Tuesday Morning Comment Bait: Democratic Insider Predicts a Very Close Race for O’Donnell
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing]
Take this for what it’s worth, but this is an account of a conversation with an anonymous Democratic insider:
Somehow, I turned the topic… to Christine O’Donnell’s Senate race in Delaware because the guy I was talking to did a lot of fundraising in New England during the 2008 campaign and I know he “gets” states up there better than I do, having never lived there.
He told me that Christine O’Donnell is going to get VERY, VERY CLOSE to winning in Delaware but he does not think she will win. But, he emphasized, “It’s going to be scary close for Coons”.
Hmmmm…
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
If O’Donnell ends up losing a very very close race, that means that the Republicans will have swept the rest of the country.
aunursa (69b3db) — 10/19/2010 @ 6:08 amWell, Vice President Biden was in my neck of the woods, and he told us that the Democrats were going to sweep eastern Pennsylvania. Maybe he just got his tenses wrong, and meant get swept. 🙂
The Dana in Pennsylvania (3e4784) — 10/19/2010 @ 6:15 amWell, golly, gee whiz. Despite all the naysayers she might have a chance. Imagine that. Well, just shows to go ya that Allahpundit, Powerline, and others who shall remain nameless are less than omnsicient. Who’d a thunk, with all the brilliant prognosticators clamoring about. Those who might not have a finger on the pulse of what is actually happening in the good ole U. S. of A, regardless of how many sycophantic posts they may attract.
Frank M (dc2516) — 10/19/2010 @ 6:53 amIf O’Donnell ends up losing a very very close race it will have been lost by Karl Rove, Charles Krauthammer, Mitch McConnell and the rest of the GOP elite who declared the race lost before it had even begun.
Wright (8a7bfe) — 10/19/2010 @ 6:54 am“Scary close” isn’t good enough for Republicans, especially Tea Party Republicans. They have to win by several points to overcome the Democratic machine and it’s post electoral machinations.
[edited to reflect true name of commenter]
gahrie (ed7a50) — 10/19/2010 @ 7:03 amPrimary turnout for Repubs was virtually twice the prediction(yeah, who knows whether anyone is an honest broker in DE).
The knowledge that their taxes are going up again may concentrate voters’ focus in the booths.
Looking around the country blogs like Ace O’ Spades, Riehl, etc., indicate many of the surfeit victories, beyond the targeted 40 odd in the House, for the Thugs will not be beholden to the machine.
Lee, Miller, Toomey, or virtually the whole Senate frosh class, save Kirk and a couple others, are renegades, opposed at some point by the machine. Read ’em and weep John C.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/19/2010 @ 7:17 amgahrie, fixed it for you.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/19/2010 @ 7:42 amIf a political
Neo (7830e6) — 10/19/2010 @ 8:02 amneophyteflake like Christine O’Donnell can come back from 53-32 (or something like that) to be “scary close”, you have to wonder just how big the wave will be.It’s all about turnout. This insider is simply predicting a radically different mix of Dems and Reps than the models being used by the pollsters.
I sincerely hope that throughout the country Dems will be thoroughly indifferent and not cast votes. The GOP needs to figure out how to fire up their voters while not motivating Dems. It is a mistake, I believe, to try to siphon off “moderates” at the expense of pissing off Dem voters.
Ed from SFV (de2c81) — 10/19/2010 @ 8:09 am#4. Ding ding ding. U won the prize.
javert (a8a9b2) — 10/19/2010 @ 8:24 amWe’d do well to remember that Delaware is a solid blue state–Castle would have won the seat only by running to the left and then voting w/the D’s, regardless of who he caucused with. So O’Donnell’s campaign is costing us nothing–we’re playing with house money. If she loses, fine–and a close race will make a HUGE point and scare the shit out of a bunch of RINOs nationwide, much to our benefit. And if O’Donnell should somehow win in a wave election, then God bless her….and shame on everyone who abandoned her.
Kevin Stafford (abdb87) — 10/19/2010 @ 8:47 amI tend to disagree a bit with #4 as she will win because those worthies dismissed her. I am worried that Meghan McCain may have hurt her badly by calling her a “nutjob” on “This Week” last Sunday.
That was a joke, son. Does anybody watch This Week anymore ? I wonder what Intrade has to say about Amanpour’s future in the job.
Mike K (568408) — 10/19/2010 @ 8:52 amShe’s here to defend the constitution:
“You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?” she asked, when Coons brought up the fact that the very First Amendment to the Constitution “bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion.”
imdw (14df54) — 10/19/2010 @ 9:17 amIf O’Donnell wins, and I pray she does, it will be because Delawarians — who are Americans, too — had a peak behind the Great O’s curtain and didn’t like the Progressive Marxist they saw that is hell-bent on “fundamentally changing America”.
And that’s good enough.
NEW POST:
CONFIRMED: COLUMNIST EUGENE ROBINSON HATES WHITE CONSERVATIVES
heir2freedom (d9456e) — 10/19/2010 @ 9:43 amhttp://heir2freedom.blogspot.com/2010/10/confirmed-columnist-eugene-robinson.html
Mike K – Meghan’s head should have immediately assploded. George Will had to be wondering how he got seated next to a talking boob.
