ABC Slams Christine's O'Donnell's 'Cringe-Inducing' Debate Performance, Hits Her for 'Stumbling'
On Thursday's Good Morning America, reporter Claire Shipman knocked Christine O'Donnell for a "cringe-inducing" answer during a debate, Wednesday, but downplayed and ignored awkward moments from the candidate's Democratic opponent. Shipman derided, "But, while she was quick to accuse her opponent of politics as usual, she stumbled on a question that many consider to be Politics 101."
Co-host George Stephanopoulos teased, "And in last night's debate, what seemed to stump Tea Party star Christine O'Donnell?" Asked by Nancy Karibjanian, one of the moderators, what Supreme Court decision she most disagreed with, the Delaware Republican didn't have an answer.
An ABC graphic dismissed it as a the "Tea Party star's Palin moment." After playing the clip Shipman chided, "Ouch. It was cringe-inducing, George." [MP3 here. Click on read more to see video.]
She added, "It certainly felt sort of like a gotcha question. But, as you know, it's the sort of gotcha question that most candidates know to be ready for."
Yet, there was no video of County Executive Chris Coons stumbling over a question about raising property taxes three times in one fiscal year. The Democrat, fumbled, "Research into that would reveal that, it's difficult, it's complicated, but I'll take- I'll take a-" He then avoided moderator Wolf Blitzer's follow-up on the subject. GMA viewers saw none of this.
Before playing a clip of Blitzer asking O'Donnell about an her criticism of evolution, Shipman labeled this one of the politician's "more controversial statements." Yet, when O'Donnell pressed Coons about being a Marxist, this was just an example of the Republican digging "into her opponent's past."
Shipman offered no context when she played a clip of O'Donnell attacking, "My opponent has recently said that it was studying under a Marxist professor that made him become a Democrat." Perhaps this comment simply isn't as shocking to journalists as O'Donnell's.
A transcript of the October 14 segment, which aired at 7:15, follows:
7am tease
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And in last night's debate, what seemed to stump Tea Party star Christine O'Donnell?
7:15
STEPHANOPOULOS: Just 19 days to go until the November election. And we are right in the thick of the final debates. Senate leader Harry Reid takes on Tea Party star, Sharron Angle tonight in Nevada. They're running neck and neck. And last night in Delaware, the first primetime outing for another Tea Party favorite who is having a tougher time in her race. Christine O'Donnell faced questions from the press and her opponent, Chris Coons. And Claire Shipman was there. Claire?
ABC GRAPHIC: Candidate Showdown: Tea Party Star's Palin Moment
CLARE SHIPMAN: George, it was a critical moment for Christine O'Donnell. She's trailing by almost 20 points in the polls. But, while she was quick to accuse her opponent of politics as usual, she stumbled on a question that many consider to be Politics 101. A moment of nerves at the start. [O'Donnell clears her throat.] And then, nonstop swinging for an hour and a half.
CHRISTINE O'DONNELL: Well, first of all, we have to keep in mind that my opponent has a history of promising not to raise taxes on the campaign trail and then breaking those promises as soon as he takes office.
CHRIS COONS: Ms. O'Donnell has experience at running for office, but not at really running anything.
SHIPMAN: She portrayed him as a political insider
O'DONNELL: You know, special favors are something that my opponent knows very much about.
SHIPMAN: He painted her as incomprehensible.
O'DONNELL: There's so much there, Wolf. I don't know.
SHIPMAN: O'Donnell was pressed on some of her more controversial statements.
O'DONNELL [On Politically Incorrect]: Evolution is a myth.
WOLF BLITZER: Do you believe evolution is a myth?
O'DONNELL: Local- Local schools should make that decision. And I made that remark based on-
BLITZER: But, what do you believe?
O'DONNELL: What I believe is irrelevant.
BLITZER: In turn, she dug into her opponent's past.
O'DONNELL: My opponent has recently said that it was studying under a Marxist professor that made him become a Democrat.
COONS: If you take five minutes and read the article, it's clear on the face of it, it was a joke.
SHIPMAN: And there was one Sarah Palin-esque moment. Although, it didn't seem to rattle O'Donnell.
NANCY KARIBJANIAN (debate moderator): What opinions of late, that have come from our high court, do you most object to?
