Christine O'Donnell Shames ABC Into Airing Democrat's First Amendment Gaffe
Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell appeared on Thursday's Good Morning America and attacked the media's reaction to her comments about the First Amendment, pointing out that journalists ignored a gaffe by her opponent, Chris Coons. Her complaints apparently got results: The network played the Democrat's blunder.
Asked by reporter Jon Karl about her (correct) assertion that the words "separation of church and state" aren't anywhere in the Constitution, O'Donnell complained that "First, let me point out about that, it's really funny the way that the media reports things." She recounted the debate exchange: "I followed up with, 'Can you name the five freedoms that are guaranteed to us, that are protected by the First Amendment?' And [Coons] could not." [MP3 audio here. For video, click on article.]
ABC then, for the first time, played the clip of Coons being unable to list freedom of religion, speech, the press, the right to assembly and the right to petition the government. On Wednesday, GMA played the clip of O'Donnell's questioning of separation of church and state, but not of Coons' embarrassing moment. CBS's Early Show and NBC's Today have still yet to highlight the moment.
On Thursday, co-host George Stephanopoulos interviewed Coons, but didn't ask him about the exchange. However, at the top of the show, he did tease the Karl segment, seriously wondering, "Who is right about the First Amendment?" (Once again, this isn't in dispute: The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.)
A transcript of the October 21 segment, which aired at 7:05am EDT, follows:
7am tease
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Midterm madness. 12 days to go. The candidates head-to-head here in Pennsylvania. And we talk exclusively to Tea Party favorite, Christine O'Donnell and her opponent. Who is right about the First Amendment? That debate ahead.
7:05
ROBIN ROBERTS: And, George, as you know, next door, the Senate race in Delaware, also, attracting a lot of attention. And Jonathan Karl sat down with Republican candidate, Tea Party favorite, Christine O'Donnell for a rare one-on-one chance to talk with her.
JON KARL: Yeah. And she is absolutely determined that she will surprise everybody on November 2nd. Just like she did when she won the Republican primary last month. And she had some surprising comments, Robin, to say about that "I am not a witch ad." But I started off by asking her why Republican leaders in Washington have all but abandoned her campaign.
CHRISTINE O'DONNELL: The thing about my candidacy is that, you know, I'm busting up the back room deals. We're shining a spotlight on what's going on in Washington. And both parties are guilty of catering to special interest groups. And that's why my support extends way beyond the Tea Party.
KARL: If the national party were to be in here, helping you out, the way you would like them to be, would it make a difference?
O'DONNELL: It absolutely would make a difference. The Democratic Senatorial Committee is running ads. On cable television, you're limited to how many commercials each campaign can buy. So, we get one a minute. If we had other groups, you know, buying commercials, exposing my opponent's tax and spend record, then, it would be a lot easier to educate the voters about what they get when they vote for my opponent. Because, one thing I try to often say on the campaign trail is that my opponent has promised not to raise taxes. But he broke that promise, raised them three times. Raised them over 54 percent.
KARL: Have you spoken to party leaders in Washington? To Republican leaders and said, hey, come up here? Help me out. We need your help.
O'DONNELL: Yes, I have. And they said if we close the gap and, you know, that's a shame.
KARL: So, they're not coming?
O'DONNELL: Who knows? Who knows whether they will. This is a call out to them. But, you know what? I'm confident we can win with or without them.
KARL: So, Sarah Palin says she's ready to come up and knock on doors with you here in Delaware. When do we plan to see Sarah Palin here?
O'DONNELL: We tried to schedule it. We're going back and forth, exchanging dates. And I don't know if we'll get it in in the next two weeks. We're trying very hard.
KARL: But, we may not see Sarah Palin here before November 2nd?
O'DONNELL: I don't know. Time is getting short.
KARL: There's been this back and forth between you and your opponent, over the separation of church and state. You pointed out that that phrase is not in the Constitution.
O'DONNELL: Right.
KARL: But, of course, the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishing of religion.
O'DONNELL: Nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And that's what he forgot to say.
KARL: But, what does that phrase mean to you? If not, the separation of church and state?
O'DONNELL: First, let me point out about that, it's really funny the way that the media reports things. Because, after that debate, my team and I, we were literally high-fiving each other. Because, after that question, where I asked him where in the Constitution is the phrase separation of church and state, he said the First Amendment. He said the First Amendment. I followed up with, can you name the five freedoms that are guaranteed to us, that are protected by the First Amendment? And he could not. [cut to a clip of the debate.] Can I ask you a question, Chris? Can you name the five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment?
COONS: I think the very first provision of the First Amendment, is that the government shall make no establishment of religion. And before we get into a further debate about exactly which of us knows the Constitution better-
O'DONNELL: No, I'm just asking, can you name the five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment?
COONS: How about we get the panel is answering our questions today?
O'DONNELL: I guess he can't. [Clip ends.] So, we were high-fiving each other, both thinking he had exposed he doesn't know the First Amendment. And then we read the reports that said the opposite, we were like what?
KARL: So, you think you got the better of him in that exchange?
O'DONNELL: I do think I got the better of him. Today, on another debate, he charged me with, Christine wants the federal government's power to be limited to that what's [sic] in the Constitution. And I thought, that's absolutely right. The federal government's power should be in what the Constitution says.
KARL: But, do you believe in the phrase, do you believe in the principle that there's a separation of church and state?
O'DONNELL: Well, I think it says exactly what it says. That the government will not create, will not dictate, that every American has to believe a certain way. But it won't do anything to prevent the free exercise thereof. And that's what people, like my opponent, in that debate, so carelessly choose to leave out.
KARL: All right. We've done the whole interview without talking about witchcraft. But I do want to ask you one last question. Halloween is coming up. How does Christine O'Donnell celebrate Halloween? What are you gonna be for Halloween? That's what I want to know.
O'DONNELL: Everybody wants to know what I'm going to be for Halloween. I have some thoughts. I'm certainly not going to be a witch.
KARL: You're not. With that, we thought the interview was going to be over. But she decided to come back and tell us about Halloween plans. And made some news about the "I am not a witch" ad.
O'DONNELL: I was just thinking about going as Dorothy.
KARL: That's perfect!
O'DONNELL: I killed the witch. There you go.
