine curriculum at a locally run and chartered school system?

20 At least she is not a witch, any more

21 The text of the First Amendment does not contain anything about the separation of church and state.  Any other answer is flatly wrong and utterly, totally, completely and without hesitation fucking stupid. 

This reminds me of all the people who kept telling me that Palin said she could see Russia from her house.  I was intensely confused because, you know, Palin never said that, Tina Fey did.  It became received wisdom that it was Palin.  This is the same, there's this perception that separation of church and state is part of the text of the Constitution.  It's NOT.  Yes, this is a hot button issue to me.  The inability of people to fucking read is infuriating. 

22 Too bad she didn't have a copy of Stuff Jefferson Said, Vol. I handy.

23 I wish conservatives would stay away from creationism. Makes them sound idiotic.

24 Just to be fair, a totally hard question for Mr. Coons: How much of an honor is to represent the people of Delaware?

25 What about separation of coven and state?

26 "You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone

I think the sound was Wesley blowing a load.

27 "There is no doubt the Constitution bars the "establishment of religion." Says so. And O'Donnell did not, in fact, challenge that."
Correct Ace...
The problem is reading the the transcripts.  You have to watch the video.  The "money" quote that the MFM is taking away is not what it is being reported to be.  She is asking him if "separation of church and state" is in the first amendment and through the over talk... she asks "it's in the first amendment?" meaning "separation of church and state".

28 But a True Conservative who fails at the persuasion function of politics isn't helping the cause at all. In fact, it often hurts it.

Ace it really doesn't matter that it was a distortion of what she meant on the first amendment. If it had not been this one, it would have been something else.

It also doesn't matter that it is Christine O'Donnel locked in a tight race in a blue State. if it had been Mitt Romney talking about the separation of church and State they would have distorted his answer and made hay over it.

The press is going to viciously attack ANY conservative and distort everything about them.

29 Posted by: JackStraw at October 19, 2010 01:44 PM (VW9/y)

The abridged pocket edition would have been a better choice. The index for SJSv1 isn't very useful.

30 that yes, in the First Amendment, it does prohibit a state religion No, it prohibits Congress from establishing a Federal religion. The individual states are free establish official churches and force Christianity or Islam or Mormonism upon their citizens, and did so until 1840 (or 1963 when public school prayer and Bible reading were prohibited). They refrain from doing it now more out of custom and fear of revolt than anything else. Quite frankly, neither Coons nor O'Donnell could explain any of this and I'm not impressed that the bald one may know fifteen more words of the Constitution than the witch.

31 Just to be fair, a totally hard question for Mr. Coons:

How much of an honor is to represent the people of Delaware? Is Marx's most thorough elucidation of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to be found in The Communist Manifesto or in Das Kapital, in your estimation?

32
How many times is this trap going to work?

All these cocksuckers such as David Gregory have to do is ask one of these inconsequential social issue question and they've got the Republican candidate stuttering and stammering.

Stop answering these damn questions. Use the opportunity to take a shot at the Democrat...or at the jerkoff who just asked the question.

33 Yes, the press is going to viciously attack any conservative and distort what they say...so it behooves us to preemptively do that for them?

34 I think we need to make the press work a little harder to make our candidates look like fools. We can't keep teeing it up for them by making statements--albeit truthful ones--that can be excerpted and Dowd-ified. It's too easy and the media is, as a rule, spectacularly indolent.

35 28. AND we're going to help them attack. why? why? why? why? why?!?! I'm going to go bang my head against the wall.

36

Yep, repubs not only have to be technically correct, but be correct about how any non-thinking person my perceive of any statement.  Of course, the dems have no such restraints, you will see no "Coons doesn't know the words in the Constitution" articles.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at October 19, 2010

When you're running in any state that isn't solidly red, that's pretty much the truth.  Doubly so in one of the 12 or so most liberal states in the country, i.e. Delaware.  We can either argue with reality or we can work around it.

37 I feel like people keep blowing off this crucial element when looking for leaders.

If you're looking to politicians to be leaders, you've already failed.

38 Posted by: alexthechick at October 19, 2010 01:43 PM (bQ5xy)

I'm with you on hating the lazy substitution of "Separation of Church and State" for what's actually in the 1st Amendment.

The problem here is that while Coons did go the lazy way, a couple of times, he also more or less paraphrased the actual Establishment Clause (you can hear it here-self playing audio file). In reply to that (more or less the actual words of the Establishment clause, not the lazy shorthand) O'Donnell said, "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?". The short answer is, "um, yeah".

Worse yet...she didn't know what the 16th Amendment was and said she "didn't bring her Constitution with her" and that "Senators don't have to memorize the Constitution".

39

Christine O'Donnell could be a brisket (red) as long as she beats that insufferable, revolting, twit, coons. Thing that makes me sick about him is I read he was poor and abandoned by pops and then got lucky when mom hit the marriage lottery. His dismissiveness of her during the first debate was revolting. His attitude was one of "how dare I have to be next to her." As an Irish Catholic female, I took it personally. He is sickening, the worst of the worst that have gone to DC.

40 Write it off, she is toast.  It is a learning experience for the next cycle.

41
Forget this race. We need to worry more about Joe Miller in AK. We cannot allow that solid red state to have two Democrat senators. No way.

42 Stop answering these damn questions. Use the opportunity to take a shot at the Democrat...or at the jerkoff who just asked the question.

Q. So, as a Christian, Mr. Morgenholz, do you actually believe that the world is 6,000 years old?

A.  Great question, Bob.  The only thing we can be sure of is that the Earth is at least as old as your Mom's gums, which incidentally were wrapped around my crank last evening.

43 Christine, you need to stay on message.

44
If she said, "The Constitution does not say non-citizen-parents of babies born here are automatically citizens," a) she'd be right, and b) she'd receive the same 'gasp' from the audience.

If she said the Constitution doesn't require government funding for abortions, crucifixes dunked in piss, and has a strict definition of treason that covers the actions of Code Pink, they'd gasp.

45 Stop answering these damn questions. Use the opportunity to take a shot at the Democrat...or at the jerkoff who just asked the question. Posted by: Senator Soothsayer (R-AoS) at October 19, 2010 01:48 PM (gM4zK) I remember when the big "gotcha" question for Republicans was "what is the biggest mistake you ever made?" Some clown asked that of Rudy Guliani during a debate in 2008 and his answer was "You mean besides trying to answer that question?" That's the kind of answer these questions deserve.

46 So what if she's a moron? This is the Biden seat for fuck's sake. And the Dems promoted him to vice presidential candidate.

47 As a fairly recent law school grad, I'm going to pretend a law school audience didn't understand the difference between a wall of separation and Congress making no law respecting establishment of religion only because they were at Widener. 

48 Without hearing the audio, which I can't listen to right now, I can't see how this is a "thing".  Obviously the wall of separation comes from a SCOTUS decision in the 40s.  It must have been a doozy of a stacked crowd, or a doozy of a bad delivery on her part.

49 Pshaw, you all know it doesn't matter about silly things like elections anyway.  We crazy, violent and evil conservative are just going to gin up our Death Squads and clear out the liberals anyway.
Link to Newsbusters.

50 I'd listen to the debate before I relied on the AP.

51 Can somebody point me to the section of the Constitution where I'm forced to participate in a Ponzi scheme?

52 3  Just more 'gotcha!' slandering.

Speaking of "gotcha", here's a "Palin is teh stupids" story that is circulating through the bowels of the leftard-o-sphere:

Palin Endorses Raese In Pennsylvania -- But He's From West Virginia

OMG, Palin screwed up on Twitter?  Stop the presses!

53 Ace, you're missing the point with O'Donnell and her ilk. We need her not because she's passed the litmus test or because she's a "true conservative" but because she's not one of THEM. THEM is the rotted corps (pun intended) of politicians on both sides of the aisle. O'Donnell has already exposed and defeated one of THEM and for that she should be thanked. Castle isn't a conservative, he isn't a liberal, he's a rotting stinking walking corpse. It really wouldn't matter if he or Coons were in. It's just a letter after their names. O'Donnell and Angle and Paul and Miller all are THEM exposers. Their job is to shove a little dynamite into the cracks in Washington and let us light the fuse.

54 Q. So, as a Christian, Mr. Morgenholz, do you actually believe that the world is 6,000 years old? A. Great question, Bob. The only thing we can be sure of is that the Earth is at least as old as your Mom's gums, which incidentally were wrapped around my crank last evening. I would pay real folding money to watch that debate.

55 No, it prohibits Congress from establishing a Federal religion. The individual states are free establish official churches and force Christianity or Islam or Mormonism upon their citizens, and did so until 1840 (or 1963 when public school prayer and Bible reading were prohibited). They refrain from doing it now more out of custom and fear of revolt than anything else.

Posted by: Constitution Guy at October 19, 2010 01:47 PM (bN5ZU)

I see your pedantic point and raise you one...States are prohibited from establishing a religion ever since the 1st Amendment was incorporated against them in Everson v. Board of Ed.

This is all coming dangerously close to Lemon v. Kurtzman. Since I don't want to send alexthechick into a murderous rage, so I'll stop.

56

When will a politician say that this separation of church and state nonsense has nothing to do with the Constitution and that it was just Jefferson writing letters?

We are given the right, in the Constitution, to not have our religious beliefs set upon by the government.  However, since people picked up on the separation bit, the government is doing just that.  As long as you're Christian and white.  We're not supposed to have a state/government-run religion.  That doesn't mean that we're not supposed to have religion at all in our society.

57 Can somebody point me to the section of the Constitution where I'm forced to participate in a Ponzi scheme? The 57th Amendment. Now watch this drive down the fairway.

58 Appreciate the "Be the Wave" admonition that is advocated on this thread.

Michael Steele had better have Tsunami Two organized. A wave of attorneys to send into the places that find uncounted ballots after the fact.

59 Yes, the press is going to viciously attack any conservative and distort what they say...so it behooves us to preemptively do that for them? Actually, it does behoove us. During the next primary cycle, which is 5 years away in this case. Two weeks out, not so much.

60 "You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

It's pretty tough to grasp a "living" constitution, Wes.  When people like Coons hold power, we see kids being taught to worship Gaea, or being chucked out of school for drawing a picture of a knife.  If a Christian student says a prayer at a high school commencement,the student risks punishment, but if a radical imam with AQ connections leads a prayer on Capitol Hill for the Congressional Muslim Staff Association, it's allah akhbar, baby!

61
So I take it this is old? It's a parody, but it shows where we are today with political campaigns.

62 madamex Yeah, I hear you. My question is, how tall is Coons? He looked like a rugrat next to The One on stage.

63 I'd listen to the debate before I relied on the AP.

But she's a chick.  Why bother?

64 Yes she will very very likely lose, DE is the only state with a positive Odipstick approval rating.  Nevertheless, the truism is:

Castle = Coons = Spector = Jeffords.

65 53 Can somebody point me to the section of the Constitution where I'm forced to participate in a Ponzi scheme?

The ubiquitous "promote the general welfare" phrase in the Constitution's preamble.  We can pigeonhole that into anything we want.

66 Ace, be careful of democrat debating rule #4, "wherebeit useful, we shall lie about whatever the other person said." That is, someone at hotair pointed out that the video doesn't support the transcript provided in the news report.

67 Wishnik size, without the Don King do.

68 if she floats does she win?

69 Ugh. Clearly the O'Donnell nomination was a bad move. The annoying thing is that on November 3rd, after the GOP wins 45+ seats, and wins about 8 senate seats, the press will still be talking about Christine O'Donnell. Yeah, Joe "FDR went on television" Biden is dumber than the Burger King bobblehead that's on my desk, but the media wasn't interested in pointing out his idiocy. That's the problem. The left-wing media still establishes the narrative.

70

Thanks, Ace!

71 Yes, the press is going to viciously attack any conservative and distort what they say...so it behooves us to preemptively do that for them?

Actually, it does behoove us. During the next primary cycle, which is 5 years away in this case. Two weeks out, not so much.<<<

My, my.  I didn't realize the "vetting" process had dwindled to a kneejerk hatred of one's own candidates.  Good to know.  This is only applicable to conservatives, yes?

72 Keep piling on her, Ace.

You rino fucking bitch.

73 "But, of course, it does sound as if she questioning that which cannot be questioned, that yes, in the First Amendment, it does prohibit a state religion" Actually, the 1st Amendment, as originally understood, prohibits the FEDREAL government from establishing a National Religion. It is not until the 14th Amendment is passed, and the Bill of Rights is later incorporated against the States, that this notion of each State being prevented from forming a State religion is granted to the U.S. Constitution. This modern interpretation is an inversion of the entire original intent of the 1st Amendment, which was intended as a check on Federal Power, and is now used by the Federal Government as an instrument to expand Federal Power. It has been transformed from an instrument of Negative Liberty to an Instrument of Positive Liberty, and its a real problem. Politically, however, its a good move by Coons.

74 OT, but I just got a call from the Dino Rossi campaign, which is in full "oh my god we need money NOW" mode and the campaign worker claimed Dino was up 14 points over Murray.

Which I thought was a strange way to sell the desperation.  And I just pledged because, dammit, that stupid bitch ain't gonna represent my state again no way no how.
Begone, you stupid beotch.

75 I think of Christine as negating every one of Al Franken's votes.

76
That's the problem. The left-wing media still establishes the narrative.

Not for me they don't.

77 ***Ugh. Clearly the O'Donnell nomination was a bad move. ** stop participating in the MSM destruction of our side. I do like the idea though that all the DNC MSM hate is focused on her while they go about losing everything else. She's the GOP's sacrificial anode?

78 Amazing. Coons is a bearded Marxist, Yet Christine O'Donnell is the one under the microscope. Fuck me runnin'.

79
No, it prohibits Congress from establishing a Federal religion. The individual states are free establish official churches and force Christianity or Islam or Mormonism upon their citizens, and did so until 1840 (or 1963 when public school prayer and Bible reading were prohibited). They refrain from doing it now more out of custom and fear of revolt than anything else.

Posted by: Constitution Guy at October 19, 2010 01:47 PM (bN5ZU)

This is my understanding as well, and I find it very annoying that people are so very unaware of this. Of course the left will argue that the 14th amendment caused all the prohibitions of the Federal Government to be applied to the states, and therefore the 1rst amendment prohibition of establishment would fall into this category. Strangely enough, the states didn't look at it that way until nearly a hundred years later.

80 Stupid Christine! It's in the good and welfare clause!

81 After watching the video of the debate, she does come off as not knowing what's in the 1st Amendment even though we knows what she meant.