O'DONNELL: Oh, gosh. Give me a specific one. I'm sorry.
KARIBJANIAN: Actually, I can't. Because, I need you to tell me which ones you object to.
O'DONNELL: I'm very sorry. Right off the top of my head, I know that there are a lot. But I put it up on my website. I promise you.
SHIPMAN: Ouch. It was cringe-inducing, George. It certainly felt sort of like a gotcha question. But, as you know, it's the sort of gotcha question that most candidates know to be ready for.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, it's in everyone's play book. And, remember, of course, Sarah Palin got that question during the campaign season last time around. Okay, Claire Shipman, thanks very much.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
She must not read
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 11:55am.
She must not read Newsbusters. Most members here have at least half a dozen court cases with which they disagree.
Hey but read her website
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:07pm.
Hey but read her website later and she'll have an answer for you. Or her handlers will.
I'm getting the funny feeling
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:09pm.
I'm getting the funny feeling we're seeing a repeat of Sarah Palin - someone unelectable to the mainstream who will be used as a campaigner and all around GOP cheerleader.
With all due respect.
the whole point of washington
Submitted by TruthMonger on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:40pm.
the whole point of washington outisders is that they don't know much about things:) - thats what makes them so appealing - its mr smith goes to washington...
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
And
Submitted by Mestilf on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:57pm.
That's what makes them unelectable. People like their representatives to actually be somewhat intelligent.
Yet California has sent
Submitted by fitzfong on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 4:50pm.
Yet California has sent Barbara Boxer to the Senate since 1993.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Yup
Submitted by Mestilf on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 9:55pm.
She sucks but she's not an idiot.
She's a drooling imbecile...a
Submitted by fitzfong on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 10:47pm.
She's a drooling imbecile...a complete liability. She'll never be anything more than a seat filler in the Senate. The leadership knows not to let her near any responsibility. Boxer is there to make up the numbers, and that's it. There's not another state in the Union that would have elected that check kiting bimbo.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Maryland. It's called
Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 9:12am.
Maryland. It's called Mikulski, and besides being grossly fat, she is a complete fool.
You're equating intelligence (or lack of)
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 11:47pm.
With ignorance. Ignorance of a situation does not translate to an inability to gain knowledge of said situation.
Look at the gang of liberals we have now. They know the ins and outs of Washington, and politics as usual, but are completely ignorant of the workings of the the country, its economy, and the Constitution. They have shown no ability to learn any of these, thus they are unintelligent.
The new to politics Tea Party backed candidates may be a bit ingnorant of Washington insider politics, but that's a good thing.
4dd8427b-a622-4abf-8e68-2c9b5fb97787 1.03.01The media refers to something
Submitted by mattm on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:55pm.
The media refers to something as a "Palin-esque moment", (referring to a set-up hit job and subsequent relentless attacks - combined with an absence of such attacks on her gaffe-prone opponent) and all you get is a "funny feeling" we're seeing a repeat of Sarah Palin?
What's being repeated is MSM demonization propaganda against conservatives while they ignore the many gaffes and extreme beliefs of liberals.
Also: It shouldn't be surprising that a non-politician would stumble a bit in a debate which is being run, moderated and covered by her political opponents. I'd like to see you, or any of the people you vote for, hold up under the same scrutiny and attacks that Palin and O'Donnell have had to face.
No, what's happened is that
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 1:32pm.
No, what's happened is that the GOP realized how unprepared Palin was on the national level, so they protected O'Donnell from the evil mainstream media so as not to see a repeat.
This was the first opportunity for the non-FoxNews viewing public to hear O'Donnell answer the questions she's been avoiding for so long.
And yet, she still avoided questions.
I'm guessing you're a supporter of hers. What are your thoughts on the myth of evolution?
Oh, stop. This was clearly a
Submitted by Martin2717 on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 1:46pm.
Oh, stop. This was clearly a stupid setup question by the two idiot moderators to make O'Donnell look bad because of the complete butt kicking she was giving Coons in the debate. It was really 3 on 1 and she did very well. ABC needs to not make it look so obvious in their editing when it comes to smearing conservatives like O'Donnell. This Shipman lady (you can replace the "p" in her last name with a "t" and that would accurately describe her) and ABC need to take a hike just like you and the two other libs here.