KARL: There it is. There it is. Any regrets in doing the ad? That really did raise it again.
O'DONNELL: Yeah. Yeah. You know, I haven't publicly stated this. And I don't know if I'll get in trouble for saying that. But our intention was to kill it. And that's not what happened.
KARL: So, there you have it. She says that "I am not a witch" ad, which was her first ad, probably the most memorable ad of the entire first midterm election, was a mistake.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
A media blackout on Coons.
Submitted by NeoKong on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 12:37pm.
I will be surprised if the voters even know who O'Donnell is running against the way that the media refuses to even say his name except when they are touting his lead.
"We've done the whole
Submitted by mattm on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 12:36pm.
"We've done the whole interview without talking about witchcraft." (until now)....
Good grief... When did you stop sacrificing cats? It's it true you have been banished from Wicca? When was the last time you cast a spell?
Move along, there's no witch-hunt going on here.....
The Anchoress nails the
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 12:37pm.
The Anchoress nails the media, on their deplorable tactics, with help from an article by Patterico.
(The AP rewrote its article on the debate without mentioning the changes.)
I think the most nefarious and reprehensible game the press plays–beyond spiking stories to protect the politicians they love–is the trick they have of creating blaring headlines for distorted or misreported stories, and then, in a day or two, or three (or, in the pope’s case, four – always four) they either run a discreet “correction” no one sees, or an even more discreet “clarification” that runs under a nothing-headline and usually turns the original story (and newly-established “narrative”) on its head.
O'Donnell has a new fan here
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 12:54pm.
These same a-holes went MONTHS without talking about the Rev Wright or Van Jones, but I am just a bigot.
JUST HAVE TO BRING UP THE WITCH BS....
O'Donnell did her self proud here as she exposed these frauds and she gained my respect.
She may not win this time......... but I think she has a future based on being able to take a punch and kick these cowards back in the nads....
Frankly I think she should have body slammed...
Submitted by stage9 on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 1:17pm.
the whole idea of "separation of church and state". It is NOT in the Constitution.
The actual wording is as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Congress shall not create a law ESTABLISHING a state religion. Congress shall not prohibit public expressions of faith. (Remember that come Christmas)
Where in this phrase does "endorsing a religion" fall?
Nowhere!
"Endorsing" and "establishing" are two very different ideas.
Where exactly is "separation of church and state" found in this phrase? Perhaps the MSM has a more "liberalized" version of the Constitution that I'm not aware of.
The term "separation of church and state" wasn't even an issue until 156 years AFTER the Bill of Rights were drafted when in the 1947 case of Emerson vs the Board of Education case the Supreme Court took it upon itself to impose the idea upon the text.
No where is it found in the text and never was it meant to be used as it has been to silence religious speech in the public square.
This is what happens when judiciaries become criminals. They twist the law to impose the law they prefer.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
Where does the Constitution
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 3:39pm.
Where does the Constitution identify a corporation [or similar entity] as a "person", or prescribe that a campaign contribution is "freedom of speech", or that slanderous speech can be regulated, or that "arms" do not include howitzers, or define "religion", or describe an unreasonable search, or provide perfect clarity with respect to dozens of other words and phrases.
The absence of such specificity is the very reason for judicial analysis and interpretation. There is nothing inherently anti-constitutional about the separation of church and state-- notwithstanding the fact that the precise words do not appear in the First Amendment. The application may arguably lead to unintended results, but a long succession of Supreme Court Justices of every ideological stripe continue to recognize the constitutional basis and legal integrity of the clause itself and decide the cases in accordance with the facts presented and established tests--and those decisions have gone both ways.
And, just to set the record straight, religious speech has NOT been silenced in the public square. It's just that the state is barred from promoting one religion over other religions or beliefs.
Jer
Judicial analysis and interpretation, indeed---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 3:57pm.
This country has been sliding down the slippery slope towards the disappearance of individual freedom and maybe even to complete anarchy or utter devastation.
Whatever the destination, I blame the descent on stupid ass liberals, Democrats, lawyers, and ALL modern day politicians.
The Constitution doesn't mean jack sh*t when analyzed, interpreted, and then adjudicated by idiots with a liberal agenda.
MD
It does not PROHIBIT it nor
Submitted by BD on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 9:54pm.
It does not PROHIBIT it nor establish a differing form, ergo the states are allowed to do it or not as the power is reserved..
I thought you were a lawyer.
Damn, if a falling down old intel analyst can figure that one out.....
or that "arms" do not include howitzers,
But someone with a knowledge of history and the intent of our revolutionary fore fathers would know that the intent was to have the populous armed with those arms necessary to conduct the appropriate revolution if the established government trifled with the rights bestowed by God. The populous after all, being armed is the "Well regulated militia "the forfathers were enamored of.
A more accurate reading of the constitution coupled with the intent of the founders would have every single citizen being required to arm themselves with that which is required to depose the government in battle if needed.
BD...I like you a lot, but gee whiz, man...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:05am.
What is "IT"? The states--whether by statute or judicial decision--are not allowed to do anything that the Supreme Court has expressly held is violative of the US Constitution. [Check out the Supremacy Clause.] On the other hand, If the challenged activity or state law is one of first impression, the Court will apply certain tests to determine if it is primarily secular or religious in purpose, which, in the latter case, would be impermissable under existing Establishment clause rulings.
You thought correctly.
Better stick to intel analysis.
In that case, the citizenry would need Abrams tanks, armored personnel carriers, a squadron of F-22s, heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, and a few Aegis class cruisers, or they would get their asses kicked. I don't think either Congress or the Supreme Court would approve.
Nonsense.
Jer
I see, you are an adherent to
Submitted by BD on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:16pm.
I see, you are an adherent to the religion that is legal precedentism.
Regarding the notion that a citizen would require a main battle tank to adequately serve as an armed miitia in accordance witht he founders desire, tell that to the Chechens.....
BD...If I were to ask you
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 7:58pm.
BD...If I were to ask you what happens when two NFL teams are tied at the end of regulation and you informed me that the first team scoring in overtime wins the game, would it be fair or logical for me to say "I see, you are an adherent to the religion of 'sudden death' victory?"