82 Very astute points, Mr.... uh... Ace. This ignorant woman couldn't even manage a C- in Professor Obama's constitutional law class.

83

For Pete's sake, Ted Kennedy was a Senator for 46 years......

84 Well, Eve was created from Adam's rib.

So I guess Christine O'Donnell is me after all.

85 This modern interpretation is an inversion of the entire original intent of the 1st Amendment, which was intended as a check on Federal Power, and is now used by the Federal Government as an instrument to expand Federal Power. It has been transformed from an instrument of Negative Liberty to an Instrument of Positive Liberty, and its a real problem... Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at October 19, 2010 01:59 PM (dkXRJ) EXACTLY!

86 My, my. I didn't realize the "vetting" process had dwindled to a kneejerk hatred of one's own candidates. Good to know. This is only applicable to conservatives, yes? Lazy choice of words on my part. Our side needs to vet very, very carefully. Howzat?

87 *sigh

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!

88 Can we maybe just face it? O'Donnell is an ignoramus with no business in the Senate.  Her opponent is unthinkable too, of course, but that's not much comfort.  The system simply failed to produce an acceptable candidate.

89

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

Coons described the establishment clause accurately, and then O'Donnell made the above comment quoted faithfully in WaPo with the video.

90 The problem here is all the Republican back benching.  I still say we (the plebeians) need to go out and educate our family, friends, and neighbors, but what is just as important is that actual Republican Leadership need to come out and say these same things.

Not to steal from the Democrats, but sometimes talking points are useful (if used properly)
1) The Constitution does not provide for a "Separation of Church and State."  That phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson- whose views on the matter were not that widely held.  The concept as currently understood comes from a Supreme Court Case in the 60's- part of some emanation of some penumbra or other.

2) Whether or not Separation of Church and State is in the Constitution an irrelevant question: who really thinks America is suddenly going to become a Christian Theocracy?

3) Chris Coons more-or-less recited the words of the Constitution correctly, but, given that he was asked where the Constitution provides for a Separation of Church and State, demonstrated his ignorance of basic Constitutional Principles- something that should be disqualifying for anyone running for US Senate.

And, as someone said above- Don't forget about our candidates with better chances of winning but who still need help (thanks Ms. Murkewski).

91 Burn the witch!

92 My, my. I didn't realize the "vetting" process had dwindled to a kneejerk hatred of one's own candidates. Good to know. This is only applicable to conservatives, yes?

Lazy choice of words on my part. Our side needs to vet very, very carefully.

Howzat?<<<Fluffy

Yes, and I agree, but once the die is cast, it's time to stop tearing down your own side.

93

I reckon we've been going round and round about the true meaning of the First since it was first brought up, but it says 'way more than just "no State church."

The wording is "no law respecting an establishment of Religion," and, once you get the mandatory dis-respect jokes out of the way, it also, pretty clearly even with 18th-cent translations applied, means that Congress may not regulate religious practices, dictate theology, or advance one faith over another. Penumbras have emanated.

We've had one long generation virtually without doctrinal religious involvement at the national policy level, so most of us have forgotten what it would even look like. Keep in mind that the worry that Kennedy might take policy from the Vatican was not just backwoods mumbo-jumbo; stranger things had happened. Turned out Kennedy wasn't that good a Catholic, Vatican policy was in upheaval, and all Catholics were democrats anyway. Fifty years ago, the counsels of Yerp included those countries' state-church hierarchy, which made organized religion pretty damn political, inside and out.

The original states had state churches, and the First did not automatically abolish them. The debate over that issue used up a lot of air for fifty years, and resulted in a whole new concept of the place of religion in the national life. I like to point out to certain complainants that the people were debating disestablishment (and the legal status of women) during the time they think we should have been busy abolishing slavery. Times were not simpler then.

94 Reagan needs to lay a whoop ass on the commenters. ;-)

95 You beat me to it!  Racist!!!

I denounce myself.

96 This modern interpretation is an inversion of the entire original intent of the 1st Amendment, which was intended as a check on Federal Power, and is now used by the Federal Government as an instrument to expand Federal Power.

If O'Donnell had argued that and explained how that view would effect her votes for SCOTUS nominees, she might have had a point.

97 The context is bad.  It sounds like O'Donnell was defending the teaching of creationism as science.  That's not going to attract a lot of moderates either.

Posted by: Cicero at October 19, 2010 01:39 PM (QKKT0)

If these so called moderates are going to vote for a Marxist this year because of an establishment clause issue, then they need to get a frickin' clue.

98 Exit Question: Who the hell cares if she thinks Intelligent Design should be taught in schools?

Coons never met a tax increase he did not like, and I am supposed to believe that one of the most important issues in the DELAWARE Senate race is some evangelical hobby horse that has zero chance of even being considered in Delaware or in the Department of Education.

WTF?  She can be a snakehandling speaking-in-tongues charismatic wacko for all I care.  Is she going to fight tax increases?  Is she a solid vote against Obamacare?

On the Howard Kurtzian other hand: She should have just blown off the question and come back with something like "this creationism stuff is just a distraction from the real issue of how we get the Federal government out of our schools. That is something that I, as a Senator, can impact.  Creationism should be decided by the local school district...."

99 MA-10: Jeff Perry (R) 44, Bill Keating (D) 42

100 If a leader can't actually persuade the hostiles to your side, is that leadership?

Didn't she gain 10 points (Rasmussen) after the first debate?

101 Amazing. Coons is a bearded Marxist, Yet Christine O'Donnell is the one under the microscope. Fuck me runnin'. Even giving him latitude for 'youthful indiscretion' on that statement, he's the freaking taxman. Wait, the bastard wants you to work for the government. I guess all he did was shave the beard.

102

Why continue piling on O'Donnel?

In case someone hasn't gotten it yet, he wants to prove again what a piece of crap he is.

Fool that he is, he doesn't realize that he comes off looking far worse than she does.

103

They were debating this topic because she said that local school districts should, if they want, teach what the intelligent design theory is, along side the THEORY of evolution. That does not establish a religion. Coons said that the first amendment calls for the separation of church and state which it does not.

Her immediate response should have been; "You mean the establishment clause" and then define it.

104 And the irony of this is that the idea of a separation between Church and state was invented in the mid-19th Century to stop Roman Catholic schools from receiving tax money the way public schools, Protestant in all but name, were receiving.

105

106 MA-10: Jeff Perry (R) 44, Bill Keating (D) 42

Anything else out of Mass?

106 Can we maybe just face it? O'Donnell is an ignoramus with no business in the Senate.  Her opponent is unthinkable too, of course, but that's not much comfort.  The system simply failed to produce an acceptable candidate.<<<Jeroboam

That already happened during the last presidential election, and yet this very site declared that not pulling the lever for McCain and not overlooking his tendency to trample fellow Republicans on his way across the aisle to caucus with the democrats were acts just short of treason.  I would like to see a little of that, er...support thrown the way of actual conservative candidates.  If you stomached voting McCain, you can stomach shutting your hole over O'Donnell for 2 damn weeks.

107 I don't understand the constant invoking of Biden, Kennedy, and Franken--senators who conservatives have vilified and ridiculed--in the case of Biden and Kennedy--literally for decades, as the justification for seating Christine O'Donnell.  It's basically saying that our candidate is only as unqualified as the people we consider to be the most unqualified on the planet, so it's ok.  And then you get personally angry at those of us for whom that is unacceptable, and call us "unprincipled."

108 Rush is defending her right this minute.

109 IL-17: Bobby Schilling (R) 44, Phil Hare* (D) 41

110 This is shoeless Joe Biden's seat. Unclear foggy dialogue is in order.

111

IÂ’ve got to go to the bathroom, but I donÂ’t want to miss AceÂ’s next screed against OÂ’Donnell.

112 95 Can we maybe just face it? O'Donnell is an ignoramus with no business in the Senate.  Her opponent is unthinkable too, of course, but that's not much comfort.  The system simply failed to produce an acceptable candidate.

Posted by: Jeroboam at October 19, 2010 02:05 PM (Tcwdq)

Fukkin-A . I'll bet Pelosi and her crew can quote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from memory, don't you? You get what the system gives you, those are the choices. What do you want, someone who knows at least what the constitution is about, or a fucking communist who would just as soon burn it and be done with it. Choose now!

113

What's the step after "bad" and 'worse"?

114 It's a good thing you knew what O'Donnell was getting at, Ace, because she sure as hell didn't know.

115 What is noxious is this whole fucking subject. So with 10% unemployment, deflation, crippling gubmint debt, Li'l Barry and the Demotards more than quadrupling the deficit in under two years, Obama's socialized medicine destroying people's medical coverage, mountains of new regulations from the EPA et al., massive voter fraud, the prospect of cap-and-tax enacted through executive order... this debate and the tools who sponsored it decided it's a dandy time to have a bull session on religion in government? Delaware. My God... it's full of stupid.

116 Rush is playing the clip now.  The fucking audience gasps at her asking where separation of church and state is in the constitution.  And these are the law students.  Boy Amishdude's opinion is looking really really good at the moment.

117 What's the step after "bad" and 'worse"?

"Senator".

118 Still, I'd rather lose with O'Donnell than win with Castle.

The GOP needs to stop jerking us around and give us some real candidates.

119

Posted by: MikeinAmman at October 19, 2010 02:10 PM (elcpe)

HER OR COONS? THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE.

120 Ace not that I really disagree with the substance of what you saying here but the title is a little misleading.  O'Donnell is asking the question here, not answering it.  I don't think someone empasising one point, that Coons was wrong to suggest what he did was stated in the 1st amendment, is automatically pushing the opposite point, that no division between the church and state is suggested by the 1st amendment.

121 I can't wait for ace to defend his guy John Thune for siding with Lena Jabrowski lol. That will be fun!

122 2) Whether or not Separation of Church and State is in the Constitution an irrelevant question: who really thinks America is suddenly going to become a Christian Theocracy?

Many Lefties think this. Bush was universally despised as a would-be Christian dictator. Hence, the commonly-used phrase, "When fascism comes to America, it will be cloaked in the Cross."

123 I just heard the sound bite. O'Donnell was ASKING coons where in the Constitution is separation of church and state.

She correctly nailed coons.

Get it right

124 118 IL-17: Bobby Schilling (R) 44, Phil Hare* (D) 41

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at October 19, 2010 02:10 PM (ruu60)

YES! I've been waiting for another poll. I've been looking everyday. I met one of Phil Hare's staffers this summer. The venom that he expelled about the tea party was incredible. I want Hare "I don't care about the constitution" to lose BIG.

125 /backs away slowly

_{I need to stop giving people ideas...}

126 PA-10: Tom Marino (R) 44, Chris Carney* (D) 37

127 Rush is right.

128 If you stomached voting McCain, you can stomach shutting your hole over O'Donnell for 2 damn weeks.

No.  I could see: if you stomached voting for McCain, you can stomach voting for O'Donnell.  But why refuse to discuss current events?

I think you vastly overestimate ace's influence on mainstream public opinion.

129 Poor Christine. She is serving a very important function. She is serving as the lightning rod for all liberal hate this election cycle. So, we will lose this race. However, for every SNL skit on her, there is one fewer on Angle or Paul. We may win in NV precisely because we lose in DE. Thanks Christine for taking one for the team.

130 What's the step after "bad" and 'worse"? "Senator". Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 19, 2010 02:12 PM (5aa4z) I resent that!

131 HER OR COONS? THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE. You could write me in.

132 On the Howard Kurtzian other hand: She should have just blown off the question and come back with something like "this creationism stuff is just a distraction from the real issue of how we get the Federal government out of our schools.  Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth

This.

The debate moderators are using questions like these in order to divert attention from the issues of the hour and to peal off independents. It's a desperate attempt by sloppy MSM, and one that should be shoved back in their fucking faces.

133

AT A LAW SCHOOL THE AUDIENCE LAUGHED THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T SAY "SEPARTION OF CHURCH AND STATE' IN DELAWARE.

Scary, scary, scary.

More tools on the loose.

134 Rush just mentioned that O'Donnell subsequently revisited the question and pantsed Coons by asking him what were the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Coons: "uh, the separation of church and state, and uh, uh uh"

Does anyone wish to revise and extend their remarks?

135

A.  Great question, Bob.  The only thing we can be sure of is that the Earth is at least as old as your Mom's gums, which incidentally were wrapped around my crank last evening.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 19, 2010 01:51 PM (5aa4z)

 

Sweet sassy molassy, why the hell aren't you working with our candidates on debate prep?

That's weapons grade snark right there.

Speaking of which, what does your nic mean?

136 Thanks Christine for taking one for the team. Posted by: tommylotto at October 19, 2010 02:14 PM (oHIHU) She is? But I thought she was against masturbation?

137 One radical Christian being in the Senate is a totally bigger threat than the majority of anti-life Commie Malthusitards we have now.

138 #142, um no, this blog is dedicated to conservatives who get their jollies eating their own, furthering MSM anti-GOP narratives while ignoring the faults of the other party.

139 Yes, of course it's the only choice.  Now.  I think the point is that it didn't have to be, for reasons which have been thoroughly examined here in the past weeks.  My own point is that I'm not sure what "message" will be sent to the so-called "RINO establishment," if she does, indeed, lose (which, by the way, I am not hoping for, her loss, I mean).  Will that establishment, in some way, be MORE likely to nominate such a candidate in the future, or less?  I simply don't get the assumption that her loss will encourage that establishment to support more candidates like her. 

140 The "separation of Church and State" only appears in a private letter between Jefferson and a leading Churchmen of his time. The Law students are mindless lemmings.

141 95 Can we maybe just face it? O'Donnell is an ignoramus with no business in the Senate.  Her opponent is unthinkable too, of course, but that's not much comfort.  The system simply failed to produce an acceptable candidate.

Posted by: Jeroboam at October 19, 2010 02:05 PM (Tcwdq)

Didn't William F Buckley say that "the people would be better represented in government by random names chosen from the Boston phone book" ?

The Main thing Christine O'Donell has going for her is that she's not one of those Liberal vipers. I have repeatedly stated that It would be an improvement if we replaced Obama with a windup monkey clapping symbols together. A dumb as bricks candidate IS an improvement over one that is wrongheaded.

As Ronald Reagan said, "The problem with our opponents is not that they are ignorant, it's that they know so much which isn't so. "

142 The term 'separation of church and state' appears in a Jefferson letter to Baptists insisting upon protection from the state. This was interpreted by the Supremes in a 1947 opinion as providing a context for the 1st Amendment.