O’Donnell is a witch and a liar and must be stopped at all costs.
JD (08d820) — 10/19/2010 @ 10:00 amI’m really impressed with how O’Donnell’s handled the general race. And her second debate performance proved she’s a lot smarter than I initially thought she was.
I certainly hope she wins. She’d make the best Senator Delaware has had in ages, even if all my fears about her character are completely correct.
I don’t really believe in her, and I don’t believe in the pundits whose argument as been ‘shut up, hide issues, or it’s your fault’, but to be a comparably great Senator from DE requires hurdling a very low bar.
What’s more interesting to me is that this election shows independents in blue states are massively rejecting the democrats.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 10:24 am“…you have to wonder just how big the wave will be.”
Far out to sea, a Tsunami is practically undetectable, only rising to gargantuan proportions as it approaches landfall.
AD-RtR/OS! (91b834) — 10/19/2010 @ 10:28 amThis Tsunami is gaining height as we speak as the election date quickly approaches, and will sweep all before it – note that George Soros already bailed to a remote, mountain ayery (whatever) where he will not be threatened by the on-coming “avalanche”.
Comment by JD — 10/19/2010 @ 10:00 am
Will was mesmerized as he heard her speaking, but never saw her nipples move.
AD-RtR/OS! (91b834) — 10/19/2010 @ 10:31 amBS. Take responsibility. If a candidate loses it’s on the candidate, not people who speak their minds. Even Meghan Mccain, jackass that she is, is not responsible for protecting O’Donnell from her own baggage.
In reality, you can blame the nutcases who CONSTANTLY force the discussion back to whether or not conservatives not delighted with these issues are unreasonable. Every time these pundits try to prove how pure they are, the natural rebuttal is to prove just how reasonable Karl Rove, et al, really was about this. It’s also pathetic and weak.
“Oh no, why didn’t Castle endorse O’donnell! It’s his fault we’re sucking!” Nope. It’s your fault, for relying on someone who you also destroyed in the name of someone who would have run third party. Why the hell would you want his support, when you said he was just as bad as a ‘marxist’?
And it’s also just weird, since you’re not really sucking badly enough for all this excuse making.
It seems to me a lot of these people are playing some kind of ego game.
Karl Rove has raised several tens of millions of bucks for Tea Party candidates he’s willing to associate with. Krauthammer has been excellent at tearing apart many leftist narratives over the past 3-4 years. It’s not their fault they don’t believe in O’donnell, personally, while certainly preferring her to her present opponent. They do not have to put their credibility on the line any more than a moderate democrat has to root for Charles Rangel. You guys who keep wanting to blast our best just can’t take the heat.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 10:37 amOr not.
More proof Christine O’Donnell is a terribly unqualified candidate: She is unaware that there is an separation of Church and State in the US Constitution. In fact, her and Coons had moved past that point in the debate, and she felt so strongly about it she just had to return to it and put her foot in her mouth and interject with her ignorance.
Coons will win — and by comparison, deserves to win — that race.
Christoph (8ec277) — 10/19/2010 @ 10:54 amCristoph, have you read the US Constitution? Why would Coons deserve to win simply because O’Donnell notes the “Separation of Church and State” is not a clause in the constitution?
It’s easy to skew what she said, but no, the mandate to separate church and state is not explicitly noted in the first amendment. It is a somewhat different issue from the Federal government not establishing a religion.
So tell me, why would Coons deserve to win because O’Donnell was more precise about the Constitution? Is it because you are assuming she must be stupid and not understand the constitution well enough to have made this precise distinction? Is it because you want a bar on establishment of religion to require separation of church and state? These are open issues for a lot of Americans. For many scholars, these are political issues rather than constitutional issues. George W Bush had that Faith Based Initiative, remember? Did he deserve to lose, too?
You’re unreasonable.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 11:08 amAnd Dustin, before you get into it, I see your point. Ace makes it well here.
That said, Christine O’Donnell is too much of a religious fanatic for me, who is chomping at the bit to get government involved somehow, whether that’s propagandizing against masturbation, educating teenage girls about the danger of witchcraft and how it could damage their careers/eternal souls further down the line, or whatever funding and initiatives she wants to her protect and expand that caused her to be unable to restrain herself from coming across like such an ignoramus in an entirely self-inflicted (and self-abuse is bad, m’kay?) own goal.
I see one heck of a Coons political ad on the horizon.
Christoph (8ec277) — 10/19/2010 @ 11:12 amHa. I typed my last comment before seeing that you replied.
I know it’s Thomas Jefferson’s writings that are where the phrase comes from. Christopher Hitchens in particular makes that point repeatedly.
But does Christime O’Donnell know this? As Ace implied, it’s doubtful. Certainly she does nothing to let anyone know in her audience, or amongst her fans and supporters, that she understands this.
For that reason alone, no. For being a religious fanatic with a very busybody tendency (the masturbation thing, for crying out loud!) in a position of huge power and responsibility … quite possibly, yes.
Christoph (8ec277) — 10/19/2010 @ 11:16 amBTW, since you’re making such huge assertions, Cristoph, for once, instead of denying what you said and moving on to a completely new smear, I want you to actually back up what you said this time.