Moral of the story:: Don't jump to conclusions
That said, adhering to precedent and recognizing stare decisis--which ensures a level of stability and continuity of the law--plays an immensely important role for the judiciary in particular and in American society in general. So, yes, I believe the concept is a very good thing. But, it is true that the Supreme Court can and sometimes does overturn years of precedent and specifically overrule prior cases in whole or in part. That's not a bad thing either.
My comment about the type of arms required by a citizen militia was mostly tongue-in-cheek, but your point about the Chechens is a fair one, as it would be with respect to many other insurgencies.
Jer
Your point proves what I have
Submitted by BD on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 1:25pm.
Your point proves what I have known all along, that law is not based upon logic.
I do not wish to engage in a war.
Submitted by samhermanmd on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 8:08pm.
My understanding of the US constitution from civics classes is as follows:
a) The court is established by article III without the expressed authority to interpret law;
b) The US Supreme Court assumed the power to interpret laws and the constitution through the Marbury vs. Madison and some subsequent decisions;
c) The power to regulate which cases the court may take within its jurisdiction is limited by what Congress decides.;
and
d) The logic of the Supreme Court being arbiter of its own power is essentially a circular firing squad concept;
This is what the Poli Sci 102 - American National Government and Politics (at the time) and civics classes taught from time immemorial.
I am not arguing over the right of the court to interpret law, but instead that it simply assumed that it had powers that were not expressly granted in the constitution. In effect, it appears the Supreme Court of the United States assumed extraconstitutional powers which can only be checked by the necessarily lengthy process of amendment.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
samhermanmd...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:39am.
You have a good memory.
a. correct
b. correct
c. Sort of. Broadly, the jurisdiction is established by the Constitution. Theoretically, the Congress can regulate the scope of the court's jurisdiction within those constitutional parameters. And of course the Court can and does set its own rules concerning the cases it chooses to hear.
d. Its power is not unfettered, but limited by law and precedent
The right of review and constitutional interpretation may not have been explicitly granted, but it was a contemplated and implied power, and the Court would be a weak and ineffectual body otherwise--not a co-equal branch of government.
Jer
Congratulations, leftist media machine!
Submitted by Phryj1 on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 1:26pm.
Christine O'Donnell is the next Sarah Palin, and it's all thanks to yout attempts to drag her through the mud. O'Donnell is going to a political force to be reckoned with.
I'm thinking 8 years of Palin in the White House followed by 8 years of O'Donnell. Hopefully, that'll be long enough to outlast the far-left fringe that currently dominates the media and the Democratic Party (and the schools, and the unions, and the "civil rights" [read: race agitator] organizations, etc). Plus, it'll REALLY tick off the leftists who were trumpeting how the conservative movement was dead just 2 years ago!
Speaking of Wizard of Oz, someone needs to toss a bucket of water on Nancy Pelosi. Actually, I think that's why Pelosi's taxpayer subsidized booze bills are so high, can't have water around her because it melts wicked witches from the west.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
FYI. Palin couldn't complete
Submitted by goldbar on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 1:38pm.
FYI. Palin couldn't complete one term as governor. If you think she can be elected president, you don't know the GOP very well. She couldn't stand up to the scrutiny as a running mate, let alone being at the top of the ticket. I'd LOVE to see here on the top of the GOP ticket. Nothing would make the democrats happier. As for O'Donnell--when you can't even get Karl Rove to endorse you, then you know you have problems.
I love the way liberals...
Submitted by stage9 on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 2:00pm.
invent a narrative and then actually BELEIVE the narrative they invent!
1) Palin has said, time and time and time again, that she was NOT going to drag Alaskans though the mud of litigation lawsuits she was constantly having to fight due to liberal imbeciles challenging everything she did. Unlike North Eastern or left coast liberals, she actually LOVES her state and has an undying loyalty to it. She stepped aside to allow the political process to continue without her as a distraction.
On the other hand, why would a liberal, by contrast, want to be loyal to a state like New York, or New Jersey or California? Each of those states are a liberal cest pool of bankruptcy, unemployment and corruption.
2) In case you haven't heard, there are canidates shaking up the "establishment" Republicans by going anti-big-government, pro-Constitution, (since you're a Democrat, let me define for you exactly what a Constitution is: it defines the system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or institution), pro-family and pro-Conservative American values. That "party" has been dubbed "The Tea Party" of which O'Donnell is a part.
Trust us, we understand why you liberals hate Tea Party candidates so much; they favor what liberals despise -- our Founding principles.
Too bad, marxism is one dead idiot's failed idea. And to that I say good riddance!
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
She couldn't stand up to the
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 8:55pm.
She couldn't stand up to the scrutiny as a running mate,
She did a fine job, everyone knows McCain dragged her down. But you right in one respect, she was scrutinized. Not like Obama though, who was hanging out with Commie's, Black liberation leaders, domestic terrorist, and other assorted felons. Cats out of the bag dude, Obama couldn't beat a dead Rat, he probably looses in the primaries.
Democrats "invented" the
Submitted by goldbar on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 2:34pm.
Democrats "invented" the narrative that she quit? That is rich! You can't even live up to the fact that she couldn't finish what she was elected to do! You might want to remind your idol Palin about Marxism seeing as her state of Alaska is the biggest recipient of government money of all the states and taxes the rest of us to pay for it.
Again,
Submitted by stage9 on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 3:17pm.
you are completely misrepresenting the facts! But then, you're a liberal.
You say: "...she couldn't finish what she was elected to do!"
There are two ways to interpret this comment:
1) That she couldn't hack the pressure so she quit, or
2) to protect Alaskans from further litigation, she resigned.
Liberals suggest the former, which is an invented lie. They created that narative to slight her--period.
Let's look at the facts: (But first, let me define what facts are since you're a liberal: facts are knowledge or information based on real occurrences)
Palin claimed she was the target of 15 ethics violations by political opponents, all of which were dismissed -- at a cost of $2 million to the state and more than $500,000 to her family!
Considering the salary of an Alaskan Governor is only $150,000 a year, (which she refused to take when the Alaskan State Commission wanted to raise it) it's plain to see, by anyone with enough common sense, that there was no way she nor the state could sustain these outragous costs.
Palin said, and I quote:
"And the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn't cost them a dime, so they're not going to stop draining public resources – spending other people's money in their game," she said.
"It's pretty insane – my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with this instead of progressing our state now." Wasilla, AK, July 3, 2009.