It is a testament to the ignorance of the left that these distinctions fly over their heads. Rush just cited the laughter of LAW STUDENTS as a scary thing. Lawyers (of any worth) are careful of fine distinctions.

If you let them make stuff up about our candidates, and spin truthful assertions about the Constitution, you're part of the Idiocracy.

143 MA-10: Jeff Perry (R) 44, Bill Keating (D) 42 Anything else out of Mass? Poll numbers? No. MA-4: Sean Bielat (R) - campaign has the 'Scott Brown feel' from January. Real excitement. MA-6 Bill Hudak (R) - doing well against the husband of the money launderer. sickinmass could give you a better version of a telling incident (He was there) MA-3 Marty Lamb (R) - surging against the commie MA-5 John Golnik (R) - fighting hard against some famous guy's wife, could pull it off

144 If I was in Delaware the more they mocked her, and I got to think of Coons, laughing all the way to the bank, as stepdaddy makes millions via Cap and Trade, you could not stop me for voting for Christine, and all my dead relatives.

145 Speaking of controlling the focus.....Ace is entirely correct in that we should be pushing GOTV as much as possible over the next two weeks. But it wouldn't hurt -- as we're walking a precinct, for instance -- to be thinking about the morning after.

And the sad truth of the matter is that on November 3, a whole lot of folks in Washington are going to be thinking that we threw out the bandits to put in the thieves. That we'll be looking for showers of government largess towards "our side", and expect to be collectively bribed with our own money. That we don't expect to solve our own problems without government interference, but rather that we expect the government to solve our problems without private effort.

If you're like me, you attended a Town Hall -- and found it was packed with rent-a-crowds -- and wrote letters to your Congresscritter -- which elicited a form-letter reply that was clearly geared to regurgitating talking points based on keyword extraction. Living in a long-term Democrat district, this isn't a great surprise.

But on November 3, I'm going to be doing something that I haven't for 20 years -- I'm going to register as a Republican, and I hope all of you do, too. Too long, we've been voting in elections between Dumb and Dumber, the Thieves and the Bandits. Too long, we've been dismissing the rah-rah bullshit of party insiders as meaningless.

The fact that we're having a discussion about CO'D means that it isn't. There was a primary choice between a squish and someone new and unvetted, and the people of DE rejected the squish. What if there'd been more choices? What if there'd been more effort to vet the candidates? Those of us who went through the primaries on the sidelines should be thinking....and just who did we expect to do this, the Tooth Fairy? If you're registered as an Independent, a Libertarian, or whatever -- to try to avoid the junk mail, the robocalls, whatever -- now is the time.

We must storm the bastions of the good-ol'-boys Republican Party, outnumber them, and make our agenda theirs. Because otherwise, the Thieves will win.

146 If O'Donnell wants to win this election, she should point out the sale of three Scranton area Catholic hospitals that are pending, and that are in part due to the negative impact of Obamacare.

This would be of importance to Delaware, as Scranton is Joe Biden's home town (this is Biden's old seat she's trying to win), is in neighboring Pennsylvania, and since Coons supports the "Affordable Care Act", or I assume he does. She should pounce on this, and stop letting outside media forces establish the terms of the race.  She needs to go on offense and think outside the box, and this would be a big hit on Coons and Democrats, a chance for her to score some big points. Nobody wants these hospitals to close, and on top of that, there is credible and compelling evidence that Obama used strong-arm tactics to get the CEO of Mercy General to rescind his earlier statement to the effect that Obamacare was an important element that went into the pending sale of the three hospitals.

This could be big, and might give O'Donnell a shot in the arm, maybe even put her over the top. But first, of course, she has to make use of it.

As for this Separation of Chruch and State argument, wrong fight, wrong time. Even if there is a valid case to be made for her argument, she is not the right person to be making it, especially now. That's what I meant by not letting the media (er, and Coons) set the terms of the campaign and debate.

147 being able to keep what you earn = EXTREMIST rhetoric

being able to kill an unborn child = awesome. totally awesome.

148 See my posts on Hot Air for a fine selection of the idiocy that passes for a education in the law these days.

149

Hence, the commonly-used phrase, "When fascism comes to America, it will be cloaked in the Cross."

Posted by: Pyrocles at October 19, 2010 02:12 PM (cv5Iw)

Yeah that's total bullshit.  Fascism will come wearing a white coat and carrrying a stethoscope.  And its already here.  Anti-smoking laws and banning trans-fat and trying to limit sodium levels in foods.

150

Speaking of which, what does your nic mean?

This is a family blog.

151 That damn Jefferson was a teabagging radical and should be on a watch list.  He also wrote this:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

152 I'd love to see congressional Democrats try to outline the First Amendment without digging out the pocket USC.  House Interviews with Jay Leno...     

153 I listened, and I understand what she was saying. If she is so "dumb" and doesn't have a chance of winning why is the media so consumed by her and why is Odumbo and plugs going to campaign for Mr. Coons?

154 Rush is playing the clip now.  The fucking audience gasps at her asking where separation of church and state is in the constitution.

Exactly. They gasped at the wrong freaking time. The gasps were not when she said, "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" They were when she said, "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?"

155 43 We need to worry more about Joe Miller in AK. We cannot allow that solid red state to have two Democrat senators. No way.
Posted by: Senator Soothsayer (R-AoS) at October 19, 2010 01:51 PM (gM4zK)

This.

156 They are down to personal attacks? Let the Tsunami begin. Cerberus will eat good next month.

157 MA-4: Sean Bielat (R) - campaign has the 'Scott Brown feel' from January. Real excitement.

Posted by: fluffy, current Masshole at October 19, 2010 02:17 PM (4Kl5M)

The whole country has that feeling, right now. 

I will comment no further on this thread. 

158 She is serving as the lightning rod for all liberal hate this election cycle.

Which is probably a bit of a relief to Mrs. Palin.

159 OH-15: Steve Stivers (R) 51, Mary Jo Kilroy* (D) 39

160 Oh wow, I'm seeing a repost of this above.  Is it the same or is there a reason for the repost?

161 @130- No, they don't.  They pretend to when it's convenient, but then immediately trot out their own religious "bona fides" when that's convenient instead.

And we let them get away with it.

I would love, sometime, for someone to ask the "Catholic" Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry, "As a practicing Catholic, how do you reconcile the moral imperatives in the Bible and Papal Law with being a United States Senator (Representative)?  Why do you believe that (insert Republican here) would do any differently?"

162 If you stomached voting McCain, you can stomach shutting your hole over O'Donnell for 2 damn weeks.

No.  I could see: if you stomached voting for McCain, you can stomach voting for O'Donnell.  But why refuse to discuss current events?

I think you vastly overestimate ace's influence on mainstream public opinion.<<<

It's not that I think Ace himself has outsized influence on the public, it's more that the effect of his constantly siding with the MFM on conservative candidates--particularly those guilty of being conservative while female--has the effect of making me question his bonafides regarding his GOTV activities.  I mean, when he mans the phone bank, does he tell the people on the other end of the line about the flaws of the candidates on whose behalf he's calling?  If we're all about "being the wave", what the hell is this negative campaigning doing here?

163 Rush: Christine O'Donnell might be as dumb as Justice Scalia re: 1st amendment.

164 Speaking of which, what does your nic mean? This is a family blog. Posted by: Herr Morgenholz Is that a bedpost or are you just happy to see me?

165

“She is serving as the lightning rod for all liberal hate this election cycle.”

 

ItÂ’s not liberal hate that will take her down, itÂ’s hate from people like Ace.

166

The wording is "no law respecting an establishment of Religion," and, once you get the mandatory dis-respect jokes out of the way, it also, pretty clearly even with 18th-cent translations applied, means that Congress may not regulate religious practices, dictate theology, or advance one faith over another. Penumbras have emanated.

Since we're getting particular about wording, you left out an important big one. "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion. "  This defacto specificity excludes the states.

The original states had state churches, and the First did not automatically abolish them. The debate over that issue used up a lot of air for fifty years, and resulted in a whole new concept of the place of religion in the national life. I like to point out to certain complainants that the people were debating disestablishment (and the legal status of women) during the time they think we should have been busy abolishing slavery. Times were not simpler then.

Posted by: comatus at October 19, 2010 02:05 PM (hrwMe)

The salient point being overlooked is the fact that official state religions DID exist after the ratification of the US Constitution, and therefore demonstrates that according to the meaning of the US Constitution when written, they were not in conflict with it. I dare say had the founders attempted to demand that individual states could not respect an establishment of religion, it would have been impossible to get them to ratify the bill of rights.

167 The whole country has that feeling, right now. Even though he screws this whole country, Barney Franks is elected by one district. Pink slip in two weeks. No, not your usual slip, Barney.

168

She is not the sharpest tool in the shed. She is and has been her own worst enemy. then again who wanted Castle? no me.

169 I remember you guys saying there was a big discussion of this stuff at your friend's hot air site.  At the time, I wasn't so interested as I thought there was plenty of room for lots of theories and in examining all theories, if you think critically, you arrive at what you think and believe.  So I'm going to ask a stupid question.  What are the two theories and why are people so upset about this subject?

170 WA-3: Jaime Herrera (R) 51, Denny Heck (D) 38

Sorry, but just trying to keep us from eating our own.  2 Weeks People.  Let the MFM have their o'donnellgasims. so what. get your pudding ready.

These are all RNCC internal polls, btw.

171 But it's not the job of a candidate's supporters to do the backfilling and dot-connecting necessary to make an answer work. That's the candidate's job. She's the man in the arena (well, woman).

They didn't get the quotes right. They didn't even quote Coons at first but paraphrased him to make her look worse.  I think the video makes pretty clear what she was doing and she was right. She released  a statement through NRO to counter the spin the AssPress tried to put on this exchange, which was  some heavy duty spin. The fact that a bunch of law students gapsed at the idea that someone would say it doesn't actually say "Separation of church and state" in the 1st amendment notwithstanding. 

The first spin on this was she made some kind of gaffe. She didn't and I don't call a bunch of people agreeing with her, on this point, as back fill either.

172 Thanks for the after lunch Delaware thread but really, I'm full, no room for dessert.  I'll just go back to the pentagon shooting thread and take a nap.

173 It's "respecting AN establishment of religion" - not "respecting THE establishment of religion" in the First Amendment.

The difference has been ignored by the courts, but plain English makes a distinction.  In the actual text, "establishment" is used as a noun, not a verb. It's a difference between "congress must leaves the various official churches of the states alone" and "congress cannot make a federal church." 

But who cares about the text of the Constitution, all that matters are penumbras.

174 She is as qualified as our racist Precedent. No transcripts=no degree.

175

@152, you're standing under a penumbra right there. You can't be old enough to remember how close much of the country has been to religious war between Christians.

If a Christmas pageant in a school included a prayer to the Virgin Mary, would you have a problem with that?

 

176 I'm not trudging through the comments to see if this has been covered, but O'Donnell HAS released a statement expressing the point that Ace listed above.

That POV, to be restated here, is that there is a clause stating that there shall be no state-established religion (as in "similar to the Church Of England") is in the Constitution but that a "separation of church and state" is NOT in there and is, rather, from a judicial interpretation of the Constitution.

177 Given all the attention to C O'D in DE, it's looking like a setup.  If Coons wins, which is likely, it is DE that will serve the MFM's purpose of showcasing a Dem victory.  It will be the "Big Republican Disappointment^TM" of the election.

178

Speaking of which, what does your nic mean?

This is a family blog.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 19, 2010 02:19 PM (5aa4z)

Feh.  This blog is like the local bar and grill.  During the day it has a somewhat modest, if down-scale patronage.  But during the night, they both are populated by nothing but junkies, winos, pimps and whores.

 

179

It's not that I think Ace himself has outsized influence on the public, it's more that the effect of his constantly siding with the MFM on conservative candidates--particularly those guilty of being conservative while female--has the effect of making me question his bonafides regarding his GOTV activities.  I mean, when he mans the phone bank, does he tell the people on the other end of the line about the flaws of the candidates on whose behalf he's calling?  If we're all about "being the wave", what the hell is this negative campaigning doing here?

Posted by: Kerry at October 19, 2010 02:23 PM (a/VXa)

Really?  Ace is constantly siding with the MSM over conservative candidates?  Constantly? 

Man I guess you're right.  All those posts talking up Charlie Crist.  His tearfilled post lamenting the loss of him before even the primary to that horrible guy Rubio.

All those supportive posts about Specter and how Toomey making him leave the GOP will be the end of the Republican party.

His continuous bashing of Nikki Haley and full on belief in the statements of Will Folks.

His attacks against that horrible Joe Miller and support for the write-in campaign of Liza Murkowoolski

You are so right Kerry.  Damn you Ace for always siding with the media against conservatives!

180
I'm sorry - I don't mean to be a ninny pessimist  - but I think this race will go My Pet Coons.  Sorry Delaware.

All of your choices suck.  and that is the sad state of our political climate right now.
Sometimes, there are zero good choices for voters. 

181 Oh sweet Jeebus on a gavel. Rush is talking to Daryl Issa and Issa is not sounding very... adversarial, shall we say. This guy is not earning a lot of extra trust with his answers. Clownifornians... nothing good can come from them. And I live here.

182 O/T
Rush just lit up Darrell Issa for talking about House rules.   Yikes, he is pissed.

183 fact is that she shouldn't have to defend that answer or even clarify it.  she's technically correct, and everyone in the audience is a brainwashed rube suffering from years of indoctrination and incorrect interpretation of the establishment clause. 

however, steve poling is exactly right.  if we have an entire generation of lawyers dismissing her point without being able to identify the distinction being made, we are in dire trouble, but then we all knew that already.  it's just staggering to think of the vast numbers of androids that our law schools churn out every year.

184 I mean, when he mans the phone bank, does he tell the people on the other end of the line about the flaws of the candidates on whose behalf he's calling?

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that.  What are the odds of ace being sober enough to even dial the phone?

185 CO'd is doing a great job as a Conservative rabbit or decoy.  She still has an outside shot of pulling it off, but she has drawn so much of the media's focus away from Rand Paul and Toomey (among others) that the Right should always look for a Don Quixote to tilt at a windmill - its great.

186 Where in the Constitution does it say I must purchase products I do not want?

187

I appreciate how this kind of thing may very well cost her votes, or at least bring votes to Coons, but I have to say that lapses like this (if lapse it be) bother me a lot less coming from someone who honestly avows a live-and-let-live philosophy, compared to the typical liberal-progressive who wants to make the rest of us toe his line and use the government to compel us to do so.