So I take it you don't want
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 1:48pm.
So I take it you don't want to discuss evolution versus creation?
Ummm...... what does that
Submitted by Martin2717 on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 1:53pm.
Ummm...... what does that have to do with the issues that are at most concern right now? She already said that that issue should be left to the state to decide. It shouldn't matter what her belief is. Another distraction the left wants to create.
It's a distraction only a
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 2:10pm.
It's a distraction only a short sighted and overwhelmingly religious zealot would address, or fail to in this case. Over 100 years of scientific research that continues to make progress to this day on the topic of evolution has been dismissed by O'Donnell. As in last night's debate, she still refused to acknowledge her beliefs, simplistically saying the state should decide.
The state should decide the truth now? Or does evolution fall in the "truthiness" category of belief?
So I'll ask you again, do you believe in evolution, or did God create man?
Again, what does this have to
Submitted by Martin2717 on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 2:16pm.
Again, what does this have to do with the more important issues that people are concerned with right now?
Because it speaks of the
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 2:56pm.
Because it speaks of the candidate's overly simplistic view of our world. It means she dismisses scientific evidence over her own faith.
On a national level she will be subjected to a number of different scientific topics and debates. Let's take embryonic stem cell research as an example. As a proud conservative she will no doubt take a position against ESCR, and she will once again dismiss scientific evidence of the benefits of the research for her own religious beliefs. This is a problem. There is nothing wrong with faith, but faith alone won't sustain us very long. Science can cure cancer - faith can not.
Blah blah blah...
Submitted by ghidorah15 on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 3:03pm.
To quote King Juan Carlos I when he addressed Hugo Chavez, "Por que no te callas?"
Baloney. If a Democrat did
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 5:45pm.
Baloney. If a Democrat did the same thing, you'd scream bloody murder.
We could create a drinking
Submitted by fitzfong on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 12:48pm.
We could create a drinking game out of the number of times you've trotted out that lame cliche on this site.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
ESCR cannot cure cancer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 3:13pm.
ESCR cannot cure cancer either. False argument.
Didn't say it did.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 4:29pm.
Didn't say it did.
Actually Darwinian evolution
Submitted by mattm on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 3:05pm.
Actually Darwinian evolution was postulated over 175 years ago, but it has never been proven. In fact, an increasing number of scientists have concluded that the Darwinian model doesn't hold water. The progress is being made on the design side of the argument not the evolutionary side, but the point is to have the argument - not dismiss any possibilities that don't fit the currently accepted view as kooky or religious zealotry.
"To limit teaching to only one idea is a disservice to students because it is unnecessarily restrictive, dishonest, and intellectually myopic." - Dr. Russell Carlson, Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology at University of Georgia
"... a classroom that was not allowed (by the federal government) to teach creationism as an equal theory as evolution. That is against their constitutional rights..." - Christine O'Donnell
Looks like the professor and the religious zealot are on the same page...
mattm, Can you name a
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 3:29pm.
mattm,
Can you name a scientific theory proposed in the last 175 years which has been "proven"?
Also, your link doesn't support your assertion that "an increasing number of scientists have concluded that the Darwinian model doesn't hold water". It might, but it might just support the idea that scientists who never accepted the model are more willing to admit it.
Either way, I'd be willing to bet they are still in the minority.
And I'm interested in your assertion that there isn't any progress being made in evolution. Care to back that up somehow? You will, of course, have to explain how advances in genetic research aren't, in fact, lending support to evolution.
Lastly, the issue with teaching creationism in school isn't one of silencing a particular view - it's about the argument about whether creationism should be presented as a scientific alternative to evolution. I believe that's a valid argument to have.
The problem with the theory
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 4:05pm.
The problem with the theory of creation is that it is based entirely on faith, and NOT on scientific study. Your link obviously shows an organization whose chosen faith over science, but you didn't link to a specific argument against evolution.
Here's Tiktaalik, a somewhat recent discovery of a fish that had the beginnings of arms, which he used to pull himself out of the water and onto land to feed. It is believed that Tiktaalik was the start of the transition from fish to tetrapods, with eyes on top of his head (unlike most fish), the beginning of a rib cage, an individual neck... These features combined with scales, fins, and gills show an actual transitional fossil, evolutionary evidence of when fish began to move out of the water and onto land.