She said later:
"With this decision, now, I will be able to fight even harder for you, for what is right, and for truth. And I have never felt that you need a title to do that." Pioneer Park, Faibanks AK, July 26, 2009
Express. Expose. Expel.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
She quit. Get over it.
Submitted by goldbar on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 3:40pm.
She quit. Get over it.
~Translation
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 3:45pm.
I can't refute your facts; I'm leaving now.
It has to hurt to be this stupid
Submitted by dvdaughtry on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 3:45pm.
And let's be honest, she hasn't quit. She's only just started. She upped the ante on you bankrupt and sophomoric liberals.
Except now, she's got the popularity and the bankroll to continually twist the knife.
I love watching libs squeal. Can't wait to see the big kahuna start on NOV 3.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
So did Obama, Biden, and
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 3:48pm.
So did Obama, Biden, and Hillary. They left for different jobs (POTUS, VP, SecState) and Sarah left for a different job (Commentator & Author). If that's all you Liberals have, she's gonna demolish Obama in 2012./// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
If only Obama would
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 3:48pm.
If only Obama would quit...............
Troll, troll, troll your boat
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 4:18pm.
Doltbar, you are a pu%%y, get over it.
You talk like a typical libtard but when facts are presented as THEY WERE HERE, you got nothing.
Story of your little life isn't it.
"Man" overboard sissy.
goldgrater
Submitted by Samshile on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 5:35pm.
It is obvious your the one who keeps grinding a childish point, gold.
She now has a few million to provide for her family. Strong woman. Strong principles.
When you start debating substance issues and support them with facts you will have displayed a more grownup attitude. We look forward to your paradigm.
Obama lasted a shorter period
Submitted by BD on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 9:57pm.
Obama lasted a shorter period of time than Palin did.
He quit, get over it.
Likely he will quit again soon enough.
That's right. Obama quit to
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 10:00pm.
That's right. Obama quit to become president.
Palin quit to become a fund raiser, an author, a reality TV star, a FoxNews contributor, a campaigner, and all around conservative hero.
I'm over it.
Lets be fair*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 3:51pm.
Obama did not finish his term as Illinois state senator and records show he missed 76% of voting while in office.
Hey, cajun---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 4:05pm.
These liberals wear blinders just like burros in Mexico.
Only difference between here and there is that in the U.S. they are called jackasses.
Must be why the ol' donkey represents their liberal Democratic Party, eh?
Got to give credit where credit is due, though.
They certainly are experts at cherry-picking their supposed "facts" and their utilization of liberal "logic".
MD
Mathew*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 4:13pm.
This new format at NB has me so confused. I was unable to lock in to "jackass" being the new term for lib/troll. Correction made, thank you for your assistance....;-)
cajun...You need to be fair, too...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 4:08pm.
Illinois state senate terms are for two years.
Obama was elected in 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002, resigning his seat in November of 2004 because of his election to the U.S. Senate.
Compare that with Palin's single four-year term, serving two years and out--not to run for office, just...out.
Jer
But missing 76% of the Senate
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 4:16pm.
But missing 76% of the Senate votes is o.k.? Let's not forget Palin left office because the lawsuits against her were at the point she could no longer govern Alaska effectively. She knew here Lt. Gov. would follow her same ideals in governing. Palin also had to earn the money to pay for the legal bills those lawsuits were causing. Rather than ask for money, as the Clinton's did, she went out and earned it herself.
Some would call this very presponsible.
Shackity shackity shack.
Submitted by BD on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 9:59pm.
Shackity shackity shack. Secondary burn.
That's what friends are for..........
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 4:23pm.
Jer, if these lawsuits put up by your heroes had any merit and were so HORRIBLE, why did they ALL go away when she resigned over the sheer stupidity of all the BOGUS charges.
Don't bother, you made a friend in doltbar, you two make a nice couple.
The MSM doesn't like to
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 4:35pm.
The MSM doesn't like to mention Sarah is something like 24-0-2 fighting those stupid "ethics complaints". The 2 "ties" were pretty silly too. IIRC, one was a rulling that going forward she had to re-imbursh certain expenses, (that no previous Alaska governor ever had to) and the second was her lawyers made some minor technical error in setting up SarahPAC, and in that case she was declared to have acted in good faith./// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
You want to total up all of
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 4:37pm.
You want to total up all of the bogus complaints, lawsuits, and investigations targeting Bill Clinton?
And you couldn't get him out of office with a stick of dynamite.
Jer
Slick Willie
Submitted by gunguru on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 8:28pm.
Please list the "bogus" complaints, charges, and lawsuits against the sheep-humpin' hillbilly from Hot Springs. Was it the sexual harassment of Paula Jones? Oops, guilty as charged. Was it perjury or obstruction of justice? Oops, guilty as charged. Was it the taking of campaign cash from the Chicoms in exchange for the release of ballistic missile technology? Oops, guilty as charged. Was it the murder of over 70 men, women and children at Waco? Oops, guilty as charged. If you are going to try and defend another liberal Democrat, at least find one who is of good character (I understand that I am asking the impossible).
You need to brush up on your
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 8:36pm.
You need to brush up on your history, youngster. Your ignorance is showing.
Jer
Jer: He got you. Sucking
Submitted by BD on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 10:03pm.
Jer:
He got you. Sucking chest wound. I recommend pressing the plastic wrapper from your compress packet to it to reinflate the lung or its all over.
Clinton did all and more. And eventhe liberals admit it. They were proud of the fact he was an uncommonly good liar.
THe fact they did not eject him in the light of overwhelming evidencesand ride him out on a rail says more about them than his own guilt.
BD...When did you stop researching facts
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 1:52am.
When did you stop researching facts and start mindlessly endorsing partisan fantasies?
Because...with a couple of minor exceptions, that is precisely how that glob of nonsense posted by gunguru is best described.
Sexual harrassment of Paula Jones: guilty as charged? Negative. The case was actually dismissed on summary judgment, which meant there was insufficient evidence of a claim for damages produced by Jones to even warrant a trial on the issue
Perjury or obstruction of justice? Guilty as charged? Only partly. There was never any admission, official finding or conviction for perjury. Clinton was found to have given false testimony [which is not the same as perjury] and to have engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice [which may be fairly characterized as obstruction of justice]
Accepting campaign cash in return for providing the Chinese ballistic missile technology. Guilty as charged? Bullsh!t. There was no nexus whatsoever between the actions. If true, tjhis would have constituted far more appropriate grounds for impeachment than lying about sex. Unfortunately for the Clinton-haters, there was absolutely no truth to the charges.
