Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think she knew the separation of church and state wasn't verbatim in the First, and was just trying to catch Coons in a rhetorical trap but ended up slipping on her own banana peel.
But yeah, for someone running for Federal office--someone looking to have influence on the Federal tax code--not being able to recall the 16th Amendment immediately... come on. That's on par with not being able to recall the 10th, imo.
That's a pretty low hurdle, and the Constitution is in writing, after all. If rote memorization is all it takes to be qualified, it's really not that difficult. I'd just like to see someone who states what their principles are and stands by them while in office, and doesn't work to sell us any further down the river.
Not buying that. She's paraded herself as someone who understands the Constitution and that everything she does will be squared with the Constitution.
Find me a politician that doesn't say this.
The burden is not making the claim, but demonstrating the knowledge to back-up the claim. She didn't. When she can't even recall the fundamental principles behind parts of the document, it's sucks the legitimacy of out of her claims to know about and be an adherent of the document.
Knowledge of the Constitution is a low hurdle, and she tripped over it.
ah, because it is failing its not really liberalYou see it that way, Paulie...fact is, what is....is. We could get a third party that's conservative and have the liberals run the government for the next 50 years. Look what has happened in just 18 months with a runaway liberal government.
This wasn't a Liberal government either, another falsehood.
if she hadn't labled herself "the Constitutionalist candidate" maybeThat's a pretty low hurdle, and the Constitution is in writing, after all. If rote memorization is all it takes to be qualified, it's really not that difficult. I'd just like to see someone who states what their principles are and stands by them while in office, and doesn't work to sell us any further down the river.
Not buying that. She's paraded herself as someone who understands the Constitution and that everything she does will be squared with the Constitution.
Find me a politician that doesn't say this.
The burden is not making the claim, but demonstrating the knowledge to back-up the claim. She didn't. When she can't even recall the fundamental principles behind parts of the document, it's sucks the legitimacy of out of her claims to know about and be an adherent of the document.
Knowledge of the Constitution is a low hurdle, and she tripped over it.
Buy it or not, doesn't matter to me. I'm just tired of all these "qualified" politicians doing a bunch of stupid crap because they think they know better than us. Congress was supposed to be for the citizens to help govern this nation, not for career politicians. In depth knowledge of the Constitution can be learned. To demand that a candidate have it memorized seems pointless to me, but whatever.
You see it that way, Paulie...fact is, what is....is. We could get a third party that's conservative and have the liberals run the government for the next 50 years. Look what has happened in just 18 months with a runaway liberal government.
This wasn't a Liberal government either, another falsehood.
According to you, Modbert. Please don't feel offended when I laugh.
if she hadn't labled herself "the Constitutionalist candidate" maybeNot buying that. She's paraded herself as someone who understands the Constitution and that everything she does will be squared with the Constitution.
Find me a politician that doesn't say this.
The burden is not making the claim, but demonstrating the knowledge to back-up the claim. She didn't. When she can't even recall the fundamental principles behind parts of the document, it's sucks the legitimacy of out of her claims to know about and be an adherent of the document.
Knowledge of the Constitution is a low hurdle, and she tripped over it.
Buy it or not, doesn't matter to me. I'm just tired of all these "qualified" politicians doing a bunch of stupid crap because they think they know better than us. Congress was supposed to be for the citizens to help govern this nation, not for career politicians. In depth knowledge of the Constitution can be learned. To demand that a candidate have it memorized seems pointless to me, but whatever.
if she hadn't labled herself "the Constitutionalist candidate" maybeNot buying that. She's paraded herself as someone who understands the Constitution and that everything she does will be squared with the Constitution.
Find me a politician that doesn't say this.
The burden is not making the claim, but demonstrating the knowledge to back-up the claim. She didn't. When she can't even recall the fundamental principles behind parts of the document, it's sucks the legitimacy of out of her claims to know about and be an adherent of the document.
Knowledge of the Constitution is a low hurdle, and she tripped over it.
Buy it or not, doesn't matter to me. I'm just tired of all these "qualified" politicians doing a bunch of stupid crap because they think they know better than us. Congress was supposed to be for the citizens to help govern this nation, not for career politicians. In depth knowledge of the Constitution can be learned. To demand that a candidate have it memorized seems pointless to me, but whatever.
According to you, Modbert. Please don't feel offended when I laugh.
Huh uh. And what about my response to you about Perot?
if she hadn't labled herself "the Constitutionalist candidate" maybeBuy it or not, doesn't matter to me. I'm just tired of all these "qualified" politicians doing a bunch of stupid crap because they think they know better than us. Congress was supposed to be for the citizens to help govern this nation, not for career politicians. In depth knowledge of the Constitution can be learned. To demand that a candidate have it memorized seems pointless to me, but whatever.