That's a big difference.  Even if O'Donnell was STILL interested in witchcraft, I could view it as largely irrelevant because there is no reason to believe she would want to make witchcraft compulsory or subsidize it, whereas every little foible or opinion of Coons's could someday be embodied in law if he wins.

Big f'ing difference.

188 @177, never the bye, every state did in fact, eventually, disestablish its state church. As I say, the debate lasted fifty years. No, the Constitution did not demand it. Would you really want to be part of a church, that was part of the government? Really?

189 f Coons wins, which is likely, it is DE that will serve the MFM's purpose of showcasing a Dem victory. It will be the "Big Republican DisappointmentTM" of the election. If so, encourage them to brag loud and long. He can be a poster child for the Dems, what with Harry Reid retiring and all.

190 Ace: Coons supporter.

191

Hence, the commonly-used phrase, "When fascism comes to America, it will be cloaked in the Cross."

Posted by: Pyrocles at October 19, 2010 02:12 PM (cv5Iw)

Yeah that's total bullshit.  Fascism will come wearing a white coat and carrrying a stethoscope.  And its already here.  Anti-smoking laws and banning trans-fat and trying to limit sodium levels in foods.

Posted by: buzzion at October 19, 2010 02:18 PM (oVQFe)

or Purple Shirts and billy clubs.

192 Where in the Constitution does it say I must purchase products I do not want? Right here, Dorothy. (points at his crotch)

193 If O'Donnell wants to win this election, she should point out the sale of three Scranton area Catholic hospitals that are pending, and that are in part due to the negative impact of Obamacare.

Here in NYC, people have been protesting, because St. Vincent's closed (it will be flipped to condos) and no other hospital has been proposed to ease the burden placed on surrounding area hospitals. They haven't figured out why.

194 So someone up thread said her nomination was a bad move?   Really, the people voted and it was a "bad move"...so then following that through, it means that you know better than "the people who voted"? 

Just like the people in CA voted.  I'm not sure of that whole issue I'm following other stuff but it was a vote, by the people and now it's in the courts. 

195

Persuasion smashions.

The point is that she will be a solid "yes" voice at The Light One's Senate trial after the House votes to impeach the Marxist sob.

Separate that.

196 Yeah that's total bullshit. Fascism will come wearing a white coat and carrrying a stethoscope. And its already here. or Purple Shirts and billy clubs. Rumor has it they have a fondess for finger sandwiches.

197 Posted by: jwest at October 19, 2010 02:23 PM (vlXm5)

Now, to be fair, when good news about COD pops up, Ace covers that, too.  I don't think Ace is against her, I just think- like many on the site, he's saying "I can't believe she actually said this" without realizing it's just throwing fuel on the fire.

And, as others have said, ignoring her issues won't make them go away.  I disagree with how they're handling it (ranging from head-wagging to second-guessing to outright renunciation) but they have a point that we should be addressing it.

I like Rush's monologue from a couple of weeks ago where he talked about (paraphrase) "'Perfect' candidates aren't real people; real people make mistakes and gaffs.  I'd rather be represented by a real person, thankyouverymuch."

198 I finally got my computer back. I need to have 3 or so to keep 1 up and running.

199 Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at October 19, 2010 02:33 PM (mHQ7T)

It's funny a lot of people all over the city are very upset by that closing and I was told the other day "it went fast, faster than we thought" by a person who said "gee they fast track what they want and slow down what they down, that's why people are so upset about the mosk"

People tell me that St. Vincent's was very very very important to the people of the neighborhood and it will be a hardship for the elderly and sick and it made me so terribley sad.

200 Ace, you should have waited.  Michelle Malkin has the 411, with a link to listen to the debate.  Rush was on it.  But I am really shocked that the MSM would mischaracterize the whole thing - and you fell for it!!  Update request, please.

201 Anyone else hearing Rush? Oh man, he caught Issa cold in yet another "let's get along" moment with Issa's remark on "open debate" rules in the House under the GOP. The GOP is not listening.

202
After listening to the audio linked to in post #39 I call bullshit. O'Donnell doesn't sound bad at all. The law students, on the other hand, sound like a gaggle of 'tards.

203 So someone up thread said her nomination was a bad move?

I see her nomination as a Hail Mary pass attempting to recover from the bad move of nominating Castle.

204

Rush just lit up Darrell Issa for talking about House rules.   Yikes, he is pissed.

I heard it too.  That was great.

205

Interestingly, however, many on the right jumped on the "oh, no, she screwed up msm bandwagon" without examining the video/soundbite.

I don't know what the rush is to jump ugly on our side.

206 But...doesn't Intrade have Coons up by at least +20?

207 219 Yeah, usually Rush is pretty polite to these guys. Not this time, he blasted him. Mmmmmm, Mmm, Mm

208 Can we maybe just face it? O'Donnell is an ignoramus with no business in the Senate.  Her opponent is unthinkable too, of course, but that's not much comfort.  The system simply failed to produce an acceptable candidate.

Posted by: Jeroboam at October 19, 2010 02:05 PM (Tcwdq)

Nice how you can name O'Donnell, but not her mysterious opponent.

209 O/T:  Have been super busy.  Heard a little bit of Beck wherein he said tonight he was "throwing down the gauntlet" on pelosi.

I'm going to try and watch but I hope this is not another of Beck's "watch and dvr" crap that turns out to be nothing but a come on.

210 If that were a Delaware state funded law school, she needs to call for an investigation into their constitutional law professors.

211 A. Great question, Bob. The only thing we can be sure of is that the Earth is at least as old as your Mom's gums, which incidentally were wrapped around my crank last evening.

Next time Ace is visiting a candidate, he needs to bring Herr along for debate advice.

212 Sounds like she handled it awkwardly, and the crowd laughed. Golden sound bite for the Dims.

BTW, has anyone been following Art Robinson's campaign in Oregon? He's up against DeFazio (Dem.), and has pulled even, even tho DeFazio polled over 80% in the last election. DeFazio is a hard-Left Democrat who voted against the Porculus bill -- because it had too many tax breaks.

Here's a link:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=216589

213
This gets into my beef with the idea of True Conservatives. Yes, I'd like True Conservatives in office too. But a True Conservative who fails at the persuasion function of politics isn't helping the cause at all. In fact, it often hurts it.

....
it's not the job of a candidate's supporters to do the backfilling and dot-connecting necessary to make an answer work. That's the candidate's job.

Indeed.

214

Really?  Ace is constantly siding with the MSM over conservative candidates?  Constantly? 

Man I guess you're right.  All those posts talking up Charlie Crist.  His tearfilled post lamenting the loss of him before even the primary to that horrible guy Rubio.

All those supportive posts about Specter and how Toomey making him leave the GOP will be the end of the Republican party.

His continuous bashing of Nikki Haley and full on belief in the statements of Will Folks.

His attacks against that horrible Joe Miller and support for the write-in campaign of Liza Murkowoolski

You are so right Kerry.  Damn you Ace for always siding with the media against conservatives!<<<

You're right; I should have said "frequent", or perhaps "occasional", coupled with "unfortunate".  Maybe it was just the sheer volume of crap directed at Palin and O'Donnell once they were in danger of being viable that resonated.

215 It's basically saying that our candidate is only as unqualified as the people we consider to be the most unqualified on the planet, so it's ok.  And then you get personally angry at those of us for whom that is unacceptable, and call us "unprincipled."

Posted by: MikeinAmman at October 19, 2010 02:10 PM (elcpe)

If only these principles extended to actually criticizing any of these other candidates.

216 I think this was covered earlier in the comments, but... The shocking thing here isn't O'Donnell's answer, but more the audience's reaction. This debate took place at a law school, in front of presumably law students, and yet when O'Donnell tries to explain her view (albeit poorly), they LAUGH. So you mean to tell me that our current flock of law students don't understand what the establishment clause does and does not prohibit? THAT is the real news story here.

217 Does Ace have a pony tail?

218

Posted by: dagny at October 19, 2010 02:37 PM (N1fth)

Everyday the same of thing, OMG, the MSM lied, f*ck em. They are scrunts we need to stop listening to them.

219 201 @177, never the bye, every state did in fact, eventually, disestablish its state church. As I say, the debate lasted fifty years. No, the Constitution did not demand it. Would you really want to be part of a church, that was part of the government? Really?

Posted by: comatus at October 19, 2010 02:31 PM (hrwMe)

No, I wouldn't, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to admit what the truth was. The constitution used to count slaves 3/5ths of a person. An Ugly truth, but a truth non the less.

My point is, the modern interpretation of the constitution banning states from engaging in religious stuff is wrong, and only the product of liberal judges appointed by Roosevelt and Truman.

I will point out that the US Constitution ends with the phrase "Done in convention by the Unanimous consent of all states present this one thousand and eighty seventh year of our lord..." 

I will also point out that it says "The President shall have ten days to consider a bill. Sundays excepted." 

People nowadays suffer from a lack of zeitgeist regarding the founding times meanings and intents.

220 Something somewhat on topic with McCain telling Meeeeeghan to can it over O'Donnell. Heart-ache [sic] for allahpundit.

221 Nobody listens or reads the state run media except bloggers.

222 Because of the very common usage of the "separation of church and state phrase," most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution. The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business. http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm

223

I have an analogy for you...

The media, including many pundits on the right, treat Conservatives like X wives treat their husbands.

Everything that can be misconstrued, will be... no benefit of any doubt will be given, and everything they say, will be twisted and turned until it is wrong...

Its like that old saying...

If a Man speaks in a Forest, and there is no Woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?

224 237 Wiki has it also.

225

October 19, 2010

O/T My baby boy is 15 today. When he was born I was sick to death as OJ had just been acquited.  Thank God that had a happy middle, as OJ rots in prison.

226 Compared to Blumenthal's response to "how do you create a job?", I'd say she knocked it out of the park. What's that you say? Doesn't fit the narrative?

227 Her problem is that she was trying to be sarcastic/cutesy/argumentative. Don't phrase a pseudo-question, just state clearly and plainly (like the way it is fucking written)what the Constitution says. And make clear that the proscription against establishing a National Religion is not the "separation of Church and State" founding tenet that people mistakenly believe it to be. She got rolled, but it's her own fault. 

228 Posted by: Lemon Kitten at October 19, 2010 02:41 PM (0fzsA)

See... I disagree.

That's the old way.  We're trying to get rid of the old way.  The old way is about top-down, the masses receiving the message from on high, the Candidate and Party will hand down the platform.

The new way is bottom up.  The new way is for voters to say "You will support this, you will not support that."  It is the Candidate and Party receiving the platform from those they wish to represent.

If that is the model we seek, we're going to have to pull out all the stops to get the message across- and that means candidates like Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell.  It means we educate those around us, we don't wait for the Candidate to do it. 

Realistically, how would that work: even if the MFM wasn't biased against Republicans, they would have some series of 30 second sound-bites to get their point across: the only people that is going to persuade are the chaff of the electorate: we want the wheat.  To get that wheat of the electorate, we have to do the work.

229

I will point out that the US Constitution ends with the phrase "Done in convention by the Unanimous consent of all states present this one thousand and eighty seventh year of our lord..." 

The Smithsonian has relabeled everything, to BCE, before current era. We are just like the Taliban destroying the old Buddhas.

230 This is why just rushing to nominate someone who merely checks off the right boxes on the issues survey without truly vetting them is a mistake.

O'Donnell is giving away what was a sure seat.  Anyone stupid enough to argue that Castle wouldn't have swamped Coons should not be allowed out without a helmet.

Paul may still pull it out in Kentucky, but the worst is yet to come when the fruitcake actually gets to vote in the Senate.  Maes almost cost us the Governorship of Colorado as redistricting approaches, although Tancredo may pull that out, so thanks again knuckleheads.

231 OT but folks, just remind yourselves Barry Rainbowshanks told us that Afghanistan was the "real" war that we need to fight. Weasel zippers notes the Wash. Examiner: Afghanistan: American Troop Morale Plummets as ROE Continue to Tighten “If they use rockets to hit the [forward operating base] we can’t shoot back because they were within 500 meters of the village. If they shoot at us and drop their weapon in the process we can’t shoot back,” said Spc. Charles Brooks, 26, a U.S. Army medic with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, in Zabul province. Word had come down the morning Brooks spoke to this reporter that watch towers surrounding the base were going to be dismantled because Afghan village elders, some sympathetic to the Taliban, complained they were invading their village privacy. “We have to take down our towers because it offends them and now the Taliban can set up mortars and we can’t see them,” Brooks added, with disgust. Barry is taking that war mighty seriously, ain't he?

232

If a Christmas pageant in a school included a prayer to the Virgin Mary, would you have a problem with that?

How would you feel about your church reenacting the angel coming to mary? The reenactment would have the Archangel Gabriel say, "Hail Mary full of grace, the lord is with you, blessed art thou among women, blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus".

Interestingly, this is the "prayer" so many object to that catholics say.

It doesn't matter because public schools don't have Christmas pagents. They learn about the Koran but they can't even wear red and green near "winter break". Christianity is anathema. I think this conflicts with the and "will not abridge the free exercise thereof" clause. The communists want all mention of christianity removed and denegrated because it promotes individuality which by it's nature is adverse to statism.

O'Donnell suggests that intelligent design as a theory could be taught along side the other theories and be called a theory. How that has anything to do with a "religion" is beyond me.

233
Posted by: Adjoran

Shut the fuck up. Please.

234 Rush is defending O'Donnell on grounds similar to Ace's point.  On this one I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.

The liberals and the MSM (but I repeat myself) will not however and this will only allow them another opportunity to revisit Intelligent Design, Creationism in schools, witchery, mouse brains and masterbation.

Right she may be on this one, but this is not in furtherance of her election.  Rush himself would probably not be elected in Delaware either.

For some time my opinion has been that O'Donnell's only contribution to this cycle is to provide fodder for the MSM and keep them away from Angle.  Mission accomplished.

BTW on the last point, while also not in the Constitution Jefferson is reported to have said: "It's my dick, and I can wash it as fast as I like."

235 Go back and listen the clip. The egg headed bearded Marxist got served by this upstart.

236 237 Because of the very common usage of the "separation of church and state phrase," most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution. The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

Posted by: izoneguy at October 19, 2010 02:44 PM (fcJQp)

I have had similar discussions to this before. I will also point out that at the time of the Constitutional convention, Thomas Jefferson was NOT a participant. He was serving the country as Ambassador to France, and he had neither input nor personal knowledge of the Constitutional debates of that time.

In other words, he is a poor choice to base ANY constitutional interpretation on.

237 Posted by: George Orwell

Obama should be fucking arrested for shipping people into a war-zone and not letting them defend themselves.

