Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware torpedoes her campaign

[Scutter01]

O'Donnell questions separation of church, state - Yahoo! News

During a debate, she shows how little she knows of the US Constitution.

 

[dross]

This was always going to be a nightmare. Now watch as the Dems attempt to paint all the Republican candidates with this brush.

Not just about this, but we're about to witness the nastiest two weeks in recent political history.

 

[Phil502]

The Dems will run with this one, too bad they are major ignorer's of the constitution.

 

[Disposable Heart]

I am not impressed with her or Angle, who believes that all Hispanics look like Asians to her:
Angle tells Hispanic students they look Asian - Yahoo! News

I am not looking forward to a win for Conservatism this fall when all our cards are wild.

I am not a fan of the Tea Party (flame suit on) b/c I see it as a knee jerk reaction to a wide variety of ills put upon us all at once. Failed politicians from the last election, their children (as in Rand Paul) or, as in this case, the insane. My fear is that it is all a front to make money on fear and get more cronies in Washington, a thickly veiled scam. But I cannot make a decision until I see what they DO rather than what they SAY.

 

[dross]

I am not impressed with her or Angle, who believes that all Hispanics look like Asians to her:
Angle tells Hispanic students they look Asian - Yahoo! News

I am not looking forward to a win for Conservatism this fall when all our cards are wild.

I am not a fan of the Tea Party (flame suit on) b/c I see it as a knee jerk reaction to a wide variety of ills put upon us all at once. Failed politicians from the last election, their children (as in Rand Paul) or, as in this case, the insane. My fear is that it is all a front to make money on fear and get more cronies in Washington, a thickly veiled scam. But I cannot make a decision until I see what they DO rather than what they SAY.

The Tea Party isn't a party at all, it's just a loosely organized bunch of people who, as you said, are reacting to the "variety of ills put upon us all at once." Don't expect anything of "them," because there is no "them." It's just a big tent of people who don't like what was put in office the last election.

They may form into a third party after the next election, because they are almost certain to be disappointed in what happens after the election.

After the election, the Republican Congress, which may or may not include the Senate, will only have the power to say "no" to Obama. If they actually want to pass anything (which they must, unfortunately, if they are to stay in power) they will have have to work with Obama and perhaps a Democrat-controlled Senate. If they don't do anything they'll lose the next election, and if they compromise, they're going to lose the Tea Party folks.

While this victory is important, as it will slow the Obama agenda, it might very well ensure his next term.

Many of the people here would hold politicians to a standard that will keep them from getting anything done, AND keep them from being elected again, which, like it or not, is what drives them and what will always drive them.

 

[antsi]

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the First amendment or anywhere else in the constitution.

"Separation of church and state" is one interpretation of the language "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

The langauge that is actually in the 1st, is (in)famously vague, and open to multiple interpretations.

Despite being a very religious person, I tend to favor a strong reading of the first (ie; agreeing with the phrase 'separation of church and state') because I think government is historically a tremendous corrupting influence on the church, and I think the church needs to be protected from the toxic effects of politics. But even though I do generally favor this interpetation, I have to admit that it's just an interpretation and the language does not actually appear in the constitution.

 

[mrjarrell]

She didn't stand a chance in the general election anyway. She just had too much stupid in her baggage. She was, somehow, palatable in the primary to a growing fringe in the gop, but she never had what it takes to get the needed votes in the general. There are too many crazies that are being hoisted by the TEA Partiers this go around and they're going to pay for it in the long run.

 

[dross]

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the First amendment or anywhere else in the constitution.

"Separation of church and state" is one interpretation of the language "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

The langauge that is actually in the 1st, is (in)famously vague, and open to multiple interpretations.

Despite being a very religious person, I tend to favor a strong reading of the first (ie; agreeing with the phrase 'separation of church and state') because I think government is historically a tremendous corrupting influence on the church, and I think the church needs to be protected from the toxic effects of politics. But even though I do generally favor this interpetation, I have to admit that it's just an interpretation and the language does not actually appear in the constitution.

The phrase doesn't appear, and it's a reasonable argument to say that "establishment of a religion" doesn't prohibit all religion and government mixing, however, according to the story she appeared surprised that the establishment clause was in the First Amendment at all. That should wreck her candidacy.

Now, this is the result of voting for a "pure" candidate like her instead of the rino who would have likely won. What's the difference between a dem and a rino, you ask? Harry Reid or Chuck Shumer vs. a conservative as Senate Majority Leader, ALL the committee chairmanships, and a majority on all committees, which is where everything gets done.

 

[CarmelHP]

... however, according to the story she appeared surprised that the establishment clause was in the First Amendment at all. That should wreck her candidacy.

I'm not convinced that wasn't more spin than reality. Just like in the Rand Paul race, the Democrats are quick to latch onto any dirt or weakness; real, imagined or outright false.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Does she want to be a SCOTUS Justice? If not, I fail to see the relevancy of her opinion on this. It doesn't matter one wit what she thinks of the constitution.



There was never meant to be an exclusion of religion from government. Our own Andre Carson swore in on the Koran, and even Barry O'Bammer swore on the bible.

The founders also wrote at length, that a person's religious belief should not preclude them from government service.