If you can’t, then admit you can’t. A whole hell of a lot of people do not believe the first amendment must include a Separation of Church and State, noting that language was found in a mere letter from Jefferson to some Baptists. The United States existed for 100 years before the Supreme Court ever quoted that phrase.
In fact, part of the point of that letter was to note states could have official churches. Have you read that letter, Cristoph? Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?
Or are you completely misreading something you glanced at? Are you qualified to say anyone making the distinction between establishment and separation is ‘ignorant’ and ‘deserves to lose’?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 11:17 amPathetic.
You are saying someone is unfit to serve based on their religion.
You need to back up your assertions or admit you’re wrong about them. You say O’donnell could be right, but it’s doubtful she knows it, so she’s ignorant and deserves to lose, merely for pointing out something that was true to rebut someone who was ACTUALLY wrong.
Wow. You are completely unreasonable.
You’re decided O’Donnell’s the bad guy, and will skew everything any which way, refute your own claims seconds after you make them, and leap to other claims instantly.
At this point, you’re saying a devout Catholic is too extreme to be elected to office. I’m surprised any American would resort to such a nasty POV.
At any rate, O’Donnell was being intellectually honest about her religious views. She has repeatedly and explicitly noted she would rely on the constitution, not her religion, as a Senator. Your claims she is therefore too fundamentalist are far more ignorant than anything O’Donnell has been saying.
You have been caught, yet again, making claims that aren’t accurate. You don’t seem to have even a passing understanding of the constitution. But as I said, you’re totally unreasonable.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 11:23 amThe famous letter to the Baptists in Danbury? Yeah, I’ve read it.
At least that’s what I think you’re referring to. He used the term wall of separation between church and state. I don’t remember him saying anything in that letter about forming state churches. I’m reading it again trying to find a reference to this.
Maybe in another letter? I’ve read many of Jefferson’s letters and it’s possible one said something along these lines, but you’ll have to point it out with a link.
Oh, by the way, it was you who were utterly discredited on multiple topics last time, and even smeared me by calling you a liar, and when I pointed out this was almost certainly not the case and proceeded to point out the embarrassingly bad reasoning in yet another of your statements (which you accused me of being a liar because I didn’t originally address it when, in fact, I was restraining myself to criticizing just one part of your horrendous reasoning, but quite gladly addressed the second part when you — ahem — called me on not addressing your idealistic foolishness), it was you who ran away from that thread without addressing my critique of you utterly weak point which you said I would not address … nor did you withdraw your patently false slur.
Christoph (8ec277) — 10/19/2010 @ 11:31 amI just want to make sure Cristoph sees this. Too many times has he made a smear that falls apart quickly only to move on. He claimed O’donnell was so ignorant that she deserves to lose, but now wants to move on to this absurd masturbation issue.
I could tear that down very easily (after all, people are entitled to personal views about religion without idiots pretending they want to impose those wishes… I believe in tithing, for example), but all Cristoph would do is move on to a new smear, and another, and another.
Cristoph has no basis to assert O’Donnell didn’t understand the distinction O’donnell actually made. In fact, I knew about that when I was ten years old, since it’s covered by any decent elementary school education in the USA.
So let’s not move on so quickly. Was Cristoph completely wrong about US Law, and way too aggressive in saying O’donnell’s claims, alone, warrant her losing this race? Or will he pretend he didn’t say what he obviously said?
How much credibility is Cristoph left with on US Law and Senate races? I say none.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 11:34 amYou are clearly, Dustin, someone who is without honor.
I have, as usual, addressed your assertion. I’ve provided a link to said letter and am asking what the hell you’re talking about, because that letter does not say what you think it says. I have asked you if you have a link to another Jefferson letter that might say what you claim. I haven’t memorized everything he’s written so it’s possible that it exists. But with your record, I won’t believe it until I see it.
You made the claim: You back it up.
But that’s not why you’re without honor. You’re without honor because you accused me of being a liar based on very little. When I proceeded to show you exactly the criticism your naive, ridiculous statement would have engendered, which should have removed any doubt in your mind that I was being truthful about my reasons for addressing part (the substantive part), but not all, of your comment the first time around … precisely because of how unhelpful and silly that part of your comment was … you didn’t rescind your accusation nor even debate the point.
You just fled the field, so to speak.
So I say you have precious little honor.
Christoph (8ec277) — 10/19/2010 @ 11:48 amReally? That’s cute. I suppose I was this time too, though, right? Even though your initial comment has been completely discredited.
That’s how it is when you refuse to own your own comments, I guess. You never have to take responsibility. Nice try changing the subject, but were you right to say O’donnell deserves to lose by noting, accurately, that the first amendment does not explicitly call for a separation of church and state, a mandate that didn’t exist in US Law for the 100 years after the first amendment was written?
I know, you have some other issue to talk about, now.
I believe the last thread were were talking about was covering immigration. If you want to take that up, go to that thread instead of this one. I am happy with how I explained my views, and I think your claims were completely repudiated. I don’t respond to everything you say because you come across as a troll sometimes.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 11:53 amThe forgotten clause…
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
AD-RtR/OS! (91b834) — 10/19/2010 @ 11:59 amor prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
#18, that is not what she said, not even close.
