"At a debate today for the Delaware Senate seat once occupied by Vice President Joe Biden, O'Donnell appeared to be nonplussed by the wording of the first amendment, repeatedly returning to the subject and sounding incredulous after her Democratic opponent Chris Coons attempted to explain it to her.
When Coons told her the text of the constitution prohibited government from establishing any religion, O'Donnell replied in apparent bewilderment: "You're telling me that's in the first amendment?"" The Guardian
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Tea Party people often talk about the Constitution of the United States. O'Donnell is one of them. She claims that the first amendment does not establish a separation of religion and government in the US because the words "church and state" do not appear in the constitution. This does not appear to have been a mistake in rhetoric. She doesn't seem to have known or to accept that the first amendment erected an absolute barrier between government and religion.
She repeatedly insisted that local school boards are inherently immune from federal regulation with regard to the content of instruction. I suppose she means that control of school boards is not among the enumerated powers of the federal government. Her opponent argued that "intelligent design" is really "creationism" in disguise and to teach that is government run schools teaching religion.
To accept her view in this matter and many others is to accept a radically different understanding of basic law. pl
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/19/christine-odonnell-church-and-state-gaffe
It's anti-intellectualism, and it is the cancer that is eating away what few things still work.
This notion that we should not vote "because it encourages the bastards" ignores the fact that by not voting we end up with the candidate who has the most corrupt GOTV machine in place.
I. for one, think we've had enough of the Chicago way of doing politics. But, by all means, don't vote, don't think, don't engage and see what square that lands you upon.
There was a time when a seat in the United States Senate actually meant something. That this woman is standing for a seat in the Senate is a farce beyond contemplating.
Posted by: Norman Rogers | 20 October 2010 at 05:30 PM
Cute? If all you care about is a female body. She reminds me of Zaphod Bebblebrox from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, her job (like the other tea bag candidates) is not to weild power, but to distract attention away from those who do. See Walrus' comments above relative to who has the power. Now if I could just find a good a place that could make me a Pan Galatic Gargleblaster...
Posted by: Fred | 20 October 2010 at 08:31 PM
O'Donnell reminds me of Sara Rue as the Attorney General in Idiocracy. "Funbags" indeed. Then there's the Mama Grizzly too. Chris Judge may be this generation's Nostradamus.
Posted by: s nadh | 20 October 2010 at 09:22 PM
Remember Caligula's horse?
A fitting term for these clowns might be Incitata/Incitatus candidates -- after same.
Posted by: rjj | 20 October 2010 at 09:28 PM
Cuter than Ted Kennedy and never killed anyone, but she will surely destroy the decorum of the Senate.
Posted by: Charles | 20 October 2010 at 11:42 PM
One way the financier interests protect their control over our institutions of government is to create a pseudo-opposition movement that claims to be protecting the Constitution and put personalities in front of it that haven't even read the document, much less studied its history.
Posted by: Carl O. | 21 October 2010 at 12:52 PM
It's our great fortune that the Constitution was drafted in 1787, not 1807. It's the ultimate Enlightment Document.
Posted by: Matthew | 21 October 2010 at 02:04 PM
This is pretty close to being the best O'Donnell parody I've seen:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/10/elvira_mistress_of_the_dark.php?ref=fpblg
Hat tip to Zandar:
http://zandarvts.blogspot.com/2010/10/epic-which-would-be-witch-is-which-win.html
Posted by: Adam L Silverman | 21 October 2010 at 05:07 PM
Well lets all hope our economy gets better soon so the volatile anger eases as people get back to work and stop giving these UFO candidates a soapbox.
Posted by: Bobo | 21 October 2010 at 07:55 PM
"She doesn't seem to have known or to accept that the first amendment erected an absolute barrier between government and religion."
Clarence Thomas, apparently our first Tea Party Supreme Court justice, is reported to hold that just because the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law establishing religion" that doesn't mean the states don't have the right to do that.
Posted by: Rider | 22 October 2010 at 07:31 AM