The constitution is fairly plain to me. No law respecting the establishment of religion.

That covers both ends of the issue, because even if the Pope were elected president, he wouldn't be able to pass Catholic Dogma as US Law or pass a law making Catholocism the official US religion.

For people who think the slippery slope is a ridiculous argument for just about anything are staunch supporters of it when it comes to religion in government.

Freedom from religion is definitely an interesting interpretation of the 1A.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I'm not convinced that wasn't more spin than reality. Just like in the Rand Paul race, the Democrats are quick to latch onto any dirt or weakness; real, imagined or outright false.

Yeah, like when they painted RP as a racist when he said that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone.

 

[eatsnopaste]

The benefit I see to having TEA party candidates (or those endorsed by them) or a majority of conservatives elected even if they are a little wacko, is that it will mean that a lot of incumbents will be voted out and then hopefully the wackos will be voted out, and MAYBE we can have a little sanity in our politicians...might take a few election cycles and might take a conservative wave this fall and then a more liberal wave in the next cycle, but we as a nation have got to move more to the middle and away from the extremism of BOTH parties.

 

[ATOMonkey]

If someone in government wants to put up a Christmas tree they should be able to. The Jewish guy should be able to light his Menorah, and the Muslim can celebrate Ramadan.

What happened to celebrating our differences instead of insulating ourselves from them?

 

[Que]

Can we rename the Tea Party, the Tea Club? How about the Tea Association?

 

[ATOMonkey]

I like Republican Reformation Association. The RRA, even has a nice ring to it.

 

[dross]

I'm not convinced that wasn't more spin than reality. Just like in the Rand Paul race, the Democrats are quick to latch onto any dirt or weakness; real, imagined or outright false.

I agree, which is why I qualified that the story said that. Unfortunately, listening to some of her statements, it was believable.

Does she want to be a SCOTUS Justice? If not, I fail to see the relevancy of her opinion on this. It doesn't matter one wit what she thinks of the constitution.
.

Knowledge and opinion of the Constitution is very important to me in a candidate.

I'd vote for her if I lived there, for reasons I've written about many times here - Party trumps person - but you have to admit, that chick is dumber than a box of rocks.

 

[Disposable Heart]

I agree that while the Tea Party is loosely based and highly localized NOW, I am thinking that with the centralized candidates and "talking heads" they have, such as Palin and others, I could only imagine them trying to get a centralized situation going, thus bastardizing the point of the Tea Party. Personally, I saw it as something truely nice, something as an actual movement that could work. But then it requires the tools of the trade in politics: Politicians. They hoisted dark horses, crazy horses and failed horses as the proposed sectional leaders of their cause, only to have it potentially succumb to the same corruptive forces as before with their leftist counterparts.

I would agree with eatsnopaste: I want a more moderate nation, based on common sense and some compromise between similarly minded individuals voted in, not the extremists making compromises at knife point or engaging in "black ops" politics (hiding bills within bills, amendments withing amendments and using czars to whittle away powers of the opposition). But in that, my fear (once again, fear mongering and panic induced by the extemism) is of those fits and cycles until we get back to moderation again: ANYTHING could happen, including another AWB, totalitarianism written into our Constitution, etc... as the current extremist powers see a challenge to their ignorance in the People's matters and will fight claw and nail to get their extremist agenda out.

Wanna impress me Tea Party? Want to solidify common sense? Get common sense candidates and ALOT of them!

 

[ATOMonkey]

I agree, which is why I qualified that the story said that. Unfortunately, listening to some of her statements, it was believable.



Knowledge and opinion of the Constitution is very important to me in a candidate.

I'd vote for her if I lived there, for reasons I've written about many times here - Party trumps person - but you have to admit, that chick is dumber than a box of rocks.

'meh, Representatives (this includes senators now since they're democratically elected) are supposed to represent, not interpret the constitution. That is for the Justices.

I don't think she's dumb, I just think she says a lot of dumb things in interviews. Hell, I say a lot of dumb things too, I just don't have the audience she does. She's not a spit polished politician, which makes her even more endearing to me.

I'd be more interested in reading any published writings than listening to sound bites. That gives a better gauge of a person's political bent, IMO.

 

[dross]

'meh, Representatives (this includes senators now since they're democratically elected) are supposed to represent, not interpret the constitution. That is for the Justices.

I don't think she's dumb, I just think she says a lot of dumb things in interviews. Hell, I say a lot of dumb things too, I just don't have the audience she does. She's not a spit polished politician, which makes her even more endearing to me.

I'd be more interested in reading any published writings than listening to sound bites. That gives a better gauge of a person's political bent, IMO.

I think all the people involved in making laws - legislators and executives - should know and adhere to the Constitution. The Court is just there as a safety net. Look at Bush, signing "campaign finance" because he believed the court would overrule. It didn't, and we were left with a blight on the First Amendment, and a law that ran counter to it's stated aims.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Yes, but the people got what they [STRIKE]wanted[/STRIKE] voted for. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

Ms. O'donnell has small government principles, and believes in Liberty. That's more constitutional than most people who lecture on the subject or are "certified" in expertise of the subject.