In fact, what she said was 100% accurate. She said (to paraphrase) their is nothing in the Constitution (Bill of Rights) mandating separation of church and state. Only the establishment of religion by the Federal Govt and freedom to exercise your religion as you wish.
Sadly most lawyers can’t read….. or better yet read into Numero Uno what they want to. Christine O’Donnell has a better understanding of Numero Uno than all the lawyers in that law school she was at.
What is really bad is Coons could not enumerate the same 5 rights guaranteed in numero uno outside of religion and speech. The true imbcile is Coons.
Christoph, don’t believe everything your read …. unless it is the Bill of Rights
javert (a8a9b2) — 10/19/2010 @ 11:59 amAfter reading your last comment, I’ll add to my reasons why you lack honor how you refuse to back up your assertion on this thread.
Christoph (8ec277) — 10/19/2010 @ 12:00 pm#28, that to most Liberals mean no Christmas Trees or Crosses or any icky Christianity.
But Muslims — they get whatever they want.
javert (a8a9b2) — 10/19/2010 @ 12:01 pmCristoph, I have honor and I’m an honest person.
I realize I embarassed you and you’re upset about it. Anyone can read that thread you’ve linked. I’m happy with my comments in that thread. If you have something else to say about that, say it in that thread. I won’t reply to everything you say. Sorry.
“You made the claim: You back it up.”
You said that O’Donnell was wrong to assert the Separation of Church and State was not specifically in the first amendment. You said she was so ignorant to say that she deserves to lose the race to Coons, who pointed to this amendment to identify the location of the Separation of Church and state clause.
That’s the claim you are unable to back up. The last many times you make a smear against someone, you want to move on to a new issue.
That’s why you want to talk about immigration and masturbation, after all. You also want to pretend you have a great understanding of the establishment of religion issue, when it’s obvious from your first comment you were wrong.
I am not surprised you want to move on to something else. That’s why I’m insisting we stick to your initial claims.
You’re right, now, to note the Danbury Baptists as well as Thomas Jefferson did not want to establish a state church. However, that is not the end of the discussion. This letter was not part of the US Constitution and was not part of US Law for a century. O’Donnell is quite right to note it doesn’t come from the people who ratified this document via their representative government, but rather a letter from one man being recognized by a court of appointees.
At any rate, you want to move on from your initial comments, and you’ve done this consistently. Now I see that when you’re pressed to stick to your initial comment you freak out.
How much credibility can you possibly have when you never take responsibility for what you say? Why insist I respond to your other points, when we both know that you’ll refuse to take responsibility for them, too?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 12:04 pmChrisoph
Knowing that the first amendment doesn’t contain the phrase separation of church and state, proves that she knows the constitution better than most people, including apparently her opponent and the audience attending.
as for whether it is actually the rule, Rehnquist pointed out in wallace v. jaffre, that it doesn’t really describe the jurisprudence of the S.C. I mean where exactly is the wall of separation when the S.C. says that deaf students can have free interpreters as they go to divinity school, and all students can get free bus rides to school, even if it is to a private, religious school. What the actual rule is, is not to segregate religion and government, but to say that the government must be neutral between religion and irreligion. So for instance, with the deaf student, the state was offering the free interpreters in any area in which they study, not just religion. Jefferson’s metaphor–and let’s not forget that jefferson didn’t write a single word of the constitution–doesn’t describe modern 1st amendment jurisprudence.
To be blunt O’Donnell was right, and Coons was wrong. Honestly, i was mulling a post on the supposed gaff with a working title of “Christine O’Donnell Shows She Knows About the Constition, Gets Ridiculed for it.” Something like that, its a work in progress.
Also, can you please reduce the temperature of your disagreement with dustin? Ditto with you dustin. Really if you can’t stand someone at all, just ignore them.
I mean that is what i have done with kman for months, although i will note that kman is also kind of stalkerish, too.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/19/2010 @ 12:04 pmCan someone find the word wall or separation or any synonym here …
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
…. again, sadly O’Donnell knows more about the First Amendment than Coons.
javert (a8a9b2) — 10/19/2010 @ 12:04 pmA troll moving the goalposts….
AD-RtR/OS! (91b834) — 10/19/2010 @ 12:06 pmNot only unexpected, but unprecedented too!
Aaron,
As I keep saying “word fucking” passes for intellect in the legal profession.
It is all our doom until rationale folks write rationale laws that common men may read.
That was the beauty of the Bill of Rights until the lawyers decided they knew better …..
[Saved from the filters. i think if you use the f-word, it is more likely to get caught.]
javert (a8a9b2) — 10/19/2010 @ 12:06 pmBTW, upon reviewing the thread Cristoph wants to bring up, I notice just about everyone seems to agree that Cristoph is completely wrong, and he’s unable to back up his claims.
I’m not responding to that in this thread because I realize he’s just trying to change the subject again. Don’t interpret that as some kind of surrender on immigration issues. I just know it’s pointless to try to keep up with Cristoph changing the subject.
Can Cristoph back up his claim that O’Donnell deserves to lose the election because she’s too ignorant to see that the separation of church and state is not in the first amendment without commenting on immigration or my personal honor?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 12:08 pmHell I got more issues with Numero Dos allowing me to carry a gun around since the definition of militia is hard for me to ascertain…..
