Christine O'Donnell is, apparently, an idiot

Movement conservatives don't care that she's demonstrably ignorant and incompetent, just like they don't care that Sarah Palin is. What matters to them is that she is attractive and sufficiently (read: extremely and unwaveringly) "conservative." The very qualities that make it obvious to us that she's an idiot are what convince large swaths of this country that she's a "real American, just like us!" That cocky ignorance is just a sign that she's "a fighter!" Or something.

This will not hurt O'Donnell's conservative support in the slightest. Independents are another story.

 

Absolutely true - that's how she won the nomination over a more traditional Republican candidate.

Again, completely true. I forget the guy she beat in the primaries, but that guy was fairly moderate, and was considered a "sure thing" in political circles to replace Biden's vacant seat. Delaware was one of the "sure things" for Republican pickups this fall before the primaries. Nate Silver on 538 places O'Donnell's chances of winning based on polling numbers at less than 5%. Silver is very outspoken, and he was shocked when O'Donnell won the pirmary. As he said at the time, "The Republicans just gave away a Senate seat."

 

I agree about 538. Silver's polling model has one of the best track records out there. He was dead on in the last election. Rasmussen has become a joke, though.

 

I might be wrong, as I'm not an constitutional attorney, but I believe she may be correct.

The First Amendment says

Isn't it really the courts that have decided that the only way to enforce the first amendment is to try to compel a seperation?

I think of the recent court case in which in some federal park there was a giant cross on a rock or something. Somebody sued under the first amendment to have it removed and won. I'm assuming that there isn't a law saying they had to put the cross there, and I'm also assuming that if someone wanted to put a buddha on a different rock it would have been allowed.

I know the media is jumping all over O'Donnell for this, but I think if anyone actually searches the Constitution they will find that she is correct.

 

Silver has taken Rasmussen to task about their polling methods, and his conclusion is he's surprised that they are as accurate as they have been. They generally miss the mark by 2-4 points, generally to the favor of the Republican, which is more accurate than you'd think based on the following:

-They use robocalls, not live operators.
-They don't call cell phones, effectively eliminating 20%-25% of the population who either don't have a landline, or use their cell phone as their primary means of contact.
-They make all their phone calls on a single night, between the hours of 5pm-9pm, when many people aren't yet home from work.
-They never call back if they don't get you.

As a result, they have inadequate response rates, and they often do not demographically weight the responses. Silver is surprised they even get ballpark accurate numbers. His surmises that while their data is crap, they have become proficient it utilizing their crappy data.

 

The worst part of this is how PROUD she looks after each of those statements. Something to the effect of...

So you're telling me that separation of church in state is in the first amendment...

 

That's impressive. Even I know how hard it is to LOOK proud on a radio debate.

 

Really. Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

Christine has proven that knowing nothing about the subject on which she pretends to be an "authority" has become a virtue. This is further amplified be her supporters who are willing to make complete foolish know-nothings of themselves for the sake of blatant partisanship.

We can historically trace the term "Separation of Church and State," and learn why it is important within our history:

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

 

Good material, there, Chandos. Was she merely playing a douchebag word game, along the lines of "show me in the Constitution where it says the exact phrase 'separation of church and state'" or do we all think she really is that stupid?

 

I think all politicians are that stupid.

 

She is technically correct, and not in a trivial way. Just in a "not on topic here" way. There is a big difference between "Congress shall make no law" and "separation of Church and State", practically speaking. The first is actually in the Constitution. The second is in a US Supreme Court ruling which, in practice, is the same, but in reality is a much easier thing to turn around*. The "not on topic here" part comes up, though, because the topic, as I have heard it, was prayer in schools, which is pretty directly addressed by the amendment. Schools may not be Congress, really, but it is still the Government. Had they been talking about the prohibition against Churchs endorsing a candidate, it would have been a valid distinction, if not a legally meaningful (or likely to become so) one. As it is, it just made her look like an idiot. Again. I have to say, between the idiots and the blatant liars, I'm not very impressed with the candidates on any side of the isle that have made the news.