Murdering 70+ men, women, and children at Waco. Guilty as charged? A filthy, despicable lie. The religious fanatic and serial child rapist, David Koresh, was guilty of murdering the Davidian innocents and is hopefully rotting in Hell at this very moment.
The Clintons were also exonerated in the fifty-million-dollar-waste-of-taxpayer money Whitewater investigation....and were also cleared of any wrongdoing in the alleged misuse of FBI files.
Did Bill Clinton have a zipper problem? Obviously, and his personal conduct in that regard was reckless, reprehensible and inexcusable. And he paid a heavy price for it.
But please direct your condemnation toward the indiscretions which he actually committed, and not those which were hatched and peddled by his enemies for purely political purposes.
Jer
Jer - So you admit Bill was
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 10:38pm.
Jer - So you admit Bill was addicted to the power ?
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Free...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 10:49pm.
Without any hesitation.
Jer
Thank you, Tomorama, and may
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 4:33pm.
Thank you, Tomorama, and may I say that despite what others may think, I have no problem with your and Matthew's public displays of affection for each other. I think it's very sweet.
Jer
Shhh, don't tell my wife
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 4:53pm.
Awww schucks Jer, you are so kind.
Tell you what, when Palin perjures herself so badly she get's disbarred or something close to that, you can use that line of thinking, until then, the "typical they did it also" replies will have to suffice when you have NO rebuttal.....
I get it brother, we cool.
Geez, Tomorama
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 5:11pm.
I get enough grief for the "they do it too" arguments. However, that wasn't the point of my argument in this case. You obviously missed it.
But, we still cool.
Jer
Any time, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 4:57pm.
and every time you stand up for Obama, and especially when you do any type of comparison between him and Sarah Palin, it just reinforces in my mind how truly screwed up you liberals are.
I will grant you the blinding glimpse of the obvious - No one is perfect - but to side with that lying pos Obama, in any instance and for any reason, against a decent American citizen, is to my mind, reprehensible no matter how much you desire to foist your liberal banshee bullsh*t on the rest of us.
You liberals, for all that you are citizens, too, do not have any equitable measure of the actual feelings against your Messiah.
The evidence is there for all to see, but you continue, at best, to bristle at any criticism of the jug-eared jackass, and at worst, absolutely absolve the feckless fool of any responsibility for the consequences of his or his asinine administrations actions.
A jug-eared jackass jerkoff in the Oval Office, and you feel compelled to defend him.
That is truly amazing.
And sad.
MD
I'm just pointing out facts,
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 5:18pm.
I'm just pointing out facts, Matthew. That Palin doesn't fare well by comparison with those and only those specific facts, is not my problem.
This isn't a comment or reflection on Palin's character. I like her. But cajun's effort to equate Obama's leaving the Illinois senate with Palin's departure was flawed.
Jer
No, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 5:52pm.
Your opinion is certainly viable as being your own, but you are posting liberal thoughts and opinion, not fact.
The departure(s) from office of both Obama and Palin are subjected most heavily to the partisanship game and an individuals angle of perception.
Fact:
Both people left office before finishing their elected term(s).
Opinion:
Was why they left legitimate?
MD
Obama resigned his seat in
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 6:08pm.
Obama resigned his seat in November, a few weeks before the end of his term in order to prepare to take his U.S. Senate seat in D,C. in January.
If you can't see a clear distinction in the two cases, Matthew, there is no explanation which would satisfy you.
Jer
The fact that you, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 11:21pm.
continue to defend Obama, and Clinton, no matter what the distinction between your perception of them as idols, and mine of them as lying political pimps, means you are indeed correct.
You, a liberal, could never convince me that either of them has the blood of compassion in their veins.
Neither is there a desire in either one of them to connect with a regular working class citizen over and above when pandering for votes.
They were both lawyers, were they not?
Both, also, seemed to have some problems with being able to retain their lawyerly bona fides. Ethics, was it?
Jeez, both of them, politicos AND lawyers.
Disastrous combination; and this country is the poorer for having let both of those miscreants reside in the White House.
Yep, I would say that climbing Mt. Everest nekkid would be far easier for you than convincing me that either of these slimeballs had an affinity for the truth.
Palin resigned; Obama resigned.
Palin did what she did because she had to in order to lead a decent life unencumbered by spurious charges.
Obama is spurious, period.
Refudiate that!
MD
"jug-eared jack*ss"
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 5:55pm.
MD... Love it! It's mean, but I love it.
- Shy Attitude
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Are you
Submitted by Samshile on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 5:42pm.
Are you attempting to get script approval?
No one has to follow any elses script for there life. Who is spending time on the internet validating or critiquing your life choices JEr? I could care less what script you follow. As long as you are happy. It is one of my business.
NOw a few of you have deep control issues about others, who you will never even meet. Sick
samshile...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 6:10pm.
Just one question: What the heck are you talking about?
Jer
Nugget, are you implying that you have a job?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 4:03pm.
If so, PM me with your PayPal account if you have one, and I'll personally refund the $0.50 of your tax payments that may have been diverted to Alaska.
The other half of the deal is you agree to not consume any Alaskan oil or natural gas.
Unfair, unfair---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 4:15pm.
SoL is using common sense, facts, and "truthiness" when dealing with a liberal troll.
Question:
Has all reason, fair play, and sportsmanship disappeared completely in this insanity of an electoral season?
Answer:
Of course not.
Nothing has changed.
We conservatives still act appropriately, and use of common sense, fair play, and truth in any form has always been anathema to liberal Democrats.
MD
Hey MD:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 4:32pm.
Did you ever have to impulse to spend the afternoon over at Kos, Huff, MM etc, excreting meaningless 3rd grade-level comments just to get a rise? You know, like Nugget here or our resident pet lib?
BTW, I rescind my PayPal reimbursement offer, as I forgot that PatPal requires a checking account. I will, however, offer to send him a money order. Or postage stamps ;)
SoL---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 5:08pm.