238

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him. When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

She spoke stupidly. Period.

Anyone who has put a measure of thought to the stupidity of "separation of church and state" can rebut that progressive 20th-century living/breathing interpretation which completely warped the 1st Amendment's point that Congress will make no law respecting religion or the lack thereof. The First Amendment simply tells Congress to STFU and keep out of religion or the lack thereof. That means no laws discriminating religion from public life, no laws requiring religious traditions be hidden behind church walls. That means no favoritism, ESPECIALLY no PC favoritism benefiting Sharia Law or any faction or individual that refuses to accommodate the supremacy of the US Constitution, including Obama's administration or activist judges and Congress itself. The point is, FREE SPEECH.

IF ANYTHING, there should be separation of media and state.

239 This is why just rushing to nominate someone who merely checks off the right boxes on the issues survey without truly vetting them is a mistake.

O'Donnell is giving away what was a sure seat.  Anyone stupid enough to argue that Castle wouldn't have swamped Coons should not be allowed out without a helmet.

Paul may still pull it out in Kentucky, but the worst is yet to come when the fruitcake actually gets to vote in the Senate.  Maes almost cost us the Governorship of Colorado as redistricting approaches, although Tancredo may pull that out, so thanks again knuckleheads.

Posted by: Adjoran at October 19, 2010 02:49 PM (VfmLu)

Those pesky voters in Delaware. Why didn't they listen to their masters on the Internet!

240 Posted by: curious at October 19, 2010 02:36 PM (p302b)

St. Vincent's was known as the frontline for the AIDS epidemic when it first hit in the 70's. Many victims had nowhere else to turn and were cared for by the Church then. I heard of its closing a while ago, because there was such sentimental attachment to it for so many New Yorkers who said goodbye to loved ones there. Yet, people say it was the Lehmans of hospital closings and totally unexpected. I don't think they tapped into many wealthy donors here. Now people are angry about the service reductions and taking to the streets. It's the cover story of NY Magazine this week.

241 Now I have left out to two times.

242 Anyone ever notice how difficult it is to debate more than one person in front of a hostile crowd?  Knowing that your very words will be distorted to make you look bad no matter what you actually say?  Good candidates rise above this, but it doing so doesn't mean they will be a good office holder.  O'Donnel is perfectly good to have holding that office, no matter her faults as a candidate.  Listening to that audio though, I'm not convinced this is a failure anyway. 

Also... Widener can suck it. 

243

I listened to O'Donnell on Rush. I support her totally but as a bit of sound bite it was horrible.

 

244

I will point out that the US Constitution ends with the phrase "Done in convention by the Unanimous consent of all states present this one thousand and eighty seventh year of our lord..." 

The Smithsonian has relabeled everything, to BCE, before current era. We are just like the Taliban destroying the old Buddhas.

Posted by: madamex at October 19, 2010 02:48 PM (jChrK)

My understanding is that "Year of our Lord" was a common phrasing on virtually all legal documents until recent years. Yes, there has been a long campaign to "de-Christianize" America.

245 Speaking of "separation of church and state", some people also think "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is in the Constitution. Saw that in a poll once.

246 Alright, if there is/is not separation of church and state, could somebody please explain how the muslim population demands and receives foot baths in public schools?  I am pretty sure that washing their feet before praying is a religious custom-not just ethnic-so if a public school supplies the foot baths, doesn't that violate said constitutional amendment?

247 In context the bearded Marxist got hosed.

248 She ended up nailing him on his not knowing what was in the rest of the 1st amendment. Not covered. It's a gotcha game. Open your mouth, the hostile media jumps. She doesn't have a chance with anyone who still reads/listens to them. It doesn' t matter whether her answer was Scalia like or Alvin Green, the media would have protrayed it the same way.

249 The Constitutional Separation of Church and State Amendment does not exist. This makes enforcing it a BIATCH.

250 I should never have gone to Weasel Zippers. Now I have yet another reason to detest Karl Rove. Politico reports that the Tea Partiers are not "sophisticated." “It was also a well-organized, coherent, ideologically motivated and conservative revolution,” Rove said of the Reagan Revolution. “If you look underneath the surface of the tea party movement, on the other hand, you will find that it is not sophisticated. “It’s not like these people have read the economist Friedrich August von Hayek,” Rove added. “Rather, these are people who are deeply concerned about what they see happening to their country, particularly when it comes to spending, deficits, debt and health care.” Rove manages to mangle history and insult the Tea Partiers in one fell swoop. I promise you Mr. Rove, given my age, that the Reagan Revolution was not driven by elite college-bred bookworms, you pompous hemarrhoid. I also promise you that your services will not be needed by the unsophisticated bunch about to invade DC. "Too much government spending" is a concept which does not require the advice of an overpaid, balding has-been who delivered us the stunning results of 2006.

251

262 so if a public school supplies the foot baths, doesn't that violate said constitutional amendment?

In the left's interpretation of the clause: YES it is against the constitution.

252 so thanks again knuckleheads.
Posted by: Adjoran

talking to yourself again

The Ordeal of Change (1963) by Eric Hoffer:
Ch. 12: "Concerning Individual Freedom"   To the intellectual the struggle for freedom is more vital than the actuality of a free society. He would rather "work, fight, talk, for liberty than have it." The fact is that up to now the free society has not been good for the intellectual. It has neither accorded him a superior status to sustain his confidence nor made it easy for him to acquire an unquestioned sense of social usefulness. For he derives his sense of usefulness mainly from directing, instructing, and planning — from minding other people's business — and is bound to feel superfluous and neglected where people believe themselves competent to manage individual and communal affairs, and are impatient of supervision and regulation. A free society is as much a threat to the intellectual's sense of worth as an automated economy is to the workingman's sense of worth. Any social order that can function with a minimum of leadership will be anathema to the intellectual.
The intellectual craves a social order in which uncommon people perform uncommon tasks every day. He wants a society throbbing with dedication, reverence, and worship. He sees it as scandalous that the discoveries of science and the feats of heroes should have as their denouement the comfort and affluence of common folk. A social order run by and for the people is to him a mindless organism motivated by sheer physiologism.

The Temper of Our Time (1967) by Hoffer:

Free men are aware of the imperfection inherent in human affairs, and they are willing to fight and die for that which is not perfect. They know that basic human problems can have no final solutions, that our freedom, justice, equality, etc. are far from absolute, and that the good life is compounded of half measures, compromises, lesser evils, and gropings toward the perfect. The rejection of approximations and the insistence on absolutes are the manifestation of a nihilism that loathes freedom, tolerance, and equity.

253 253 Posted by: George Orwell

Obama should be fucking arrested for shipping people into a war-zone and not letting them defend themselves.

Posted by: Lincolntf at October 19, 2010 02:52 PM (V/C0X)

I have a friend who suggested he should be tried for treason for knowingly and intentionally subverting the Eligibility requirements in running for the office of President. Hell, he should be tried for treason on dozens of things he's done. How about the shakedown of BP? How about using the IRS against his political enemies?

Like I said, a Wind up Toy cymbal clapping monkey would have made a better President than Obama.

254 God help Rove. He's not sophisticated himself yet thinks he is. Sad and pathetic.

255 IMO, if O'Donnell had lost the primary, Angle would have gotten all the hatred now directed at Christine and been toast vs Reid.  The MSM wants a conservative scalp, and O'Donnell is the unfortunate target.

256 The Constitution needs a way to check the power of Judges who legislate from the bench.

257 “It was also a well-organized, coherent, ideologically motivated and conservative revolution,” Rove said of the Reagan Revolution. “If you look underneath the surface of the tea party movement, on the other hand, you will find that it is not sophisticated.

Rove manages to mangle history and insult the Tea Partiers in one fell swoop. I promise you Mr. Rove, given my age, that the Reagan Revolution was not driven by elite college-bred bookworms, you pompous hemarrhoid. I also promise you that your services will not be needed by the unsophisticated bunch about to invade DC. "Too much government spending" is a concept which does not require the advice of an overpaid, balding has-been who delivered us the stunning results of 2006.

Posted by: George Orwell at October 19, 2010 02:58 PM (AZGON)

The back office where Rove was arranging the Vice Presidential candidates lunch appointments was especially well organized. And super influential.

258 As I see it, we are already ahead of the game with the elimination of Mike Castle.  Chris Coons would be the icing on the cake.  I still like cake without icing.

259 Sorry Ace, you screwed the pooch on this one. Your personal dislike of her is fucking up your judgement. What she said was ,in fact, correct. You are simply falling for the manufactured fake gotcha the screaming left is trying to paint her with. Whether she wins or loses has virtually no impact on this overall race. You getting all gooey in the pants every time someone claims she gaffes or even when she doesn't like this doesn't help us BE THE WAVE. As Sharon Angle said "Man up".

260 Rove did not graduate college. He did steal 1000's of pages of Democrat letterhead in an attempt to malign a Democrat candidate.

261 Sorry to say, but O'Donnell's answer means the Republicans are finished for the next 75 years.

262 As I see it, we are already ahead of the game with the elimination of Mike Castle.  Chris Coons would be the icing on the cake.  I still like cake without icing.

Posted by: Dogbert at October 19, 2010 03:04 PM (CzyDl)

True enough, the Castle electoral juggernaut seems a little overstated. I just wish the Comment Thread masterminds would remember that in this country we neither select the primary candidates nor choose the final candidate. Candidates run on their own, and the people choose who they want in the primary and the general.

If you don't know this, I'm not sure how well your electoral forcasting is.

263 polynikes sez:

"Reagan consulting astrologers.

GWB and the plastic Turkey, Air Guard reports, etc. etc. etc."

More lies, ET CETERA. Begone, foul Toad.

264 dagny

She ended up nailing him on his not knowing what was in the rest of the 1st amendment. Not covered. It's a gotcha game.

She never corrected his error, so no nailing her opponent.

Leaving matters in the hands of your opponent to clarify what you may/maynot do with free speech, what constitutional rights do/don't exist, is dumber than a lawyer asking a witness a question without knowing the answer first.

All she had to say was that there is no such thing as an Amendment to the Constitution stipulating literal separation between church and state, or state and church, or even the right for Congress to dictate a public school curriculum. Congress has no such right. Voters Know, even if O'Donnell doesn't.

Regardless of media projection, Ace is right that it is the duty of candidates to state clearly your own position. At least then one can take measures attempting to persuade voters and opponents to your point.

265 Anyone ever wonder how the Stater run media supports themselves when they lose money every year?

266

Ace, I'm guessing you weren't around much in the 80's, no?

Reagan was often wildly misquoted by the press channels of the day.  His tactic was to revisit those issues in public speeches & pressers - most of which survive to day as printed speeches or clips not from that day's media, but in current archives.  This entire event is mild in comparison...

267 #279 Not referring to you, Dogbert in the last part, but the 'everything would have been perfect if COD hadn't run' crowd.

268 The Constitution needs a way to check the power of Judges who legislate from the bench.
Posted by: FlaviusJulius

Worth remembering.

269 "And the irony of this is that the idea of a separation between Church and state was invented in the mid-19th Century to stop Roman Catholic schools from receiving tax money the way public schools, Protestant in all but name, were receiving"

Er, NO. I went to public school in the 1960s and 1970s, and there was ZERO Protestant content to the curriculum (and yes, I am a Protestant. To the bone, baby.)

But thank you for playing!

270 Maverick - no offense, but did you watch the event live?  I did - she opened the door, and the Bearded Marxist stumbled in.

271 Posted by: Jess

Fill in what isn't in the post.

272

278 ron

 

lol keep dreaming

273

Ace, your argument seems to suggests style over substance. The area of constitutional law concerning the principle of church and state involves a plurality of opinion but a central agreement that it was never explicitly stated in such terms within the Constitution.

The historical context of the "establishment clause" deals with opposition to state religion by fiat.

Ms. O'Donnell is absolutely right to speak to the literal precept of the first amendment's establishment clause by rhetorically asking where is the explicit reference to the separation of church and state, for there of course is none. 

The argument thus becomes your disappointment with style versus substance.

I would direct you to the case of McCreary County vs. ACLU.  This was a 5/4 decision that while affirming the lower courts ruling on the court house display of the ten commandments, includes a brilliant descenting opinion by Justice Scalia.  If you take the time to read the opinion, you will note, that the separation of church and state is not as posited . . . as the MSM suggests.

Perhaps we should take up an argument with Justice Scalia . . . for maybe he could have been more stylistically persuasive.    

 

 

274 ...that notion is doctrinal, not textual, and comes not from the Constitution, but from (IIRC) Thomas Jefferson's letters about it. Actually, it comes from US Supreme Court Justice, and former Klansman, Hugo Black in his decision for Everson v Board of Education in 1947. That is where the current "interpretation" of "wall of separation" originates.

275 278 Sorry to say, but O'Donnell's answer means the Republicans are finished for the next 75 years.<<<

True.  And probably presages the fall of Western civilization, damn it all.

276 Actually, it comes from US Supreme Court Justice, and former Klansman, Hugo Black in his decision for Everson v Board of Education in 1947. That is where the current "interpretation" of "wall of separation" originates.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at October 19, 2010 03:18 PM (NITzp)

<Adjudicated cases form the text of the Constitution?

277

 

all you deleware rinos hold your nose and vote for the girl/witch or you get the pansy/marxist

278 The entire conversation @ the expressed limits found in the 1st Amendment.  The Bearded one was at a loss for words, and the silence was deafening - and uncomfortable for many in the venue.

279 As a point of information, yes, Separation of Church and State did not apply to the individual states, originally. But what has been missed is that states churches did not simply go out of favor. They were prohibited buy a later Amendment, after the Civil War but in the 1860s (like th 15th, or 16th, I forget which), which stipulated that all rights at the federal level also applied at the state level.

280 This is not a blow-off consideration. It's not enough to just vote right or have the right conclusions; a candidate needs to be able to explain those conclusions in such a way that people with half-baked opinions might be persuaded. Since when has this been the standard for a Republican candidate? Previously during the "pragmatic" vs "purity" debates, the standard was simply to support "the RINO who can win will vote with us more often than the Democrat". Now the new standard is a candidate must explain conservatism properly and voting the right way is not enough?

281 Coons certainly had his speech memorized, and didn't miss a syllable while O'Donnell interjected her questions.

Exactly why did O'Donnell allow Coons to spout off that the Tea Party wants so many Constitutional Amendments rescinded, and then compound the audience's perception of her weakness by not countering Coons' false statements about the Tea Party?