Still, though, worse candidates have actually made it into Congress. I remember seeing a Youtube video a little while ago of a congressional hearing in which a congressman wanted to make sure the US Navy wouldn't capsize the island of Guam by moving 25,000 marines to the base there. Ah, found it. I love that bit.

*By this statement I mean that changing that ruling would only take another Supreme Court ruling going the other way, even a bit. Changing the Constitution, through amendments, is a bit longer of a process.

 

BTA - Exactly.

LKD - Thank you. I can't speak to motive, but I would think she is prepped in advance before she makes a statement on a subject like the Constitution.

 

Here's a video of the event.

​

In a sense I think Christine O'Donnell (much like Michelle Bachmann, among others) is in a sense a poster child for the Christian Right movement. She not only vocally expresses their ideas, she is in a sense the product of thirty years of effort - the sort of political leader they have been working hard to build.

Her curious moment about separation of church and state was not a gaffe. It could be only excused as one if she was alone in having such confused views. Alas, she is not. She was expressing pretty mainstream Dominionist thinking. Her view is shared by many folks on the Christian Right. The most common other manifestation of that view is the ever prevalent talking point about America being a Christian (and not a Jewish, Atheist, Muslim, Catholic [the adherents of the Scarlet Lady are not Christian enough, if Christian at all], Buddhist, Hindu, Pluralist or Secular) nation.

In my understanding the assertion that America is a Christian nation is the expression of a sincere and folksy if factually incorrect conviction. Since the US is a Christian nation, the separation of Church and State must be a liberal distortion; it cannot be what the mythical founding fathers had in mind, since they were, another assertion, all Christians. How can they read "separation of church and state" out of the 1th amendment? Trickery! Indeed, nowhere in the constitution the phrase "separation of church and state" is being used ... and on and on it goes.

That 'technically correct' is an old canard in that game of obfuscation and myth weaving. Sure, the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't written anywhere in the constitution. So what? Of course it is about interpretation, but ... to cut it short: The interpretation chosen by the Christian Right on that point defies a roughly two hundred year legal consensus. The correct interpretation is crystal clear, and everybody but the stalwarts of the Christian Right accepts that. BTA has it quite right.

Besides, I still think that O'Donnell is sort of really cute

 

I love it when non-Attorneys tell us what the Constitution means.

I hold no brief for Miss O'Donnell, but to write off her comment as simple ignorance, rather than to recognize that there is a significant legal debate about the exact relationship between religion and the government contenanced by the First Amendment demonstrates the kind of ignorance which posters are accusing Miss O'Donnell of having.

"Separation of Church and State" makes a great slogan, but when one starts to look at the line of church-state cases, one would find that there is quite a bit of interaction allowed/tolerated. Miss O'Donnell is correct, speaking about the text of the Constitution, and wrong when one considers the Constitution as interpreted by the Court. But even then, the level of Separation that many posters seems to believe exists is not supported by the case law in toto.

I would add two more points. Wikipedia is not a recognized legal treatise or authority and its accuracy is often suspect -- not to mention dumbed down for the average lay reader. Second, by the rules of Constitutional interpretation, an important document such as the Declaration of Independence is not considered an authority for telling us what the Constitution means; Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists carries even less weight.

Khemsa, B.A., M.A., J.D. magna cum laude

 

dmc,

Fine, Miss O'Donnell is an idiot. I am underwhelmed myself.

But if the statement under discussion is your best evidence, you have failed to carry your burden of proof.

On the other hand, given the idiots (of both parties) that currently inhabit the U.S. Senate, she would not, if elected, even qualify as the most idiotic.

Khemsa

P.S. She may, or may not, misunderstand the First Amendment; her Democratic opponent is so ignorant he does not even know what rights the First Amendment protects. So O'Donnell is an idiot and Coons is stupid. Is it too late to get two new candidates in Delaware?