But you know what, IF.....it ain't gonna happen but IF......I should run for office, I could see myself running for office as a 'constitutionalist'. And though I've had a LOT of Constitution in formal education and have taught it to immigrants studying for citizenship status, I don't have it memorized. I know the basics of the Bill of Rights and all other amendments, but I couldn't name more than the first two plus the tenth in order without refreshing my memory. I know the basics of requirements and duties of elected officials named in the Constitution, but I couldn't name the article or clause where those are listed.
I'm guessing 99% of those running for office can't do that.
So 'gotcha' politics is definitely at play here and is being used as it is used against ALL smart female or minority conservative candidates. They can't beat them on the issues so they do their damndest to make them look as stupid, unqualified, uninformed/ignorant, and if possible as immoral as possible.
And unfortunately too many Americans who use orchestrated sound bites as their primary source of information buy into that and don't bother to dig any deeper to find out if it is really true.
Your right....but, who really knows if he wasn't in the race.
Now will you admit that you are wrong about this administration not being liberal, Or do I have to keep laughing?
again, i never said i expected memorization, just a fundamental working knowledgeif she hadn't labled herself "the Constitutionalist candidate" maybeBuy it or not, doesn't matter to me. I'm just tired of all these "qualified" politicians doing a bunch of stupid crap because they think they know better than us. Congress was supposed to be for the citizens to help govern this nation, not for career politicians. In depth knowledge of the Constitution can be learned. To demand that a candidate have it memorized seems pointless to me, but whatever.
But you know what, IF.....it ain't gonna happen but IF......I should run for office, I could see myself running for office as a 'constitutionalist'. And though I've had a LOT of Constitution in formal education and have taught it to immigrants studying for citizenship status, I don't have it memorized. I know the basics of the Bill of Rights and all other amendments, but I couldn't name more than the first two plus the tenth in order without refreshing my memory. I know the basics of requirements and duties of elected officials named in the Constitution, but I couldn't name the article or clause where those are listed.
I'm guessing 99% of those running for office can't do that.
So 'gotcha' politics is definitely at play here and is being used as it is used against ALL smart female or minority conservative candidates. They can't beat them on the issues so they do their damndest to make them look as stupid, unqualified, uninformed/ignorant, and if possible as immoral as possible.
And unfortunately too many Americans who use orchestrated sound bites as their primary source of information buy into that and don't bother to dig any deeper to find out if it is really true.
Your right....but, who really knows if he wasn't in the race.
Now will you admit that you are wrong about this administration not being liberal, Or do I have to keep laughing?
As a Liberal, I will tell you this Administration is not Liberal.
Obama has increased gun rights since taken office, not decreased.
Obama supports the Death Penalty. Something any Liberal would be against.
This administration seems ready to continue the War on Drugs in California with Marijuana even if Prop 19 passes next tuesday. Something any Liberal would be against.
War in Afghanistan expanded. That's not a Liberal thing to do.
Defense budget cut? Nope, all time high.
Gitmo closed? Nope.
Patriot Act and FISA repealed? Nope.
$60 billion arms deal to Saudi Arabia which will only further escalate tensions in the Middle East with Iran? Doesn't sound very Liberal to me.
Health Care Bill? Obama never even tried to support the Public Option.
The Obama Administration wants to keep DADT around and still does not support Gay Marriage.
None of these things are Liberal. Obama himself is not a Liberal and neither has been his policies thus far. Nor am I saying I am completely a Liberal either, however all of those things are what the Liberal ideology typically believe.
again, i never said i expected memorization, just a fundamental working knowledgeif she hadn't labled herself "the Constitutionalist candidate" maybe
But you know what, IF.....it ain't gonna happen but IF......I should run for office, I could see myself running for office as a 'constitutionalist'. And though I've had a LOT of Constitution in formal education and have taught it to immigrants studying for citizenship status, I don't have it memorized. I know the basics of the Bill of Rights and all other amendments, but I couldn't name more than the first two plus the tenth in order without refreshing my memory. I know the basics of requirements and duties of elected officials named in the Constitution, but I couldn't name the article or clause where those are listed.
I'm guessing 99% of those running for office can't do that.
So 'gotcha' politics is definitely at play here and is being used as it is used against ALL smart female or minority conservative candidates. They can't beat them on the issues so they do their damndest to make them look as stupid, unqualified, uninformed/ignorant, and if possible as immoral as possible.