But point of fact, their is no misinterpretation of Numero Uno unless you are a pisant who simply wants the Bill of Rights to be whatever you want when you want..
javert (a8a9b2) — 10/19/2010 @ 12:09 pmChrisoph
And, btw, what the hell is this?
> Christine O’Donnell is too much of a religious fanatic for me, who is chomping at the bit to get government involved somehow, whether that’s propagandizing against masturbation,
When exactly has she called on THE GOVERNMENT to campaign against masturbation?
> educating teenage girls about the danger of witchcraft and how it could damage their careers/eternal souls further down the line,
And when has she said that she would do that? If anything her talking about dabbling in witchcraft says, its okay to try different things.
Now maybe today she would say, “dabble in witchcraft. but for the love of God, never admit to anyone that you did.”
“or whatever funding and initiatives she wants to her protect and expand that caused her to be unable to restrain herself from coming across like such an ignoramus in an entirely self-inflicted (and self-abuse is bad, m’kay?) own goal.”
um, were you foaming at the mouth when you wrote that? because it has a sense of a person wildly out of control.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/19/2010 @ 12:10 pmbtw, I made a typo in comment 22. When I say Jefferson and the baptists were opposed to a state church, that’s accurate. Just to be clear.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 12:10 pmNo problem, Aaron.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 12:11 pm#39 In fact for example, I find that the Westboro Baptist Church does not have a right to do what they did not b/c they can’t do it …. but b/c their protest is not about a redress of grievances with the Government.
To me it is painfully clear you have a right to free speech if the purpose is to redress grievances with the Gov.t
The Westboro protest at a funeral has no basis in law b/c they are doing no such thing as addressing Government ….. unless you are a lawyer word fucking, Westboro has no right to do what they do where they do it, when they do it.
But what do I know.
javert (a8a9b2) — 10/19/2010 @ 12:15 pmBTW, Ace and a few others are making the point that O’donnell was not clear enough.
To be sure, this is the kind of gripe I have had with O’Donnell for quite some time, but explaining these issues in a debate format is difficult. She did try to come back to the issue, and as best as I can tell, she obviously understands this issue. Perhaps she was even particularly prepared for it, meaning to bring it up. I know she has commented on this specific issue in the past, when she says the constitution will govern her legislation, not her religion.
But it’s a shame we rely on snippet level TV debate for issues that are complicated. Distinguishing between free exercise and non-establishment requires a careful discussion.
I’m not feeling sorry for O’donnell. I think the TV Debate format benefits attractive people with strong personalities and quick wit. My hope is that the internet displaces the TV for most voters as a source of information, but how in the world do you pierce the layer of politicos who write our politicians’ books and blog posts, and get to the actual candidate?
Palin and Obama didn’t write their own books. My ideal debate format would be for candidates to personally write a novella length document for each major office they run for, but that isn’t going to happen.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 12:22 pmHow about if the two debaters were wired, with each audience member possessing two buttons, to send a mild shock of disapproval to the offending party when “stupid” enters the debate?
AD-RtR/OS! (91b834) — 10/19/2010 @ 12:38 pmAnd, the buttons would be wired to send an accumulative charge: more buttons pressed, more voltage.
“BS. Take responsibility. If a candidate loses it’s on the candidate, not people who speak their minds. Even Meghan Mccain, jackass that she is, is not responsible for protecting O’Donnell from her own baggage”
Oh.My.God, now we’ve come full circle. Those that kept smearing their opponents “yer tryin’ to shut us up!” are now brandishing the “grow up and get over yerself” complaint they resolutely ignored.
You’re right, of course, more than a few Dims will vote for the whore because Rove’s eyes roll back into his head thinking on ‘er.
Squeal like a pig, Karl.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/19/2010 @ 12:51 pmBy all means complain about Karl Rove’s politics, whatever they happen to be. He’s been wrong on some major issues (namely, the issue of fighting the rhetoric against the Iraq war).
But if O’Donnell can’t overcome the complaints about her, I think that confirms the Castle supporters who said she couldn’t (Rove, indeed was a Castle supporter, and that too is a good reason to criticize him).
I wonder if you’re right that democrats (or at least independents) are supporting O’Donnell simply because beltway Republicans won’t. I honestly don’t know if this is helping or hurting her, but I do think this has helped her immensely with her core conservative supporters.
Anyway, insisting people shut up, Dan Riehl style, is not going to shut anyone up. It might lead them to repeat themselves if they interpret it as an attack, since explaining their problems with O’Donnell is the natural reaction to ‘you are crazy not to support O’donnell’.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 12:56 pmDustin
maybe you would prefer a debate format more like lincoln douglas, where it is a long speech followed by a long speech by the other guy.
incidentally, you know why those debates became so famous? the 19th century version of a slow news day… the transatlantic cable broke, meaning that american papers could no longer get telegraph news from europe, so they had to fill their pages with something…
Really, i have long said that lincoln’s rise is concrete proof that God loves America. it borders on actually miraculous that lincoln even became president, and then with so little executive experience, turned out to be one of our best, exactly when we needed a great president.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/19/2010 @ 12:57 pm“i have long said that lincoln’s rise is concrete proof that God loves America. it borders on actually miraculous that lincoln even became president, and then with so little executive experience, turned out to be one of our best, exactly when we needed a great president”
Hear, hear. 2012 might offer, finally, some old time Nomination theatre.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:03 pmIt has been made abundantly clear over the past few weeks that Christoph is not only a Troll, but a poor one at that. When someone starts screeching about “honor” and other unprovable statements, they’ve basically given up the ghost.