Now I wouldn't expect everyone to take this as proof that we have descended from fish, but I would be interested in your thoughts, as well as O'Donnell's.
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
Good evening dead
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 4:21pm.
Belief in ecolution requires much deeper faith than belief in creation. the sequence that you promote is filled with "probably" "maybe" "could have" "likely" "presumably" and so many other terms that denote opinion rather than fact.
One convenient "fact" throughout evolutionary theory is that the fossils are dated by the rocks and the rocks are dated by the fossils. How convenient.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Um...how is that explained
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 4:27pm.
Um...how is that explained again?
How exactly does scientific research require deeper faith than faith alone? What kind of studies have shown even a plausible argument as proof of creationism?
Do you believe in evolution?
dead
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 4:31pm.
scientific research = the musings of educated fools.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Says the person using a
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 4:33pm.
Says the person using a computer and communicating over the internet.
Obviously you know how to
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 4:41pm.
Obviously you know how to call people names, but you're lacking in the educated argument category quite miserably.
Well ADK
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 9:23pm.
How exactly does scientific research require deeper faith than faith alone?
Can you name a single species and show me it's evolution? And even if you could, that would not disprove creation.
I never have understood this fascination with folks being so positive (not that I am suggesting you do) that one disproves the other. Fact is, species may evolve, but if they do, they must be awfully rare.
Boudin, Just out of
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 9:27pm.
Boudin,
Just out of curiosity, what in your opinion would disprove creationism?
Good question
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 9:45pm.
Right off hand, I dont know. I just think it's a little naive to suggest the creator would not allow their creation to adapt.
cocodrie, I thought they
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 4:31pm.
cocodrie,
I thought they used radioactive decay rates as an absolute (not relative, as you suggest) basis for dating rocks/fossils.
Do you have proof that human
Submitted by rfpzzzzz on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 3:16pm.
Do you have proof that human beings evolved from some other species or that God did not create the universe?
rfpzzzzz, Do you have proof
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 3:31pm.
rfpzzzzz,
Do you have proof that God did create the universe or that human beings didn't evolve from some other species?
I asked first! ....
Submitted by rfpzzzzz on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 4:42pm.
I asked first! ....I am actually interested in your knowledge on human evolution and what evidence you might be able to share on the subject.
As to proof of God 's creation of matter , I am not really into proving anything but merely asking a question. People can believe what they wish as far as I am concerned.
I am a believer and my beliefs always agree with reality when given new information. I have my own reasons for my beliefs, however.
Theories based on years of
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 4:44pm.
Theories based on years of study are of no certainty, which is why evolutionary scientists and naturalists continue to study evolution. Now that I'm debating evolution on multiple pages, I don't recall where I've posted each argument.
This is fascinating. Check it out:
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
My interest would be
Submitted by rfpzzzzz on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 5:15pm.
My interest would be specifically human evolution.
I understand this is a rather confusing forum where you could end up writing the same things over and over within different blogs.
I started watching the videos but some were a bit too cutsie for me. I think the fossils of fish with amphibious qualities is interesting but to somehow conclude it is my ancestor might be a bridge too far. The fact that one creature might have a "hand-like" appendage does not necessarily make them the ancestor of humans who have the ability to make moral decisions or weigh a large number of factors before taking action.
You're right. But I believe
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 5:25pm.
You're right. But I believe the discovery of Tiktaalik as a transitional fossil bridging fish with land animals is proof that evolution is a reality.
As I said earlier, I don't believe Tiktaalik is proof we came from fishes, but it sure piqued my interest in evolution and the idea that we haven't evolved just along with other primates, but that our evolutionary line perhaps dates back much further.
In other words, I'm fascinated with evolution.
I agree it certainly can be
Submitted by rfpzzzzz on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 5:46pm.
I agree it certainly can be an interesting topic but I prefer to observe the actual data rather than draw too many conclusions from an observation or two. I just don't have enough information on the subject to draw any real conclusions. Since I don't use evolution, as far as I know, in my daily activities it is sort of an academic debate to me.