And unfortunately too many Americans who use orchestrated sound bites as their primary source of information buy into that and don't bother to dig any deeper to find out if it is really true.
she showed she didnt even know what the first amendment said
let alone the other 3 she needed the moderator to tell her what they were
if she hadnt been proclaiming her support for the constitution and that she would use that as a basis for her votes, then her lack of understand of even the basics would not be an issue
I see, and all the time I thought Cons just loved dumb.again, i never said i expected memorization, just a fundamental working knowledgeBut you know what, IF.....it ain't gonna happen but IF......I should run for office, I could see myself running for office as a 'constitutionalist'. And though I've had a LOT of Constitution in formal education and have taught it to immigrants studying for citizenship status, I don't have it memorized. I know the basics of the Bill of Rights and all other amendments, but I couldn't name more than the first two plus the tenth in order without refreshing my memory. I know the basics of requirements and duties of elected officials named in the Constitution, but I couldn't name the article or clause where those are listed.
I'm guessing 99% of those running for office can't do that.
So 'gotcha' politics is definitely at play here and is being used as it is used against ALL smart female or minority conservative candidates. They can't beat them on the issues so they do their damndest to make them look as stupid, unqualified, uninformed/ignorant, and if possible as immoral as possible.
And unfortunately too many Americans who use orchestrated sound bites as their primary source of information buy into that and don't bother to dig any deeper to find out if it is really true.
she showed she didnt even know what the first amendment said
let alone the other 3 she needed the moderator to tell her what they were
if she hadnt been proclaiming her support for the constitution and that she would use that as a basis for her votes, then her lack of understand of even the basics would not be an issue
But I think if you had a discussion with her re the First Amendment, she would come out a whole lot better than she did in that debate where all that came up. She was, in her own way, objecting to characterizing the first amendment as 'separation of Church and State' which many, including me, will argue that the Constitution does not establish or imply eparation of Church and State. The First Amendment forbids the government from ordering or interfering with religious beliefs. And a careful reading of the Founding Fathers clearly shows that they saw that the Federal Government will not have power to prohibit expression of religious beliefs ANYWHERE. There was no 'separation of Church and State'. There was protection for the Church, i.e. religious belief and expression, FROM the state.
And I think having lunch with Christine O'Donnell and discussing that, you might find her a little less dumb and a little less extreme than what her enemies have made of her on that subject.
no, we dont love youI see, and all the time I thought Cons just loved dumb.again, i never said i expected memorization, just a fundamental working knowledge
she showed she didnt even know what the first amendment said
let alone the other 3 she needed the moderator to tell her what they were
if she hadnt been proclaiming her support for the constitution and that she would use that as a basis for her votes, then her lack of understand of even the basics would not be an issue
But I think if you had a discussion with her re the First Amendment, she would come out a whole lot better than she did in that debate where all that came up. She was, in her own way, objecting to characterizing the first amendment as 'separation of Church and State' which many, including me, will argue that the Constitution does not establish or imply eparation of Church and State. The First Amendment forbids the government from ordering or interfering with religious beliefs. And a careful reading of the Founding Fathers clearly shows that they saw that the Federal Government will not have power to prohibit expression of religious beliefs ANYWHERE. There was no 'separation of Church and State'. There was protection for the Church, i.e. religious belief and expression, FROM the state.
And I think having lunch with Christine O'Donnell and discussing that, you might find her a little less dumb and a little less extreme than what her enemies have made of her on that subject.
But I think if you had a discussion with her re the First Amendment, she would come out a whole lot better than she did in that debate where all that came up. She was, in her own way, objecting to characterizing the first amendment as 'separation of Church and State' which many, including me, will argue that the Constitution does not establish or imply eparation of Church and State. The First Amendment forbids the government from ordering or interfering with religious beliefs. And a careful reading of the Founding Fathers clearly shows that they saw that the Federal Government will not have power to prohibit expression of religious beliefs ANYWHERE. There was no 'separation of Church and State'. There was protection for the Church, i.e. religious belief and expression, FROM the state.
But I think if you had a discussion with her re the First Amendment, she would come out a whole lot better than she did in that debate where all that came up. She was, in her own way, objecting to characterizing the first amendment as 'separation of Church and State' which many, including me, will argue that the Constitution does not establish or imply eparation of Church and State. The First Amendment forbids the government from ordering or interfering with religious beliefs. And a careful reading of the Founding Fathers clearly shows that they saw that the Federal Government will not have power to prohibit expression of religious beliefs ANYWHERE. There was no 'separation of Church and State'. There was protection for the Church, i.e. religious belief and expression, FROM the state.
In that the Constitution establishes that there will be no official religion of this country and therefore all religions will receive the same protections, then there is a separation. It's an important one, if you look at Europe during this time period. I'm not sure O'Donnell understands that.
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.]
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.
http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20101021024521.aspx
Maybe, maybe not. I haven't heard her say anything that suggests she doesn't understand that.
If Delaware is one of the bluest states in the country, then how come Castle was a heavy favorite to win against the Democrat before O'Donnell won? Nice spin USArmyMoron.