According to Coons, the Tea Party is resolved to rescind 14th Amendment (equal protection of all citizens under the law). In reality, the Tea Party wants government to uphold the 14th Amendment and quit with all the racial preferences and reverse discrimination in our judicial system, academia and in the work place.

And the 16th Amendment authorizing the federal income tax? As if the Tea Party would rescind all federal taxation, that will be the day when America is on the gold standard and has no national debt. Pfff

So many interest groups offer those US Constitutions written on a card to carry that O'Donnell should have one that includes the amendments. I'd like one, too.

282 Go back and listen the clip. The egg headed bearded Marxist got served by this upstart.

As a 26 year old woman I think it like totally sends a bad message to my generation when you have uppity no-real world experience broads like O'Donnell going around and owning our intellectual superiors like that. Or something. You gonna finish those fries?

283 Since when has this been the standard for a Republican candidate?

Since before RINOs took the Majority, even WHILE the progressives took the GOP with Ike and Nixon.

284

Ace, you're my favorite blogger but I think you're off the mark on this one, in a number of ways. The most basic way is that it sounds like O'Donnell, being a young and inexperienced candidate, was simply caught on a point of ignorance. This ignorance was probably fueled by the old canard pushed by the religious types that Separation of Church and State "is not in the Constitution". One might just as soon say that the Constitution doesn't have "Separation of Powers", because that exact phrase does not appear. It's downright intellectually dishonest, and O'Donnell was tripped up by it.

285 Posted by: journolist at October 19, 2010 03:20 PM My point is that the current radical application of "separation of Church and State" did not originate with Jefferson. It only began when the Klansman Hugo Black inserted it into a law decision. It was because of that decision that the radicals started working to eliminate all religion from government. The current radical interpretation originates with Black's radical interpretation of Jefferson. Without Black's radical interpretation, the current movement to eliminate all religion from government would probably not exist, because most rational people understand that the Founders did not intend for government to be completely devoid of religion. So, the radical application of the "wall of separation" originates with Hugo Black's radical interpretation, not Jefferson's letter.

286 It's there in the Constitution, right next to the Abortion clause.

287

It's in there.  Congress' power to impeach federal judges and justices, as well as create new inferior courts is more than enough to do the job.  What we need is a Congress with some integrity and an average IQ above 87.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at October 19, 2010 03:24 PM (G/MYk)

And actualy, there is no prohibition from Congress passing a Law to define what the Constitution means... ie... to interprete it.  If signed by the President, that would give you your check and balance on the Courts.

288 So when the economy is really bad the issues are religion and gay's but when the economy is good, see 2006's unemployment rate, the media talk about how bad the economy is.

I have heard Rush and Mark Levin talk about candidates like O'Donnell and what is absolutely the truth, "NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO THEY CANNOT AND WILL NOT DO THE HARM TO THIS NATION THAT THE LIKES OF OBAMA/COONS WILL DO" Christine not understanding there is a Constitution hyperbole on my part to make a point) understands freedom and the founding better than these Marxists.

People on the left talking about the Constitution reminds me of the old aphorism, "The devil can site scripture for his purpose"

289 But thank you for playing!--Beverly

the idea of a separation between Church and state was invented in the mid-19th Century to stop Roman Catholic schools from receiving tax money the way public schools, Protestant in all but name, were receiving"

You missed the point regarding public taxes for public schools financially discriminating against Catholics taxed though choosing Catholic school requiring additional private tuition.

290 Would somebody please tell me how tall Coons is. This is every bit as important as anything said about O'Donnell.

291 Since before RINOs took the Majority, even WHILE the progressives took the GOP with Ike and Nixon. Posted by: maverick muse at October 19, 2010 03:29 PM I meant, since when has this been OUR standard. As I said, previously, the standard for supporting a GOP candidate was simply they voted with us more than the Democrats. But now it seems Ace is changing that standard. In theory, I agree with what he is saying. Ideally, we do need candidates who not only vote the right way, but can articulate conservative principles and convince people that conservatism is the right way of governing. But, why is Ace suddenly bringing out this ideal standard with regards to O'Donnell, when previously the standard was simply to support the GOP candidate over the Democrat.

292 Romeo13 at October 19, 2010 03:33 PM

Yes, and the Congressional Vote on Amendments is stipulated a larger % than usual votes to enact legislation. What is it, the same number as required to vote down a potus veto?

293 The wall of separation is indeed taken from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. And yes, Jefferson is an important figure, BUT was not involved - AT ALL - in writing the Constitution. He was in Paris. HOWEVER. James Madison DID write the Constitution, and he and Jefferson were of one mind on this topic, going back to the days of the Virginia statute on freedom of religion that they wrote together that said the exact same thing as the first amendment.

294

Another problem here is the ignorance of how Jefferson was a leader, if not THE leader, in the push for religious freedom. It was he who got - with the help of James Madison, who co-authored the Bill of Rights - religious freedom established in Virginia. He even requested that this be one of his big three accomplishments listed on his tombstone (being the 3rd President didn't make the cut, but writing the Declaration of Independence did).

Jefferson certainly knew what he was talking about - he was an expert in the matter. Extensive writings by Madison back up what Jefferson said, although Madison used a different phrase.

What people don't seem to realize is that if the "no religious test" language had not been included in the Constitution, Jefferson (and maybe other Founders) would not have been allowed to hold office!

It's funny to me how people desperate to push a religious component to our government will obsess on how a date was written, and ignore that - for perhaps the first time in history - religion was almost completely ignored. The only substantive reference is prohibitive - "no religious test". Even the Presidential oath does not include the "so help me God" - that is almost always added on according to custom, but is not required.

295 The only people who have a problem with what she said are really angry atheists and leftists who want only their exclusive religion to be in power. What she said was perfectly fine, even if it is evidence of those scary Social Conservatives not being silent.

296 So, the radical application of the "wall of separation" originates with Hugo Black's radical interpretation, not Jefferson's letter.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at October 19, 2010 03:30 PM (NITzp)

< Sorry, my mistake.  Thanks for clarifying.

297 304 It's there in the Constitution, right next to the Abortion clause.

Posted by: rawmuse at October 19, 2010 03:32 PM (nfSu/)

You are righter than you know! The fourteenth amendment is responsible for BOTH of those erroneous notions, or I should say, the Roosevelt appointed Liberal Judges interpretations of it. 

298

Ya know what pisses me off? A school district in lower Delaware (Indian River I think) was sued because they opened a graduation ceremony with a prayer. She should have roared back with that.

 

"Why are we discussing creationism in schools? A Delaware school was attacked simply for allowing a prayer. That's the way that Chris Coons and his friends want all of our schools to be".

299 Clyde Shelton at October 19, 2010 03:36 PM

Clyde, you must be new to say that Ace is suddenly thinking clearly. He does argue eloquently on behalf of constitutional ideals, you know. Especially since it matters, TO PERSUADE IN DEBATE rather than being swept away off balance, again. A candidate MUST have a platform, KNOW that platform, and argue on its behalf. That is a given, even with Greene whose ignorant platform is a secure vote for Obama agenda.

300 Jim DeMint started the Recession.

301 Sometimes a candidate's folly makes for all the stronger response from voters intent on making themselves clearly opposed to the likes of Coons-Obama.

302 I may have to ram this thread up someone's ass and wave them around like a popsicle when Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe win their nominations for Senator, again. Support the candidate, RINO.

303 Oddly, this is a subject where conservatives start to sound like liberals. Separation of Church and State is the government staying out of the religion business. The government doesn't make hamburgers, either, but it doesn't mean the govt is anti-hamburger. You can buy and hamburger, bring it to the Capitol, and gobble it down, and you can similarly go to a church, learn a prayer, bring it to the Capitol, and say it. But the Capitol can't make the hamburger, or endorse a specific restaurant - the same applies to religion.

304 Even the Presidential oath does not include the "so help me God" - that is almost always added on according to custom, but is not required.

Posted by: Optimizer at October 19, 2010 03:41 PM (2lTU+)

And swearing on the bible is not somehow prohibited? I wasn't going to respond to your earlier comments, but now I will.

You misunderstand the significance of the fact that OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS existed after the ratification of the US Constitution. It means that they were not in conflict with the meaning of the first amendment.

Yes, the states voluntarily gave them up, but not exercising a right does not preclude you from possessing that right. If Officially sanctioned state religion were a violation of the US constitution, than John Jay (first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) would have said so, and they would have been federally banned at that time.

It is interesting how you suggest it was the 15th, or 16th amendment which later created the implied "separation of church and state" when it is in fact the 14th amendment which the Black's court cited in support of it's wacko interpretation. 

The funny thing is, the 14th amendment was created for the express purpose of protecting the equal rights of freed slaves, and yet because of it's poor wording and lack of clarity, it has been used to justify Abortion, Banning Religion, and lately to allege that Barack Obama is actually a US citizen.  It has caused much mischief, and we could only wish the authors of it had been so clear thinking as the original founders in drafting it.

305 Yeah, we should have the articulate Castle.  Then we could all complain and moan when he joined the Dems on Cap and Trade, DISCLOSE ACT, and other Dem issues. But we would have those committee chairmanships as he joins the mob stealing our freedom.

306 So, this was Ace's single post about a candidate today?  None of the 470 odd Democrats running for Congress did anything that might need a bit of critical blogging two weeks from election day.  He just had to use his time and energy taking yet another pot shot at a Republican candidate that's not his kind of people.

Nice.

307 322 Oddly, this is a subject where conservatives start to sound like liberals. Separation of Church and State is the government staying out of the religion business. The government doesn't make hamburgers, either, but it doesn't mean the govt is anti-hamburger. You can buy and hamburger, bring it to the Capitol, and gobble it down, and you can similarly go to a church, learn a prayer, bring it to the Capitol, and say it. But the Capitol can't make the hamburger, or endorse a specific restaurant - the same applies to religion.

Posted by: Optimizer at October 19, 2010 03:52 PM (2lTU+)

This is a place where conservatives are unwilling to claim something which is not true, regardless of where it fits in political philosophy.

The constitution as originally written, and as it was administrated during the time of the founding DID PERMIT official state religions. The 14th amendment DID NOT revoke this power of the states. This power was used continuously in various ways up until relatively recently, and it is only through the incorrect declarations of liberal court majorities (Thank you Franklin Delanor Roosevelt.) that the power of the states to incorporate religion into their schools etc. was infringed upon. 

There is a book I read years ago called "The Myth of Separation" that goes into exquisite detail on the various relationships between Individual states and religion.(prayer in school, etc.)  It was Liberal (Roosevelt/Truman Appointed) courts who created the religious intolerance in State governments. They were simply pushing their own personal opinions on everyone, not applying the constitution as it was written and understood.

308 Is she a witch, does she believe in evolution,  all idiotic distractions.  She should attack on jobs, the Obama agenda and the economy.  Any distractions should be dismissed and converted to a talking point.  She is inexperienced  at best and just needs some proper help in learning how to properly stick the dagger in!

Let us just face the fact that it is Christine versus Coons, Rhinos, Elitists and the MSM.  We are invested because it is the Biden seat and though I hope she wins, it is a major uphill battle because any mistake she makes is blown up out of proportion.  She missed one easy kill, the world won't end,  get over it.

309 Clyde, you must be new to say that Ace is suddenly thinking clearly. He does argue eloquently on behalf of constitutional ideals, you know. Especially since it matters, TO PERSUADE IN DEBATE... Posted by: maverick muse at October 19, 2010 03:44 PM I completely agree that it matters. I guess I'm just thinking back to the Castle-O'Donnell primary debates here when that did not matter. What mattered was winning vs the Democrat. Yes, O'Donnell is not our ideal candidate, but I'd rather have O'Donnell who will vote with us more than Castle and who seems to stand for conservatism, even though she's not articulate in defending her position yet (which will come with time the more she is in the political scene). Ace is correct in saying that the Left will smear conservatives who who are not adept at defending themselves against such smears, and then use those conservatives to make the entire conservative movement look badly. So, ideally, we'd like to have a Reagan-esque candidate who is quick on their feet and can bat away gotcha questions and smears easily. However, the alternative was to have Castle, who was a statist RINO. He neither stood for conservative principles or ideas nor did he articulate or defend them well. As such, I would argue that a RINO makes the GOP look badly, as a RINO presents no alternative to the Democrat statism. So in this case, it was basically a choice between a conservative who is not yet adept at clearly articulating and defending conservatism vs a RINO who is adept at spouting conservative rhetoric while voting for Statism, thus making people believe that conservatism/GOP are Statism, no different than the Democrats. The former can improve in the long run and be a benefit, while the latter is a short-run and long-term negative for both conservatism and the GOP. I think we all prefer the ideal, but, in this case, we need to work with what we have. Taking someone with the correct core principles and helping them become more articulate about them is easier, I believe, than taking someone who is articulate and trying to change their core principles.

310 Christine O'Donnell on the Establishment Clause: 'You're Telling Me That's in the First Amendment?

Charles Johnson
Wingnuts • Tue Oct 19, 2010

Yesterday, in a debate at Widener University Law School before an audience of legal scholars and law students, Christine OÂ’Donnell reiterated her position that local public schools should teach young earth creationism in science classes.

Which is bad enough.

But in trying to support her ludicrous anti-science position, OÂ’Donnell revealed her shocking ignorance of the US Constitution.

This is what happens when a person is raised by religious fanatics to believe nonsense, and this disturbing ignorance is by no means unique in the modern GOP; in fact, itÂ’s nearly universal.



Ace will look sweet, upon the seat
Of a bicycle built for two.

311 327 Connecticut got rid of their State Church in 1818, Massachusetts in 1833.

Posted by: toby928™ at October 19, 2010 04:10 PM (S5YRY)

328 South Carolina's Constitution still prohibits atheists from serving in public office.  (ruled void by the SCOTUS though)

Posted by: toby928™ at October 19, 2010 04:12 PM (S5YRY)

Exactly my point. They voluntarily gave up their official state religions AFTER the first amendment was ratified by 1789. That puts the lie to the theory that the first amendment banned such things.

312 This deal about O'Donnell not knowing the constitution, big freaking deal. Haven't you folks read about our existing congressmen failing fifth grade tests on the same? And this other matter that some of you morons jump on: that she's a political opportunist. Oh, that's a good one. Every stinking politician out there is grabbing for something. O'Donnell captures the essential American spirit. She's got my vote.

313 I say we fight tooth and nail for O'Donnell. She is at the front of the line in our battle with the Dems, the Libs, and Obama. Fight, my friends!

314 She should have roared back with that.

I agree, although her response was good. In any case O'Donnell knows the constitution better than her opponent and people arguing otherwise confuse and disturb me. What's your motivation, exactly?