I do think we should be able to discuss the topic without calling each other names or doubt one another's sincerity. I am a believer in God's creation and the mechanics or the "how" is very interesting at least in part for me because it is His creation but regardless of whether one believes in a Creator or not we should be able to enjoy dialog on the facts as they present themselves.
I do think we should be able
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 8:09pm.
I do think we should be able to discuss the topic without calling each other names or doubt one another's sincerity.
I completely agree with you. It's been a pleasure chatting with you, and I'll see you when I see you.
rfpzzzzz, I only have a
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 4:54pm.
rfpzzzzz,
I only have a pedestrian understanding of biological evolution (macro or micro). I don't use it in my work and have never been interested enough in it to study it.
The point of my post to you was that you should be willing to answer the types of questions you ask of others - in other words, you should hold yourself to the same intellectual standards you hold others.
As for you statement about how your beliefs "always agree with reality when given new information" - I would say that I would never want to find myself in such a position.
Science advances when new information is at odds with existing beliefs. It forces a reevaluation of current thinking which, in turn, leads to new ideas.
The day I think I have all the answers is the day I stop growing.
So, according to your logic,
Submitted by rfpzzzzz on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 6:18pm.
So, according to your logic, if I go into a store and see something I might want to purchase I cannot ask a clerk what the price is unless I am prepared to answer my own question?
I asked a simple question. If you wish to read more into it than that , that is your business.
Who said they know everything? My statement that I am open to new information and I adjust to facts I haven't previously been aware of is perfectly sensible.
Since you admit you don't have a lot of information regarding human evolution I am not sure why you chimed in other than you have some sort issue with how I ask a question.Oh, well!
My understanding of human evolution is that we are not descendants of monkeys but have some similar DNA as some apes. The problem is that evidence of the shared ancestor is missing. I am curious if anyone has any better information than my admitted rudimentary grasp of the subject.rfpzzzzz, Your analogy
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 8:32pm.
rfpzzzzz,
Your analogy doesn't work. I rewrote your question to ADK in such as way as to mimic the structure, not what was being asked. If I had simply posted your own questions to you, then that would be analogous to your clerk example.
I interpreted your post to ADK as a challenge for him to defend his belief in evolution. I was simply pointing out that you should be willing to defend your views in the same manner.
Now, if your post to ADK wasn't a challenge but simply an honest request for information, then I did read more into it than I should have and I apologize for jumping to conclusions.
I am actually interested in
Submitted by rfpzzzzz on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 9:51pm.
I am actually interested in human evolution. Since looking into it a bit I see that there are a number of questions. As I said , my interest is in the evolution of humans not plants etc. I don't have the answers but I found a lot of the mocking of O'Donnell on the subject was coming from folks that don't have all that much knowledge on the topic themselves. Maher for example, said to her ,"Haven't you seen a monkey?" and in looking into this supposed link of monkeys to humans made by Maher it became apparent that he really didn't have much knowledge on the topic. Her reference to chimeras was another thing for which she was mocked that also seemed less than fair. So you might have rightly detected a bit of orneriness on my part but that was more from feeling O'Donnell has been picked on a bit too much while someone like Pelosi is given a pass for her outlandish statements. Even Obama when he said his inauguration would mark the point when the sea would slow its rise made a much more ridiculous scientific statement than much of what O'Donnell has said. It gets a little tedious to me. ADK seemed to understand I was asking a question and was open to dialog even if we didn't have exactly the same view. I am actually interested in knowledge here not an argument. I can't go any further here because reading this text the way it gets formatted is driving me a bit crazy. Talk to you in the future I am sure. Best to you.A Better Idea
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:10pm.
She could have taken the chicken-s&** way out like Coons and just use the case that had already been discussed. It's cool cuz it's not like he has a law degree or any....wait.Yeah, and maybe while she's
Submitted by fitzfong on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:42pm.
Yeah, and maybe while she's running that frivolous errand for you, that phony veteran DICK Blumenthal and his handlers can chase down a coherent answer to the question of how a job is created. Lord knows his party is clueless on that subject.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Speaking of handlers... Did
Submitted by mattm on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 3:08pm.
Speaking of handlers...
Did Obama not have handlers? I mean, who types that stuff into his teleprompter anyway?
When the TV news ratings come out...
