The Christine O'Donnell Thread

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is anything more I could do or say or add on this thread to prove the point I made when it opened. She's unfit. I mean, really!
 
You know back in 2008 I probably said that there was no way that they could find anyone more stupid than Sarah Palin.

Touche.
 
You know what's simultaneously awesome and hella saddening about this?

The rightwing talking heads will actually take her side. I guarantee you by tomorrow morning at the latest (Fox and Friends to be more precise), the issue of whether or not the 1st Amendment actually covers (1) religious freedoms or (more likely, 2) teaching creationism in public schools.

I, for one, welcome a whole new level of dumbing down.
 
That's because the goal of people like Fox & Friends isn't to be consistent and to stand on principle. Their goal is to back the GOP talking point of the day no matter what it is.

A great example was in these past few weeks suddenly they don't give a shit who is funding attack ads that actually influence our elections.

Of course they got really butthurt and super worried when pondering where the Park 51 money was coming from. But that might've been Sharia Murslim money. Big difference, see? One group of donors affects who runs our country, the other affects...some mosque near ground zero.
 
If you were to look at a transcript of this, I don't think it'd be terribly hard to defend O'Donnell, as I've heard the argument: "Show me where separation of church and state is anywhere in the Constitution!" for years now.

Watching that video though? Wow. She really looks like she has no idea that what he quoted is part of the First Amendment. I'd say that somewhere a Republican strategist's brain is melting out of his ears as he tries to come up with some way to explain this away, but my guess is they'll focus on the "separation of church and state" part and gloss over her cluelessness. Something tells me they'll avoid showing the video.

And can I just say the more I see of Meghan McCain, the more I like her. I caught some of her interview on Rachel Maddow and saw her on The Daily Show last week. It has me wishing some sort of conservative movement was rising up with someone like her as their inspiration rather than someone like Sarah Palin.
 
What kind of bullshit is that? C'mon. If your taxpayer funded dollars aren't going to go to elective abortions, then my taxpayer funded dollars aren't going to teach kids religious creationism, irrespective of what creation story is being taught.
 
I finally saw that video above and man, that's classic Christine.

That's the same lady who ran in 2006 and 2008. And rush today argued that she was making a semantic point that technically "church and state" isn't in the constitution. That's true. That technical phrase was a jeffersonian construct created in one of his famous letters. But the whole foundation of the phrase is the 1st amendment. Goverment won't establish a religion. And when you watch the full video, it's clear she has no idea what she's talking about. I mean, not a word. And she claims Chris Coons isn't the one who knows what he's talking about at around 1:50.

Why does she smile and giggle, because she absolutely believes what she's talking about and she thinks the audience is laughing at Chris, not her. Now you're like, that's "Bullshit Ackbar. How can you make that leap." becaiuse I've been around her enough personally to know how she thinks.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']I like how she smiles and giggles as if they're laughing with her.[/QUOTE]

It was almost painful to watch. I can't decide what's more sad about her, her extreme views, her belief that these views are somehow founded, or that there are legitimately people who agree with her and are willing to vote her into office...

I may not agree with the democrat party but no way would I vote a complete nutjob into office over any legitimate democrat candidate.
 
I know this thread has died down but I just have to add this last bit of info....

In a Tuesday afternoon appearance on WDEL, O'Donnell, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, answered a variety of questions from listeners as well as the host. The audio and video of interview segment was broadcast live on WDEL 1150AM and streamed on WDEL.com, the station's website.

At the conclusion of the interview, a representative from the campaign who had been in the broadcast studio with O'Donnell asked that the video be turned over to the campaign and not released. He stated that the videotaping had not been approved by the O'Donnell campaign.

O'Donnell also told show host Rick Jensen that she would sue the radio station if the video was released.

WDEL routinely posts audio and video podcasts of interview segments on WDEL.com. O'Donnell's appearance on WDEL in September had also been recorded and posted on the web.

O'Donnell's campaign manager, Matt Moran, called WDEL and demanded that the video be immediately turned over to the campaign and destroyed. Moran threatened to "crush WDEL" with a lawsuit if the station didn't comply... After seeing the video the attorney for the O'Donnell campaign contacted WDEL's counsel again to apologize for charges made by their campaign manager. The attorney agreed that there was no legal issue with the video and expressed regret for the incident.
Click to expand...

For those in the know, Rick Jensen is a a conservative stalwart on local radio and I've seen him talk about all the big hits like death panels and cap and tax. So he's definately not someone you would expect to be giving an antagonistic interview to O'Donnell.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']I know this thread has died down but I just have to add this last bit of info....



For those in the know, Rick Jensen is a a conservative stalwart on local radio and I've seen him talk about all the big hits like death panels and cap and tax. So he's definately not someone you would expect to be giving an antagonistic interview to O'Donnell.[/QUOTE]

She has run what I like to call a "yeah, but" camapaign. I say this because it reminds me of my wifes younger cousin who is horribly whiny and thinks everyone is always mean to her. She will explain that someone is picking on her and when you give her a logical reason why she is wrong she always has an excuse starting with "yeah, but".

O'Donnel is the same. She is constantly shooting her mouth off and saying/doing stupid things and then whenever she is questioned about it she has an excuse. "yeah, but you do not understand" "yeah, but the liberal media made it look that way." "yeah, but you do not understand I am the target of sexism" "yeah, but my Christian faith told me"
 
Maybe someone should let them know we already think they're idiots, we don't need any more reason to think so.
 
[quote name='Clak']Maybe someone should let them know we already think they're idiots, we don't need any more reason to think so.[/QUOTE]
If cognative dissonance was currency, they'd be rich.
 
I love the line at the end of the article.

"The question here is, if O'Donnell and Moseley got their way and the barriers between church and state fell, what would they do if it wasn't their religion that was established after the wall came down?"


What would the right do if fundamentalist Christianity didn't become the state religion?
 
Dude, you gotta watch the wdel video.

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1604655990036&ref=mf

Now I understand why she didn't wnat the video to be released. It'sd 20 minutes, you can watch the whole thing. But she gets asked one tough question by Rick Jensen in the middle when she was expecting a softball and becomes visibly upset. So much so that she snaps her finger and calls over her public relations manager like she's summonign a secuity guard. But that's something you wouldn't notice if you didn't watch the video and only heard it on radio. The tough question occurs halfway though the video.
 
The sad part here is that - in a stroke of political argument not unlike 1984 - you'll get people who will argue that "it doesn't say it EXACTLY there, so it CAN'T be there." They will say it with a straight face, full conviction, and a snide sense of superiority.

This is the same argument that's used in religious diatribe left and right. Where agnostics and atheists claim that "there is no proof of God" against the deists "Yes, because it is a question of faith." Which is to say, it's nothing but bullshit, and offers up a lot of incorrect assumptions and conclusions by people on all sides.

There should be NO QUESTION in the instance that church and state are separate. None whatsoever. Bringing this into the public eye under false and heinously misdirected arguments is a new low. If it isn't, then I damn well better hear prayers from every religion (and anti-religious body) in the world before high school football games.

I think I'm going to start asking people if wind truly exists. It's not there, I can't see it, and while I can feel it, can you honestly tell me it's wind? What if it's demons farting all over me all the time? You can't show me proof either way.

Demonfart Party 2020. We only pass progressive wind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='depascal22']I love the line at the end of the article.

"The question here is, if O'Donnell and Moseley got their way and the barriers between church and state fell, what would they do if it wasn't their religion that was established after the wall came down?"


What would the right do if fundamentalist Christianity didn't become the state religion?[/QUOTE]

Duh. They'd cite the first amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top