I wonder what Intrade has to say about Amanpour’s future in the job.
Why not ask her erstwhile friends in the Arab world? They’ve always seemed quite enamored with her work on their behalf over the years.
Dmac (84da91) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:06 pmI was ready to give this one to O’Donnell — i.e., that her point (albeit a tired, simplistic one) is that the words “separation of church and state” do not physically appear in the Constitution.
But after seeing the video, I’m not so sure. She seemed to be genuinely surprised that the concept of “separation of church and state” is tied up with the Establishment Clause.
Maybe that was just an unfortunate upshot of a free-form debate caught on television cameras, and it’s not fair to tag that on O’Donnell. There’s crosstalk, audience reactions, etc. — who knows what she was thinking or responding to?
On the other hand, she does seem to have a lot of problems when it comes to expressing her views, and constantly seems to be digging herself into holes. And maybe that alone suggests she’s unqualified for the job.
Kman (d25c82) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:07 pmIt’s true, the odds against Lincoln winning were tall. Lincoln didn’t win 40% of the popular vote, but Douglas, who won a third of the vote, only carried 2 states.
I wasn’t aware of this detail about the Lincoln Douglas debates and the telegraph cable.
That’s fascinating. It’s easy to find fault with some of Lincoln’s actions (I agree with Aaron that he is among the greatest leaders we’ve ever had, either US or human civilization) because the times Lincoln led in were so difficult. And Obama fancies himself as another Lincoln. Heh.
We lost a lot of what I want America to be, thanks largely to the way the civil war amendments have been interpreted.
I like Aaron’s proposed debate format a lot.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:09 pmTypo.
Harrumph.
Liar.
Christoph (8ec277) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:11 pmA reminder…
AD-RtR/OS! (91b834) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:14 pmThe Lincoln-Douglas debates were in the Senatorial Contest of 1858!
Douglas won – or, more correctly, the Dems won control of the IL legislature, and continued Douglas’ term in the U.S.Senate.
Lincoln published a book of the debates, and found other employment in the future.
That’s perfectly reasonable. There’s a large point, that every Senate candidate should comment on, that some concepts in our laws are not arrived at directly. We didn’t pass a privacy amendment so encompassing that abortion can’t be outlawed, or a commerce clause so powerful that I can be forced to buy insurance I don’t want.
It’s hard to give O’Donnell credit for talking about this by pointing out something related to Separation of Church and State isn’t really where that came from. She’s right, and yet she’s not very clear. I blame the format.
Was O’donnell unaware the first amendment covered religion? I think her ‘surprise’ was really just her typical defensive swagger.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:17 pmAgain, the word screwers are now taking the position “she may not have known what she REALLY SAID ” in spite of the fact what she said was right.
O’Donnell’s poit in context to the discussion is correct albeit she could have phrased it very differently.
But nevertheless …. Coons did not know the 5 rights. She did.
Hello anyone want to talk about that????
javert (a8a9b2) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:17 pmKman,
The second she asked the question the entire (liberal, lawerly) crowd started hooting and hollering. Two voices came through saying “wait, good point” but they were shouted out.
This is beyond idiotic discussion in my view. People are looking to the mob for reason instead of to what the speaker speaks.
The media and her haters are literally counting the amount of pubic hair she has and then asking her to give them an ACCURATE NUMBER or else she is a stupid liar.
Beyond the pale.
javert (a8a9b2) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:22 pmbtw, if anyone wants to look at the letter, you can find it here:
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:23 pmCristoph, no, I really meant to say Jefferson and the baptists were talking about not establishing a church, and yet this did not make the ratified constitution. I correctly mentioned this in the thread a few times, and only once said it the other way (which I corrected). I made a typo and corrected it.
My point is that ‘separation of church and state’, as defined as ‘establish a state church’ is so basic and obvious. O’Donnell is not attempting to change that. Jefferson and our other founding fathers didn’t need to include the extra clause.
If they were actually saying you COULD set up a state church, that would be radically contrary to the constitution or Jefferson’s thoughts. I understand how my typo could come across this way, which is why I corrected it, after all. But as I said, I explained this in a few comments in this thread.
Now, to push you right back to your initial comment, yet again, as I will do again and again as you attempt to change the topic to immigration, honor, masturbation, etc, does O’donnell deserve to lose the Senate election for making an accurate point you called ignorant?
Now, of course, you no longer claim O’Donnell’s point is ignorant. You say it’s so smart that O’Donnell probably didn’t mean what she said.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:26 pmjavert
i will probably talk about coon’s lack of knowledge in a bit.
And there is a similar bit where they make a similar assumption about palin not knowing what she was talking about. palin said that the tea partiers should not party like its “1773” just yet. and daily kos thinks that means she didn’t know when the revolution was.