To tell you the truth, bro, the liberal trolling here at NBs is about all I can handle.
The sheer gall, stupidity, and mindless partisanship displayed by the lib trolls, here on a conservative site, is mind numbing.
I realize you have to know your enemy in order to defeat him, but to find myself afloat in a sea of liberal shit would not be conducive to my good mental health.
Best I stay away from KOS and the rest of the maniacal muppet set; besides, I have a picture of my dog in my wallet.
I wouldn't want to offend him.
MD
What the right doesn't
Submitted by goldbar on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 5:24pm.
What the right doesn't realize is that the democrats would LOVE Palin to be next presidential nominee. What a gift that would be! But do you really think Karl Rove would EVER let that happen? NEVER! He wouldn't even be caught dead in the same room as her. Look at how Rove's comments destroyed O'Donnell. Karl Rove and the rest of the old guard GOP don't want Palin anywhere NEAR the nomination. It doesn't matter what the republicans want. Your nominee will be Mitt Romney, who also won't win.
Goldgrater
Submitted by Samshile on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 5:47pm.
HAHAHa, they are keeping all the left nosy nates in the dark for some time. So you will have to keep your Snark booster quiet for a wlhile.
I dont want her to be POTUS. Chariman of the Commitee and raising the money for TRump for President.!!
Sorry, but you're obviously Olbertized, Nugget
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 5:54pm.
Keep believing we all take orders from Rove.
That's what you don't get.
Submitted by goldbar on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 6:25pm.
That's what you don't get. YOU don't take orders from Rove, you're too lowly. I'm talking about the people who really control the GOP. Don't flatter yourself by thinking you actually control anything in the republican party. I certainly KNOW I have no control over what happens in the dem party, and I don't pretend to think I do.
Goldstradamus: The Sequel
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 6:34pm.
Ever hear of primaries?
You're sounding like a nut with the Rove-As Master-Puppeteer crap.
Good point. Why don't your
Submitted by goldbar on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 6:49pm.
Good point. Why don't your tea tarty candidates totally shed the republican brand and actually form a REAL political party? It's because the tea party IS the republican party. If they were serious, they'd brand themselves and start running candidates in local elections. They don't do that because they're too afraid of standing on their own. They can't do anything for the Koch brothers, BP or any other corporate entity. Certainly, republicans have jumped on the tea party bandwagon but do you really think someone like Mitch McConnell , Tim Pawlenty, or MItt Romney is going to dump the republican party and call himself a tea partier? If you do, good luck with that.
I go, where
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 8:39pm.
He goes!
BTW, if a third party is Conservative, the dimwits will be endangered
I'm not familiar with the tea tarty, but I'll take a stab at it
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 8:46pm.
1) The bad news for you guys is it's going to be ANYBODY but Democrats come November. You can call everyone else Raccoon Lodge members for all I care.
2) And 98% of the people who will vote this way never heard of the Koch brothers.
3) BP? Lemme hip you to this: BP has raided Obama's panty drawer like a like 1960's frat brother.
Now thank me.
Goofybar
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 8:28pm.
I certainly KNOW I have no control over what happens in the dem party, and I don't pretend to think I do.
If you don't think you or your vote (I take it) matters a wit, what the frack are you doing loitering around on a political blog site for hours, talkin' passionately about politics and sides and who might win or lose, and trying to sway our opinion?
As libs spiral down the lose-the-argument shoot, they do a final flailing of "all parties are corrupt, and my vote doesn't matter!!".
- Shy Wing
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Finally, goldbar---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 5:58pm.
An in-depth assessment of national politics that I could not have imagined a liberal troll would possess.
Actually, I still can't imagine it.
MD
Goldstradamus
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 6:03pm.
I can't wait until he starts posting in quatrains. LOL
Goldstradamus, indeed, SoL---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 6:08pm.
If that doesn't represent a thread winner, nothing does.
Excellent shot..
Ferociously funny!
MD
What Goldy doesn't realize...
Submitted by Phryj1 on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 6:39pm.
...is that according to polling of likely voters, any one of the most likely GOP nominees could defeat Obama, including Mitt Romney AND Sarah Palin. Obama is just that bad of a president. The GOP will spend the next 2 years trying to undo all of the damage done by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, and as long as most voters think the GOP has us on the right path, they'll be able to carry the momentum through 2012. Even though Obama and co. will do everything to obstruct them and try to steal credit for anything that goes right (with a major assist from their MSM lapdogs), the Dems and the MSM have almost no credibility at all, and unless Obama lets the GOP repeal the so-called Individual Mandate (which is literally a tax on being healthy), his defeat is assured.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
What are the republicans
Submitted by goldbar on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 7:17pm.
What are the republicans proposing to do to actually HELP the middle class? They've perpetuated the lie that lowering taxes creates jobs, which it doesn't. They talk about either abolishing social security or at least privatizing it which would have proved to have been a disaster. They would like to eliminate medicare as well as public schools. They want to keep outsourcing our jobs oversea and either lower or eliminate the minimum wage in this country so they can drive the cost of labor down. On top of that, they want to bomb Iran. I don't see how any of this helps a family living on a middle class income. Have the republicans initiated any legislation in the past two years that would remarkably benefit the middle class?
If I understand it correctly,
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 7:23pm.
If I understand it correctly, the way to save the middle class is by giving the wealthy tax cuts. Their spending means more jobs for the middle class.
It's proven. Look it up. No really, look it up. It's all over the Newsbusters pages as illustrated by the world's foremost economists, aka conservative Newsbusters members railing against socialism while collecting unemployment, extension after extension.
By Newsbusters standards,
Submitted by goldbar on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 7:28pm.
By Newsbusters standards, Ronald Reagan was a socialist. He bailed out the banking industry AND the auto industry. They seem to forget that. Not to mention amnesty to millions of Mexicans and other illegal aliens.
SHHHHH!!! Let's just keep
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 7:33pm.
SHHHHH!!!
Let's just keep this between you and me, alright? No good will come from this news.
goldbar & ADK---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 11:30pm.
two liberals having a brain fart party on a conservative site.
Proof that misery loves company.
MD
You get a gold star for spewing false talking points.
Submitted by Denny Crane on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 12:27am.
They've perpetuated the lie that lowering taxes creates jobs, which it doesn't. False. Lowering Taxes doesn't create jobs per se, but lowering taxes creates an environment that is more friendly to job creation.