Submitted by TruthMatters on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:01pm.
now THAT'S a cringe inducing moment for ABC
Really wish
Submitted by bolivar on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:18pm.
ABC would keep it real. I know that is asking too much. I will admit that Christine has made some major faux pas in the campaign - the witch comment on the latest commercial for one. She still has not given me a reason to prefer her over a marxist - not by a long shot - and never will. I would rather have the most inane, moronic twit elected than another marxist. We have too many already and Congress needs to have that infestation eradicated permanently.
I have no use for liberal thinking - it is just passe....
I guess you know, you contradict yourself
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 2:44pm.
In the above post.
Cringe-inducing, huh?
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:21pm.
Cringe-inducing, huh? Seriously, these lines are rehearsed, right?
By the way and slightly OT- when one pitcures an internet troll, does this image come to mind?
How is that cringe inducing?
Submitted by merly1 on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:25pm.
Doesnt a nonanswer show she is pretty satisfied with a conservative court? The media looks for any nugget, no matter how small, to advance its agenda.
Shills
Submitted by PrimalElements on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:43pm.
Republicans just never learn. I would never debate unless
I picked half the moderators not matter where.
That was a set up question. They already knew Coons
would disagree with the case, thus making it more difficult
for OD.
Asking that question ,
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 12:47pm.
Asking that question , considering the entire democrat party , fom Obama on down have spent the past week hammering the Supreme Court's citizens united decision shows just how biased the whole event was including the moderator.
The democrat gushed his answer like a little school girl.......big wup........when pressed to name one more decision he did not agree with , what happened?..........crickets happened......nothing , nada , zilch.
So they all can kiss my big bla.. , WHITE ass is all I have to say to those liberal scmucks in Delaware.............and everywhere else for that matter.
Truth be told.....it SUCKS to be you.. right about now......the funk soul brother.
The tentacles of the Obama Socialist Regime spread throughout every aspect of this country , like a malignant cancer yet we are kicking the living sh#t out of their candidates from coast to coast.
Obama and the gang that couldn't shoot straight still don't get it..........luckily Real Americans do.
Barack_Must_Go.....
Shipman's conflict of interest
Submitted by Arminius on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 1:17pm.
Claire Shipman is married to Jay Carney, communications director to Vice President Joe Biden.
"Name a recent supreme court
Submitted by deerjerkydave on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 1:53pm.
"Name a recent supreme court ruling you opposed" is a gotcha question, like when George W. Bush was asked the names of leaders from 3rd world nations. She can only win if she knows the name of the case. Honestly, who remembers those minor details?
For example, in 2005 the Supreme Court increased government powers in letting it easily confiscate private property through eminent domain. I opposed that ruling but I can't remember the name of it for the life of me.
------------------------
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. -James MadisonThat won't wash
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 3:14pm.
That won't wash dhdave...O'Donnell would have been easily forgiven for not knowing the specific case name if she had, like you, referred generally to the subject-matter and decision of the Court.
Jer
Easily forgiven, Jer?
Submitted by fitzfong on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 5:14pm.
Easily forgiven, Jer? Hardly. If she had presented a concise, accurate summary of the Kelo decision, they would have trotted out Erwin Chemerinsky, Laurie Levenson, Jeffrey Toobin or some other low-grade partisan hack to contradict what she said or to split hairs over her interpretation of specific facts. They already had a story template in place, they just needed some footage to fill in the gaps.
Meanwhile, they haven't just forgiven Dick Blumenthal's woeful inability to describe how a job is created (not to mention his repeated and cynically false claims of Vietnam Service)...they've forgotten it.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Apparently No News Outlets have Reported on her Opponent
Submitted by Thoreau on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 1:59pm.
The Communist. How hard is it to investigate their owns records?
Has anyone talked about this guy being a registered communist bastard?
ugh. this new setup sucks.
Submitted by Eugenia on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 2:21pm.
ugh. this new setup sucks.
Something ain't right.
Submitted by rfpzzzzz on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 4:33pm.
Something ain't right.
Shipman probably thinks
Submitted by rfpzzzzz on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 3:13pm.
Shipman probably thinks Transgender men who cut off their...well you know....and start wearing dresses is perfectly normal so I would not put a lot of stock in her opinion.