No, markos, it means she knew when the Boston Tea Party was. *rolls eyes*
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:26 pmby “this” I mean the language “Separation of Church and State”. Obviously a bar on establishment was included in the bill of rights.
I do make typos. But this is different from lying.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:28 pmAnother reminder…
AD-RtR/OS! (91b834) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:32 pmSeveral of the States had Established Churches at the time of ratification, and this situation was not affected as Amendment-1 was a restriction upon the Federal Government only (at that time).
Christoph
Ask yourself this. have you ever embarrassingly left out the word “not” when you needed it?
i mean, who hasn’t?
again, please lower the temperature. i know dustin well enough to know he is honest, both intellectually and factually.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:32 pmBTW, Cristoph, I will never stop. Aaron’s right to ask me to be polite about it, but it’s not going to stop.
I make errors and correct them, and I even admit I’m flat out wrong when I realize it. I’m not afraid of that kind of thing. You may think you can react to me by calling my a dishonorable liar, but it just won’t work.
You have made a lot of claims that I thought were incorrect. If I see that you’ve done that, I’ll keep pointing it out. You said O’Donnell’s claim was wrong, and that this is so basic and major she deserves to lose an election on this basis.
You were completely wrong, and your conclusion was aggressively unfair. Now you have modified your view quite a bit, and the concept of a total separation of church and state, which doesn’t appear to be what Jefferson was talking about (rather, an opposition to a state church) is not made explicit in the first amendment. The reason for the change? I could ascribe some motive to what you’re doing. A ton of your claims seem to be meant to stir the pot, or show someone’s a twit or a yahoo or dishonorable. You do seem really inconsistent.
But I can’t read your mind. All I know is that you were wrong.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:37 pmAnd maybe I can help lower the temp by just moving on to another topic.
Just as with the immigration thread, I have made my point for better or worse. Just because I am not responding to every future comment doesn’t mean Cristoph has ‘decimated’ my views.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:40 pmUmm. Actually, I do.
Yes. It is, actually.
I copied that from Allahpundit’s post at Hot Air, which he would have gotten from the AP article, but I certainly noticed it in the video. I should have made a bigger deal of it here, because it is really quite astounding.
Christoph (8ec277) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:46 pmYou’re asserting by ‘that’, O’donnell meant ‘Congress shall make no law […]’.
Now, the first time you linked Hot Air, this is how you defined “that”
See what I mean? Now you want to argue about whether there’s the ‘Congress shall make no law […]’ language. I could argue about that, but as I said, I believe you would move on as soon as this new complaint was dis-proven (which I believe it would be, since O’donnell obviously knew that language is in the first amendment).
So, instead of inventing a new issue, Cristoph, maybe you should resolve the original one.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:52 pmbtw, i just listened watched a video of o’donnell and coons. i think this stuff can take on a Rorschach test quality, but honestly reading her tone and body language, i saw a woman who believed she caught Coons saying something stupid.
Which coons wasn’t either. Coons was saying that over time with decisional law, that it has been interpreted into the constitution. and there are certainly things you can cite to support that notion. Coons is very much a living constitutionalist, but he is not stupid, except to the extent that i think living constitutionalism is a stupid theory.
that being said, i think forgetting the 14th amendment is bad, but forgivable. I mean most non-lawyers don’t know it off hand. Also the moderator sucked, too, because he didn’t seem to know that there was more in the 14th Amendment than just the citizenship clause.
I think bluntly no one really won that exchange. O’Donnell proved she could actually read the 1st amendment. Coons provided a reasonable interpretation of how the SC sees it today. Although i significantly disagree with what he said, he didn’t say anything that was ignorant. its a tie in my book.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/19/2010 @ 1:55 pmReally, Dustin? You’re arguing that video proves she was aware of this?
She not only had no idea the law around the first amendment has come to be seen as separation between church and state, using Jefferson’s language … and one could argue that she disagrees with that interpretation.
She certainly didn’t argue that or betray any hint that she understood it, but one could argue it.
She clearly didn’t know the plain text of the first amendment:
… so no debate about whether Jefferson was or wasn’t right is required.
Further, I don’t believe she’s never read the Constitution. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, I believe she did and probably with a good faith intention of learning from it, if only as a historical document, but also probably, as a conservative candidate and politician, to inform her. And because I think she read it, it is telling — to the point of being chilling to a libertarian like myself who does indeed support Jefferson’s and the Court’s interpretation — that having read it, her particular preconceived biases and cognitive filters (we all have them) effectively erased it from her memory.
That’s what I believe happened, in essence. While I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt as to her fitness for office before, this exchange counts against her in a big way.
And I’m not the only one to notice it, guys.
Christoph (8ec277) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:03 pmNo.
Let’s keep you to your original assertions, though.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:09 pmChristoph
> the law around the first amendment has come to be seen as separation between church and state,
i am telling you that this is a reasonable interpretation but one you might also reasonably disagree with. For instance, guess who wrote this:
> Notwithstanding the absence of a historical basis for this theory of rigid separation, the wall idea might well have served as a useful albeit misguided analytical concept, had it led [the Supreme] Court to unified and principled results in Establishment Clause cases. The opposite, unfortunately, has been true; in the 38 years since Everson [its] Establishment Clause cases have been neither principled nor unified. [Its] recent opinions, many of them hopelessly divided pluralities, have with embarrassing candor conceded that the “wall of separation” is merely a “blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier,” which “is not wholly accurate” and can only be “dimly perceived.”