315 Ace will look sweet, upon the seat Of a bicycle built for two. Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at October 19, 2010 04:25 PM Ace is not in ponytail territory, but it was definitely odd, I thought, for him to dedicate a long post to O'Donnell being correct, but not articulating her point well enough for his taste, as opposed to dedicating a post to Coons not being able to name any of the freedoms named in the First Amendment, other than the non-existent 'wall of separation'. I would think that Coons' absolute ignorance of the 1st Amendment is much more newsworthy, at least on a right-of-center blog, than O'Donnell expressing a correct point inarticulately. While Ace makes the correct point that a candidate should not have to rely on their supporters explaining their positions for them, I'd argue that candidates also should not have to worry about their supporters making the same attacks on them as their opponents.

316  She should have roared back with that.

I agree, although her response was good. In any case O'Donnell knows the constitution better than her opponent and people arguing otherwise confuse and disturb me. What's your motivation, exactly?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor

I want to see her win. I agree that she did not really fail here. I live here, and my suggestion was one that I think might have gained traction. But then, a law school audience would probably think themselves above such things.

317

I want to see her win. I agree that she did not really fail here. I live here, and my suggestion was one that I think might have gained traction. But then, a law school audience would probably think themselves above such things.

Posted by: Saint Norbert at October 19, 2010 04:48 PM (R2fpr)

 

Begone sock.

318 Yes, the media will smear conservatives. But the amount that they smear and the ferociousness of the smears is relative to the importance of the seat and how silly theyÂ’re going to look. The same day that a pile-on begins about Sarah Palin gaffing a year, the media walks it back so quickly when called on it that you can barely call it a media pile-on. They know that they canÂ’t get away with it without looking silly. Gwen Ifill tweeted a passive-aggressive comment about it and the jokes against Gwen Ifill began immediately. But Chris Coons mangles the first amendment and Christine OÂ’Donnell calls him on it and this will get twisted into the opposite, and theyÂ’re not going to stop. Because you have let them know that they can get away with it.

319 If O' Donnell does not subscribe to the principals enumerated very clearly in Virginia's Statue of Religious Freedom, authored by Jefferson and understood as the model for the nation, she is a FOOL.

320

Somebody just made a great point. We have Dems admitting that only can they not cite a relevent constitutional support, others admitted that they aren't even trying to read the laws that they're voting on.

So who has room to whine about how well O'Donnell did or did not express herself?

321 That said, Jefferson would never hold that, say, the President can't wish the people a Merry Christmas. It just means he can't make us have one.

322 But what about the "good and plenty clause", Blue Hen? They all know about that.

323 So if there's no establishment of religion when it comes to vouchers, when they finally do get around to vouchers, conservatives aren't going to object to madrasah enrollment?

324

#320 "But that oath is said with a hand on The Bible, and always has been, so I'm not sure what you're getting at."

Both the Bible, and the "so help me God" at the end are customary, and not required by the Constitution. Perhaps you are unaware of this, but the Presidential oath of office is actually included in the Constitution (the other oaths are left to legislation). The point is that the authors of the Constitution left out even that little bit of religiousity - and that was even before the 1st Amendment.

I expect that other important documents of the day were invariably "God this" and "God that" all over the place. The only God reference in the Constitution, other than to keep religion out of requirements for public office, is in the date at the end (and I really kinda doubt the way of writing the date was debated or voted on). It is a strikingly secular, no-nonsense document, reflecting Madison's seriousness about this new experiment, and his strong opinon that a "wall of separation" should exist.

325 124 Rush is playing the clip now.  The fucking audience gasps at her asking where separation of church and state is in the constitution.  And these are the law students.  Boy Amishdude's opinion is looking really really good at the moment.

Posted by: buzzion at October 19, 2010 02:12 PM (oVQFe)

Ah, law school, where they call a triple-digit IQ "overqualified".

Seriously, why do we keep bowing to these idiots?

It is a strikingly secular, no-nonsense document, reflecting Madison's seriousness about this new experiment, and his strong opinon that a "wall of separation" should exist.

Posted by: Optimizer at October 19, 2010 05:00 PM (2lTU+)

So either Madison was a terrible writer who couldn't communicate what he really meant or you are putting words into his pen.

The Constitution: It ain't long, it ain't complicated and it's in English.  If the writers didn't mean it, they wouldn't have written it that way.

326

#342 That said, Jefferson would never hold that, say, the President can't wish the people a Merry Christmas. It just means he can't make us have one.

I expect so. The 1st Amendment really only refers to something official, with force of law: "Congress shall make no law respecting..." The President doesn't violate the Constitution voicing his own personal views. Some desperate people might misinterperate such a statement as some sort of official sanction of Christianity, while the President is supposed to represent everybody, but I don't see how it would be any worse than an Irish-American President wearing green on St. Patrick's Day and walking in a parade.

327

#347 So either Madison was a terrible writer who couldn't communicate what he really meant or you are putting words into his pen.  ...The Constitution: It ain't long, it ain't complicated and it's in English.  If the writers didn't mean it, they wouldn't have written it that way.

(1) In 1787 the Founding Fathers (including James Madison) deliberately and clearly wrote (Art. 6., Sec. 3.): "No religious test" shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

(2) In 1789 a Senate-House conference committee, of which James Madison was cochairman, wrote (First Amendment): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

(3) In 1811 President James Madison said (Feb. 21 veto message): "Governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions."

(4) In an undated essay, James Madison wrote (see William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555): "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."

Seems like Madison, who was extremely learned (one might say he was quite the "nerd"), thought his English was plain enough. Some people just choose not to see it. Ann Coulter, for example, has even gone so far as to re-word the 1st Amendment from "no law respecting an establishment of religion" to "no law establishing a religion". She certainly has enough of a command of the English langauge to see that there's a difference; she just doesn't want to.

328 It's kind of a conservative point that the constitution does not actually say, "separation of church and state." I have been listening to conservatives point this particular fact out for over 25 years (I'm 41). I find her comment rather uncontroversial.

329 Sure, I can see ace 's point that it is a candidate job to communicate. So CO is not the greatest communicator on our side. Also we expect the libs to lie and attack her, so she should be more prepared. OK, she is not perfectly prepared (not a true optimal candidate). So people on our side should attack her freely while giving Coon a pass?

Now we have choice between CO and Castle? What would Castle give us? Same as Coon: the constitution forbids celebration of Xmas in public schools?  I used to buy the notion that a guy voting 50% with us is better than 0%. But on closer inspection, a guy who voted with us 70% of the time on peripheral issues and 30% against us on major issues would be better? Now Senate Reps are talking about restructuring instead of repealing Obamacare. Do we need another Jefford/Specter to help restructuring Obamacare on our side?

BTW, I agree with ace that it is difficult to explain all these issues to the ignorant libs, so CO needs to be more careful. The level of ignorance is amazing even our side. Right now, we have an "establishment of religion" in public schools right now with evolutionism and "climate change" etc... A good number of people don't even distinguish between real science and the fairy tales of the evolutionary religion being taught in schools! I used to hear the libs talking about religious atrocities. It doesn't even cross their mind that atheism in practice (ie fascism/communism) has the worst record of atrocites in history so far. Islamism may surpass it yet!

330 I am suspicious of any interpretation of what the founders "meant" if the founders did not actually put that into practice. If the founders meant there to be a strict "separation" of church and state I think they would have put such a thing into practice when they ratified the constitution and not hope we "discovered" their intent 150 years later. Some arguments only intellectuals are stupid enough to make.

331 Ace is willing to set the bar far higher for O'Donnell that the voters of Delaware were for Biden.  Why, Mr Spades?  Do you actually like the lying, tax hiking Coons?  Are you a misogynist?  Got a thing for bearded marxists, NTTAWWT outside of politics?   

To be more precise, show me the perfect candidate.  You can't, because there isn't one. 

Hence my upcoming vote for the jerk Paladino.  It's easily explained; the alternative is Andy Cuomo.  Paladino made the money he spent.  Cuomo was pretty free with mine.  Do I wish it were say,millionaire philanthropist  Tom Galisano instead?  Sure, but that's not the choice.

332 We're arguing that O'Donnell should know more about the Constitution than, say, Barbara Boxer? Than Biden? Than Kennedy? Than Kerry? Than Franken? Than Landrieu? Than Reid? Than Sanders?

333 Doug,
   Co already knows more about the Constitution than those libs! She prob knows more than Mike Castle. The issue here is communication/persuasion. She needs to be more "perfect"!

334

Worse yet...she didn't know what the 16th Amendment was

For a candidate whose platform is based on lower taxation, this is inexcusable.
When asked to name her qualifications for US Senate, she listed her Claremont College seminar on the Constitution to support her belief that she is a constitutional maven. (this was at a DE event about 10 days ago). The fact that she was drawn down the evolution rabbit hole is a direct consequence of her lack of experience and political savvy. There is a significant voting bloc in New Castle County who will interpret her debate comments as evidence that she intends to Christianize the public schools.

The Delaware TEA party told us that they preferred a "fresh" face with no establishment GOP baggage. None of that pedigreed elitist nonsense, doncha know. Well, they got their wish.

 

335 Ace is willing to set the bar far higher for O'Donnell that the voters of Delaware were for Biden.

Yeah, its pretty obvious the Delaware voters are perfectly happy with being represented by a barely functional retard who continuously says idiotic things. Compared to him, O'Donnell is a towering intellect and quite normal.

336 Between CO and Castle, I would take CO given Castle 's behavior and others like Murkowski. If the Delaware GOP gave me a better candidate, I would have supported the choice. Sorry that I have to live in an imperfect world.

337

 

As a purely textual matter, the First Amendment prevents Congress from enacting laws that would create a federally enforceable national religion. It does not empower Congress to prevent the free ebb and flow of religious content in the marketplace of ideas, even when that marketplace is a public school. Hence, the connection to creationism. It is well established law that one does not surrender either the Free Exercise or the Free Speech provisions simply by stepping onto federal property.

The “separation” canard is an Alinsky-like tool designed to isolate and marginalize religious thought by excluding it from all state-controlled fora. It is not grounded in the constitutional text but has influenced some recent case law. The law students in the audience, like most leftists and the media, have been conditioned to think of “separation” theory as settled law, when in fact it is not, so they were understandably confused.

338 The Delaware TEA party told us that they preferred a "fresh" face with no establishment GOP baggage. None of that pedigreed elitist nonsense, doncha know. Well, they got their wish.

Damn you're right, everyone should vote for Coons, do you have a newsletter?

339 The people on our side, especially the talking heads, should "help" with the communication/persuasion. Take the opportunity to explain the establishment clause and freedom of speech. This is to prevent hard theocracy as in Islamist states (eg Iran, Saudi Arabia ...) or soft imposition of Sharia law. Hack, they can even use communism as a concrete example of the imposition of atheism on the populace by torture and force. It is not that hard!

340

#353 Optimizer why don't you disclose that you are an atheist? You totally ignore that everyone here has agreed that there should be no religious tests for access to the Federal Government.  The issue is that the libs and atheists of all stripes have expanded the 1st amendment way beyond anything Madison or Jefferson ever envisioned.

Why don't you actually read what Jefferson, and especially Madison, actually said, rather than making baseless claims, changing the subject, and pursuing an ad hominem? I gave several quotes in #349, and there are plenty more where they came from. They clearly meant that it was very important that the govt should stay out of religious matters, while at the same time there was nothing anti-religious about it. They clearly understood the urge of many religious people to force their religion on others (it's actually a part of their religion to do so), and recognized it as a major threat to liberty.

How, exactly, are you claiming that that the 1st amendment has been expanded "way beyond anything Madison or Jefferson ever envisioned"? Seems to me that disparate religious sects freely and publically congregate damn near everywhere, with absolutely zero fear of some g-man stopping by to shut them down, throw them in the gulag, or intimidate them in any way.

341

Damn you're right, everyone should vote for Coons, do you have a newsletter?

When did I endorse Chris Coons? If you're registered in Delaware, it's your choice, no one will stop you. It sounds like you're quite easily persuaded.

And no, I don't publish a newsletter.

It may surprise you to know that I am sympathetic to TEA party concerns about over-reaching government and excessive taxation. The TEA party agenda will only gain traction with the public at large if they field credible candidates. Is that a difficult concept to comprehend?

 

342 They clearly understood the urge of many religious people to force their religion on others (it's actually a part of their religion to do so), and recognized it as a major threat to liberty.
--
That is a good point and especially true of the fundamentalist atheists or secularists. When they have the power, they would impose their "religion" of atheism on other people. The multiculturists or cultural relativists are the soft version of fundamentalist atheism in the West. They are imposing their religion in public schools right now. Hate crime is a perfect example of a gradual  persecution of non-atheistic people!

343 I have to agree with your comments regarding communication. Sometimes we (and by that I mean anyone) know a lot about a subject and then make comments under the assumption the people we are talking to understand the underlying argument. Christine knew exactly what she was saying, but like you also say, she should have communicated that.
If you look at the question she asked of Coons regarding the First Amendment later in the debate if he could name the 5 points to the First Amendment.... he didn't.... but obviously she did or she would not have asked him the question... which means she knows what is in the First Amendment.
But, as you say, you can not assume the people listening have already worked that out in their heads... you have to get there more clearly. Which means you do not have to put out clarifying follow up news releases.

344

Connelly was right.  Her follow up question to Coons asking him to name the five freedoms guaranteed under the First Amendment was flubbed by the Bearded Marxist.

 

But did the media mention this?

 

Ace you got it wrong.

345 What would you call trying to allow the teaching of pseudoscientific BS like ID?

What 's wrong with ID? I think it has more solid scientific evidence than the fairy tale of creative evolution (amoeba to fish to human etc...). It is typically claimed that evolution is like gravity. I can observe gravity everyday, but I can't see creative evolution demonstrated in the labs at all! Why is that garbage being taught as "facts" in school? Biological systems are much more informationally complex than even most sophisticated modern computers. And these are designed by thousands of engineers with billions of dollars of investment in fabs/chip design etc... I wish I could know a random evolutionary method to design complex computer systems. That 's why the communists have to impose their fundamentalist atheism by force. And the left is doing the same in public schools now.

346 All you ever need to know about the Constitution:

The Government will tell you what you can say and when you can say it.

The Government will regulate everything through the Commerce Clause, no matter how great or trivial the issue may be.

The Government says the Separation of Church and State is obviously in the Constitution; it is right there following the Right to Kill your Baby to Teach that Cheating Bastard a Lesson.