They would like to eliminate medicare as well as public schools. False. First of all O care is destroying medicare by redistributing funds from medicare to medicaid. I want a link where Republicans have actually said they want to eliminate public schools. They would like to promote competition through charter schools. They would like to eliminate the Federal DOE, that doesn't mean schools, just the big fat bloated bureaucracy called the dept. of education. Which hasn't educated 1 single student, ever.
They want to keep outsourcing our jobs oversea and either lower or eliminate the minimum wage in this country so they can drive the cost of labor down. False. Raising the minimum wage causes unemployment to go up. especially for minorities
On top of that, they want to bomb Iran. Huh? That is just plain stupid.
.
Have the republicans initiated any legislation in the past two years.....Um, hello Earth to stupid....Dems have been in charge for 4 years. So lets change this around. Have the Dems initiated any legislation over the last 4 years that would remarkably benefit the middle class? NO
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
I said INITIATED. I think
Submitted by goldbar on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 7:11pm.
I said INITIATED. I think you're the dense one here because you can't come up with anything that the PARTY OF NO has focused on that would help the middle class. That's because they hate the middle class. That's why they're busting unions--which built the middle class--and are driving down the price of labor by outsourcing our jobs and trying to reduce the minimum wage. Are you too stupid to see it when they throw it in your face. Let me tell you something. Judging by the logic and rationale of posters on Newsbusters, you don't have only a superficial grasp of what's really going on in politics. You thrive on the chum that the talk shows throw out to get you all into an emotional driven shit storm that goes no deeper than your base, knee jerk instincts. If you were all making in excess of $250,000 a year and could create intelligent arguments I'd say you have a good reason to be a republican. I don't think that's the case here.
Ah, I sensed an odor in the Force,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 8:47pm.
'tis goldbar, speaking liberal pap n' crap.
To use the phony phrase PARTY OF NO, and then start with the tiptoing through the tulips routine using inane lib talking points is lame, lamer, lamest.
You are incredibly imbecilic.
A fool in fantastically fine form.
A moron making majestic miscalculations.
A perennial putz of pompous proportions.
Probably a mama's boy, too.
MD
Yes, allowing people to keep
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 7:25pm.
Yes, allowing people to keep their own money is a dreadful thing. Why let people with capital invest it in business's, it's so much better for the government to manage our money.
By the way, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you for a really good price.
I love keeping my
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 7:30pm.
I love keeping my money!
Only I'm a brain-damaged liberal who thinks the government is really doing good with my tax dollars, though I should know better.
So why shouldn't other people
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 7:40pm.
So why shouldn't other people get to keep their money?
If you're asking if I believe
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 7:51pm.
If you're asking if I believe in lower taxes, absolutely.
Over the past 10 years I've gone from being unemployed (for over 1 year) to starting at the bottom of of the production company, and exalted to the head of my department. Because my paychecks have increased over this period, as well as getting married, it's been hard to keep track of what I've paid in taxes as an overall percentage of what I make.
I can't show that my taxes would have been any more or less under Bush or Clinton's plans versus Obama, because I have no way to compare between the many different tax brackets I've traveled through.
My point is that I consider myself as doing pretty well with what the government allows me to keep, so as much as I'd like more I feel my tax bill is fair.
Did I even answer your question? I've got baseball on the brain.
The thing is my husband is a
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 8:00pm.
The thing is my husband is a small businessman. We aren't "wealthy" because we put a lot back into the business and are pretty cheap. The thing is, the more we have to pay in taxes, the less we can put into our business and our savings. In times like this we count on our savings. So when people cry "tax the rich" it bugs me. When my husband and I are (hopefully) rich someday, it's because we've taken risks and put things off.
And yes, I've got baseball on the brain too. This is a good time NOT to be an athiest. My aunt (the nun) prays for the Phillies. It explains how they've made it this far.
I'd like to address your post
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 11:47pm.
I'd like to address your post but I'm kinda bummin' right now.
Look on the bright side, only 114 days until pitchers and catchers report to spring training. : )
Can you provide a link for
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 4:19pm.
Can you provide a link for this:
Alaska is the biggest recipient of government money of all the states and taxes the rest of us to pay for it.Just wondering.
http://247wallst.com/2010/08/
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 4:47pm.
http://247wallst.com/2010/08/31/the-states-where-america-spends-the-most...
It can be found here.
Dead
Submitted by Samshile on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 5:53pm.
The most significant reason is that the northernmost state receives substantial money from the federal government for defense.Read more: The States Where America Spends The Most (And The Least) Per Person - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2010/08/31/the-states-where-america-spends-the-most-and-the-least-per-person/#ixzz1324yRhGp
Dead, California is the largest spender...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 6:10pm.
'Kuz they have the most people.
That would be table one 1/4 the way down the pdf.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/cffr-09.pdf
You Didn't Build That.
True. Yet per capita we
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 6:37pm.
True. Yet per capita we receive less than half that of Alaska.
And per capita
Submitted by Denny Crane on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 11:46pm.
the middle class pay a lot less than the top 2%
How about per mile? I'll bet CA receives more per square mile than AK too.
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
That's rather likely - we
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 12:24pm.
That's rather likely - we only have 10,000,000 people living in 4752 sq miles (and that's just LA county), where in comparison, Alaska has 700,000 people spread over 663,000 sq miles.
I guess I just confirmed your suspicions.
Ted thanks for that link.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 7:45pm.
Ted thanks for that link. It's interesting that the reason given for Alaska's high spending is for defense. I might research in what capacity the money is spent.
I also thought it was interesting that Hawaii had the a high percent because of Medicare/Medicaid due to old age and poverty. I thought Florida would have had that beat.
I'm guessing Missile Defense
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 7:50pm.
I'm guessing Missile Defense is a big part of it.
The only two ground based mid-course systems are in California and Alaska.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
You're welcome. It
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 7:54pm.
You're welcome. It completely surprised me too, concerning the defense spending in Alaska. I suppose it makes sense in that it is a pretty enormous border that is ripe for foreign attacks.
Maybe a cautionary tale
Submitted by tribchet on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 3:22pm.