347 Cue the lace wigs.

348 If Optimizer's post in unconvincing to you because you believe him an athiest, I'll stick up for him and say HE has the history right, and the plain meaning of the constitution right. I will refrain from discussion COD but it's hard.

349 Rush just said he's going to take a dump.

350 It may surprise you to know that I am sympathetic to TEA party concerns about over-reaching government and excessive taxation. The TEA party agenda will only gain traction with the public at large if they field credible candidates. Is that a difficult concept to comprehend?

Its difficult to read what you're posting any way but an attack on O'Connell for not being centrist enough. Maybe you still feel bitter that Castle lost, but that horse has rode on, its time to face the facts: its O'Donnell or Coons, which one would you rather have? Your post seems to heavily imply Coons.

It's not science. Teach it in a philosophy or religion class and I'd be fine with it.

Read up on it a bit more and get back to us before you post any more on the topic. For your own sake. And I mean actual supporters, not Dawkins.

Oh, and Optimizer wants to present the 1st amendment as being an opposition to laws supporting or protecting any religion, but that's not what the founders meant. They were opposed to an official state religion, which they escaped from in Europe.

351

Valedictorians prohibited from mentioning God in their speeches ring a bell?

Teams prohibited from praying before a game ring a bell?

One nation under God, sued to the Supreme Court ring a bell?

 

Which example establishes a religon?

352 "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."Optimizer, SarahW,

Please note the bold sections. The republic was explicitly established to secure the blessings of the Creator.

(This should be fun....)

353

#365 "That is a good point and especially true of the fundamentalist atheists or secularists. When they have the power, they would impose their "religion" of atheism on other people. The multiculturists or cultural relativists are the soft version of fundamentalist atheism in the West. ..."

I'm not sure what a "fundamentalist atheist" or a "secularist" is, but there are certainly collectivists who see religions as competition for control of people, and who would try to impose their will by force in that regard. That's not relvant to the discussion, though.

"... They are imposing their religion in public schools right now. Hate crime is a perfect example of a gradual  persecution of non-atheistic people! "

Atheism is certainly not "imposed" in public schools. Students are free to have any religion they want, and no religious view is forced on them. Just because they're not being indoctrinated into Christianity doesn't mean their being indoctrinated into something else. There are cases where personal religious views of students are inappropriately suppressed, but those are generally not upheld in court. I have no idea what what you're referencing with the term "hate crime", but it sounds like you're diverging off the subject.

354

#376 [1] Valedictorians prohibited from mentioning God in their speeches ring a bell? [2] Teams prohibited from praying before a game ring a bell? [3] One nation under God, sued to the Supreme Court ring a bell? Which example establishes a religon?

First of all, as I have previously pointed out, the 1st Amendment refers to "respecting an establishment of religion", not to "establishing a religion". So that's not the question. As to your examples:

1) The argument is that it is the school's forum, they are responsible for its content, and that religious content could be misconstrued as an implicit endorsement. Personally, I don't buy that argument. I reminds me of how the Commerce clause is used as a back door for anything.

2) As long as the team is not led in the prayer by any school representative, which would be a govt endorsement of whatever religions were represented, I don't see a problem. If a bunch of students get together on their own and do their own thing, the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment is the relevant one, and they have to be left alone.

3) Is a flagrant and intentional violation of the 1st Amendment. The whole point of "under God" being added (in 1954) was to be a religious statement, to thumb our noses at the "godless commies" during the Red Scare. If you think the govt always follows the Constitution, read the 10th Amendment sometime. Ironically, while the commies are atheists, the strongest defenders of the US Constitution (and the strongest critics of communism in general) are actually atheists.

355 To my complete and utter shock, ABC News (radio) actually backed O'Donnell on this one today.

356

#377 USS Enterprise CV-6, you might not realize that the reference to the Creator in the Declaration was written by Deists (not Christians). Do you really want to go there? Regardless, they have clearly left it up to the reader to imagine who or what they want to attribute their existence to - it is entirely besides the point.

The preamble to the Constitution, that you have quoted, is devoid of religious references, and thereby actually works against your point. While there are religious meanings to it, the term "blessing", in this context, means "benefit". Note, especially, that the preamble explicity refers to the government as being man-made, and that these "blessings" are to be attained via this human action, not the action of any diety.

357 Atheism is certainly not "imposed" in public schools. Students are free to have any religion they want, and no religious view is forced on them. Just because they're not being indoctrinated into Christianity doesn't mean their being indoctrinated into something else.

Then you are not looking very hard. Multi-culturalism or cultural relativism is simply another soft form of fundamentalist atheism. Global warming is another one. And the most well known is the evolutionary religion of the Darwinian church is being imposed on students under the name of science. No other alternatives are allowed. 

Communism is the hard form of fundamentalist atheism. Atheism is the official state religion. This is simply an example of religious intolerance of fundamentalist atheism. That 's the point. Atheism is simply anther religion under another name. It is better to acknowledge it than dancing around it. If you want to talk about intolerance, then atheism has to be included. I am simply a "practical" guy. I looked at results. I don't want to live a "secular" or atheistic state given the example of communism/fascism/socialism. I definitely don't want to live in an Islamic state. America is an example of theistic based constitutional democracy. It provides the basis for the rights of INDIVIDUAL as endowed by a "creator" not by gov. Atheism or secularism cannot provide the theoretical basis for individual rights. I can go into more details if necessary. If you are a product of evolution, why should you have more rights than other animals?

358 BTW, i don't mind living a "Buddist" state since Buddhists are typically peaceful and tolerant. But they are not strong enough to defend themselves!

359 Uss I certainly hold that belief myself. I am NOT an athiest. Where in heaven's name did you get the idea I do not?

360 It's not science. Teach it in a philosophy or religion class and I'd be fine with it.

Then you shouldn't teach the fairy tale of creative evolution as science either.
If ID is not science, then it is very easy to shoot it down in an intellectual honest way. Have an open debate of the scientific evidence of complex biological systems, and show ID to be a pseudo-science to the world. That 's how an open minded and tolerant atheist should advocate. The defenders of evolutionism are acting like the Global Warmists who declared the opposing view as not science!

361 when the first amendment was adopted it did not apply to the states only to the federal government

362

This is a truely bad post.

She wasn't "getting at" anything. The first amendment does not mention the seperation of church and state. I can read it. I don't need a lawyer or a judge to read it for me.

When lawyers (Ace) read it for me high school seniors are stripped of their diplomas for mentioning Jesus.

Others are simply barred from speaking. By your (Ace's) own rules the 1st amendment also covers speech. It also says religion but in this argument we have accepted that their religious rights are abridged.

Perhaps Ace could mention that he believes in an abridgement of free speech when an abridgement of religion has been applied.

Ace, we are much nearer to bankruptcy than theocracy. Priorities please.

363

#385 Then you are not looking very hard. Multi-culturalism or cultural relativism is simply another soft form of fundamentalist atheism. Global warming is another one. And the most well known is the evolutionary religion of the Darwinian church is being imposed on students under the name of science. No other alternatives are allowed. 

"Multi-culturalism"? "Cultural relativism"? "Global Warming"? Track down an Objectivist, ask them what they think about those things, and then stop saying ridiculously ignorant things about atheism. "Darwinian church"? Get help.

Communism is the hard form of fundamentalist atheism. ...

Communism - which has to do with an economic order - is a form of atheism - which is the absence of religious belief? Huh? Then you confuse a secular govt with state-imposed communism, babble something about Islam (!), and it goes downhill from there. You seem like a really confused individual.

364 Piling on late, as usual:

OK Ace, let's see... you were wrong about the scope of the tsunami coming. Dead.wrong. (And with characteristic humility, I point out I was correct. Oh, yes.)

You expressed "concerns" about Palin many months back. I thought you were reading too much "Powerline."

Pawlenty? Why, you're soaking in it!

Guess who's drawing bigger crowds than anyone (that's why Beck had Guess Who at his event)? And gosh, who's still the number one draw at *any* conservative event. By far! Hell, even Rush wouldn't be so dumb as to go up against her in an audience-drawing contest right now.

Now you still feel uneasy about O'Donnell. I don't remember your posts on Angle, but I'm guessing they weren't glowing.

Hey, I'm too lazy to look it up, I'm a Moron.

Why not spend some time listening to them in the interviews now? Here's the deal: all of them can make clear points when not under the kleig lights and being chopped to smithereens by editors who have them on tape. Listen to the fact that they draw voters in. Listen to the folks saying these candidates are smarter than the ones IN OFFICE NOW.

Stop being such a damn worry wart about these women and get with what should be your own program.

Not ONE of these ladies has called for anything radical.  Sure, you get chopped up BS from the MSM (a la Grayson's despicable ads) making it look like they are crazy. But do your own homework, and IGNORE their BS.

Due diligence.

I waited until I heard extended interviews with these folks before accepting the BS meme they are stupid, dull, crazy , and terrible candidates. I'm freaking awesome! I'm just like most every "dumbass" in America right now.

I listened to them myself before buying the sack of shit being sold by the inside-the-beltway types. Again, awesome, etc. Get off my lawn.

Are they all Thomas Freaking Jefferson? Hell, no.

They probably live within their means. They aren't agricultural and architectural geniuses. And they are probably smart enough not to want to run a college.

But they understand the reality of American life and it's erosion by the Progessives. At this point (h/t Murtha), that's*what*we*need.

Why not save the "own goals" for beer night at the Mason fundrasers?

365 Mind you, I'm not dissing gay Republicans. (You have to give them credit: they could be gay Satanists.) On the other hand, I have not met one who is utterly reliable on the question of where, if anywhere, William Jennings Bryan went wrong.
Until there's a blood test, to me it's still a lifestyle choice.
So, what, did Christine threaten to expose the denizens of the Republican Spunk Gobblers Gulch (the post-Modern counterpart of the Gucci Gulch of lobbyists)? Izzat why the haters be hatin'?
Did Christine catch the senior senator from Utah in a compromising attitude with the weak and flabby Rove once?

366 "the weak and flabby Rove"

The flab is a source of power.

367

Ace, we are much nearer to bankruptcy than theocracy. Priorities please.

Tell it Christine.  She's demonstrated for the umpteenth time what an incompetent joke she is as a candidate.

Anyone know where all those millions of dollars that poured into this notorious grifter's campaign ended up, by the way?  You know, the campaign that so far has run a single TV ad?

Yeah, I know, we're RINOs if we wonder about shit like that. 

One of the sweet, sweet fruits of November will be watching this woman finally go the fuck away.

368

If one believes in the current jurisprudence of barring seniors frmom mentioning Jesus and football players from likewise then where does freee speech come in?

You obviously don't believe in freedonm of religion Ace. If you did you would have given more creedence to O'Donnell's argument.. Surely though you believe in free speech? Surely you are not for forbidding seniors or footballers speaking their mind. Where is the line. Please draw it for us since you seem to want to draw it.

369

 The War Between the Undead States

You will go away too. Thankfully.

Thanks for being honest though. More than Ace has done.

I know you would rather the dem win than O'Donnell. Then you get your victory dance and obligatory Palin can't win post.

Will you masturbate to that post?

In the mean time please quit telling me to get with the team. You all need to get with the team and realize who is pulling the sled.

 

370 "Fortunately, senators don't have to memorize the Constitution."
-Christine O'Donnell, 10-19-10

This'll be your epitaph, Chrissy.  It might be more appropriate if you had a prayer in hell of ever becoming a senator, but hey, we can't have everything.

371 Posted by: Repeal at October 20, 2010 01:44 AM (8xwyL)

It's sad to think about how frustrated the people who hitched their wagons to Wendy the Good Little Witch are going to be two weeks from now while normal people are celebrating.

But none of it will be their fault.  None of it will be O'Donnell's fault, either.  Oh, no.  The culprits will, as always, be those shadowy Establishment types who like to hide in people's bushes.

Oh well.  We tried to warn you.

372

There you go. You want the dem to win. Thank you.

Again we are far closer to bankruptcy than theocracy.

I see your priorities and I don't agree.

Castle would have voted us into bankruptcy the same as Coons will. The difference is Castle would have brought the Rep party with him.

Then again I only see the small picture.

You, Ace and all his posters included need to realize who is driving this victory bus.

Can you say 10%? No? If not you need to learn what being in a 10% minority is like.

Again we are far closer to bankruptcy than theocracy. Get your priorities straight.

373 You got it, Repeal. Some folks could do their homework and find out how freaking idiotic Coons' answer is, but no matter.
Never mind. (To echo a famous retort in the realm of physics.)

They could listen to this. But ignorance is bliss.

374

Posted by: Repeal at October 20, 2010 02:01 AM (8xwyL)

No, you and the rest of the O'Donnellistas wanted the Dem to win.  You still do.  It will be, in its perverse way, one of the greatest satisfactions you take from Elections 2010.  You yourselves have been saying it more times than anyone can count: "Sure, she may lose, but better a Democrat win this seat than a RINO," was the way your logic went.  The fact that you people still don't know how to shut up about Mike Castle over a month after he lost the primary gives your game away.

Now, some of you are beginning to see the consequences of this strange let-the-Dems-win strategy of yours looming ever closer and you don't like it.  But like Christine O'Donnell herself, who during the primary accused a radio host who questioned her about her past as being a paid shill for the Castle campaign, you refuse to take ownership of your own errors.  Hence, you lash out.  None of this is your fault; it HAS to be somebody else's.

Conservative, my ass.

(I still haven't gotten an answer as to what she's done with the millions of dollars in campaign cash she took in, because none of it appears to be manifesting itself in the form of campaign ads, GOTV operations, or any of the other kinds of things that people who portray themselves as constitutional conservatives do when trying to get a job about which they express relief at not involving actual familiarity with the Constitution.)

375 This is why our country is so fucked up.  The political process has been reduced to a choice between two lunatics, one communist, the other a religiously motivated social authoritarian.  Add to this wide-spread corruption in both parties and you've got the USA circa 2010.

Instead of sending a person to the senate from Delaware, maybe we need a magic 8 ball to fill the seat.  The 8 ball can't be bribed, doesn't propose yet more legislation, and its votes on the legislation that is put forth can't be worse than what happens already.

376 407

Ditto

377 oh!very good!
http://www.icheapwholesale.com

378 Let me be clear: The Constitution is a living document and you should blindly accept even what bonafide KKK members like Hugo Black have done in the past to change it.  The goal is to let the Supreme Court twist it into something worth less than a Harlequin romance novel. Then we will present our New Constitution to my our the World. The spirit and the letter of the Constitution is not what we're talking about anymore. Do you want us to pay your rent or not? Get with it, motherfuckers! 

379 العاب تلبيس