It's OK to be enthusiastic about a new face on the political scene but reason must prevail. O'Donnell beat out an opponent in the primary that had a huge polling advantage over Coons. Now she's down by a huge margin and highly unlikely to win the Senate seat. That really took the wind out of the sails of many of us who wanted a check and/or reversal of the out of touch Obama agenda.
If O'Donnell wins I will be amazed. I would reconsider support for Sarah Palin with whom I agree on most topics but who appears unelectable. O'Donnell supporters please take stock after this upcoming election and if Christine loses like many of us expect then think twice about electing (primary elections) an unelectable (general election) candidate.
Do you really want to stop the Obama agenda or not?
I have considered the exact same thing...
Submitted by stage9 on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 3:38pm.
I believe Palin is doing what she does best and that's cheerlead and endorse other candidates. I think she's too much of a firestorm for most people to embrace, though I for one, would vote for her without hesitation.
However, O'Donell is in a different position, other than the fact that she has been made a target by the MSM with accusations that other Americans outside of politics don't find all too strange.
The comment about masturbation. Well, have you visited a church lately? This practice is often preached against as a form of lust which is the setting in which she made the comments. So, that's not some "extreme" position. (Well, it may appear so by North Eastern liberals)
Her comment about having dabbled in witchcraft. OK, and how is this different than any of the hundreds of kids lured into Goth or wicca by friends? This happens all over the place. Why is this odd? The point is she dabbled, she isn't a practicing witch.
Her First Amendment "gaffe". Um, this wasn't a gaffe but the truth. The phrase "separation of church and state" does NOT appear anywhere in the Constitution (at least, not the Founders' version, maybe the liberals' version).
It seems to me, if anything, she may not be answering the critics well enough.
I DO believe that she won't be elected (independent of her "electabilty") simply because the focus has been on these silly issues described above. They have taken center stage over the real issues and Coons will bring his liberalism (and marxism, if you believe the reports) into the Senate with him. And the Republicans will be at fault for that.
She's not a politician. That, for one, is a welcome change.
If we fail to stand on principle then we fail to understand the American ideal.
Obama may be elected again anyway. People like the man, they hate his policies. But if the choice comes down between a RINO and Obama, I won't vote at all.
I am a man of principle, and I won't surrender principle for expediency.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
Yes we want to stop Obama's
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 3:41pm.
Yes we want to stop Obama's agenda! And Castle wasn't goiny to help with that! He isn't A RINO, he is a DIABLO (Democrat In All But Label Only) How soon people forget . . ./// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
And how exactly---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 4:26pm.
would Mike Castle have been, or Snowe/Collins/Graham currently be proven to be anchors on the arse of Obamas agenda?
Do you think an "R" after their name is somehow proof positive that they will do their best to acquiesce to what I, as a conservative, want to see accomplished by government.
That hasn't happened so far.
Why do you think they are called RINOs?
More apt to be, if not a steady wind, an occasional gust to fill the Democrats sails at the worst possible time relevant to what conservatives want, as opposed to stopping the Dems dead in the water.
MD
O'Donnell supporters do not
Submitted by countryfirst on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 4:50pm.
O'Donnell supporters do not need to take stock, the rino repub she beat in the primary, was not a real republican and was , probably going to move to the democrap party, notice how dumbo and bite me joe called him up to sympathise with him, even if christine does not win, he did not deserve to receive the nomination, we don't only need to clean house with the dems we need to sanatise the repblican party, also thank god for the tea party,Sarah had the same problem with the republican party when she ran for govenor, but won without their help,the only reason christine will mnot win is voters in mdelaware are so stupid, look how many times they kept voting dumb joe in, if the commie wins, I hope they enjoy the tax increases coming their way, unfortunately liberialism is a mental disorder, that cannot be treated
Early settlers to America
Submitted by deerjerkydave on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 3:21pm.
Early settlers to America came here to avoid state sponsored religions in old Europe. People were tired of paying taxes to one particular church or another through the state. To this day many European nations still have state sponsored and state funded religions.
America took a fairer approach by prohibiting the establishment of a state religion, but also giving the public freedom to worship however they want. Modern day progressives have taken an extreme interpretation of this to mean that people of faith need to leave their religion at the door of public property. Allowing people to exercise religion on government property is not an establishment of religion. The founders knew this which is why religious events and ceremonies of their day regularly took place in state owned buildings and properties.
------------------------
"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 Madisonnice one deer jerky
Submitted by gunguru on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 9:06pm.
but don't forget; the same a-holes in our government who spout nonsense about "separation of church and state" start each daily session of Congress with a (horrors!) PRAYER! It is just that us peons here in flyover country can't be trusted with public prayer, manger scenes, or prayer in our taxpayer-funded schools. Now I realize that the liberals in Congress don't actually believe in a Higher Power, so they don't actually pray to anyone other than Obama, their True Messiah. Yet by their silence, they tacitly approve of Congressional prayer; they actually have a Chaplain there! (Boy, Teddy the Swimmer must have kept him busy). As I said, it's just the rest of us who can't be trusted with religion in public (unless you are a Muslim).
Coons gets it wrong
Submitted by AlexaShrugged on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 3:32pm.
Coons gets it wrong and of course the media and even the "First Amendment Center" defend him!
Church, State and the First Amendment: What Coons needs to know
http://www.alexashrugged.com/2010/10/church-state-and-first-amendment-what.html
When did you stop beating
Submitted by JanineC on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 5:21pm.
When did you stop beating your wife?
Separation of church and state
Submitted by Model850 on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 7:00pm.
Fun factoid: This phrase -- or at least something very close to it -- actually does appear in the constitution.
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html
(See Article 124)
Oh, yeah. That's the 1936 Constitution of the USSR.
Never mind. ; ^ D
I interpreted O'Donnell as
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 7:29pm.
I interpreted O'Donnell as saying she wanted the ad to kill the witch issue rather than raise it again, not that she wanted to kill the ad. (Because thats what I was thinking about why she did it)
Somehow this gets spun around to have a different meaning though.
It's Times Like This I Wished Third Parties Were Viable...
Submitted by The7Sticks on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 10:49pm.
...but unfortunately, they are not. It's like that South Park episode where I am given the choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. At this point, I am not sure who among O'Donnell or Coons is either the giant douche or the turd sandwich. Oh well, at least I'm glad I don't live in Delaware.