You know who wrote that? Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Is he a dummy? Or does he have a reasonable disagreement over the use of the concept of a wall of separation?
> She clearly didn’t know the plain text of the first amendment:
No, she was clearly pressing her point about the fact that the wall of separation is not there. To me she looked like a person trying to nail coons down on that point, is the phrase there or not?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:14 pmIt’s not and since Engel v. Vitale, the Courts have
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:18 pmread the establishment clause so tightly, there is practically no public space for religion of any kind, well with one recent notable exception
Regardless of my ability to phrase everything to your satisfaction, Dustin, or your ability to phrase it to mine … Christine O’Donnell appears woefully ignorant of the Separation of Church and State … and how we know this, that it’s not simply her disagreeing with the doctrine, as several conservatives do, especially religious conservatives, is this:
So it isn’t only Jefferson’s interpretation and the Court’s interpretation she takes issue with … it is the plain language … which she can’t recall, even when prompted, is there.
To you, as a person who pays tithes (and presumably is religious) this may not — understandably — be that big of a deal to you.
To someone who isn’t religious, who likes the Separation of Church and State, and also supports capitalist economic principles and a strong defense (i.e., the majority of Republican Party priorities), Christine O’Donnell’s performance and what it says about her understanding of the Founders’ intentions is a major drag.
So this was a serious gaffe on her part if only because it alienates that segment of the voters (which in a state like Delaware should be sizable: She needs moderates and non-religious Republicans). There’s no way you can realistically say it wasn’t that.
Christoph (8ec277) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:19 pmChristoph
> and how we know this,
And how do you know that at that point that the “that” she is referring to in the sentence “That’s in the First Amendment?” WASN’T the “wall of separation”?
i mean remember how normal people talk.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:22 pmBecause Christoph said so, it must be true. You have to be as un-charitable as possible to give Christoph’s version any credence. Finally, someone that makes Dustin seem rational in their hatred of O’Donnell.
JD (f6829f) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:24 pmRemind me again, who is the candidate who thinks certain political speech should be proscribed, depending on who funds it, it’s not O’Donnell, it’s the other guy and the one holding his leash
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:28 pmLOL
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:28 pmDid anyone in the MFM ever ask My Pet Coons about how he views using the power of his office to squelch opposition?
JD (f6829f) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:32 pmAs down as I am on O’Donnell for this or that reason, I’m mainly just asserting the cause if ‘don’t tell me to shut up about these problems’. You already know that. I’ll defend her just as loudly if it’s justified.
As I said way upthread, I was wrong about O’Donnell’s intelligence and electability. She *could* win, and that’s a major repudiation of an argument for Castle (who I was not a supporter of). Then, I thought, hey, Castle sucks a lot, so while it’s a shame we ‘certainly’ gave the seat up to Coons, let’s hope the message is delivered to the ‘establishment’. Now that it’s possible she could win, there was never a reason to support Castle, aside from worries about scandals embarrassing the right (and Castle posed some risk here, too).
I do have some kind of personal ill will towards O’Donnell based on the personality I think was shown a few times, but it’s not hard to get over it. I have the same ill will towards practically everybody in politics.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:33 pmHe’s a real creep, and Delaware journalism is a failure for not making a major issue of this. Many people pretend O’donnell is going to abuse her power… that’s one of the main reasons religion keeps coming up. But the only people who really think O’Donnell is going to establish a religion and ban masturbation are idiots. Seems fair to ask Coons about abusing his power, too.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:35 pmThe funny thing about that cognitive filter thing that I talked about above (and how O’Donnell’s betrayed her) is it works many ways.
With this gaffe, regardless of the underlying read-her-mind truth of it, she lost a slice of voters she didn’t have to lose.
“Christoph’s version”
Yeah. ‘Cause I’m the only person who sees it that way.
This is a failing of the candidate’s understanding or communication, one or the other. Blaming the huge blow-up which has occurred over this on others is … Kool-Aid drinking.
Christoph (8ec277) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:36 pmAnyway, there are lots of high-quality Republican candidates who will win their races and good for them.
Christoph (8ec277) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:38 pmI suggest Patterico bring in as a guest blogger that renowned First Amendment scholar Christine O’Donnell. She cut through the crap of countless scholars through the years and challenged even the possibility that the First Amendment sets out a separation of church and state.
Larry Reilly (ae99e7) — 10/19/2010 @ 5:01 pmShe also can see Russia from the Delaware shore.
Larry Reilly, can you even define ‘separation of church and state’?
Oh wait, you’re just a hit and run troll.
Depending on how you define it, it’s clearly or not clearly part of the first amendment. The ‘no state church’ is, the ‘no Christmas tree on the school lawn’ is not, IMO.
The nuts want to make it off limits to even have the discussion O’Donnell was having. They should think a little more carefully about the rest of the first amendment. But then, they would have to win a debate on the merits of the more absurd version of the separation that is popular on the left, which is quite a challenge. Easier to just say it’s off limits, then.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 5:12 pmIt’s a dubious assertion, that the establishment of religion clause, means no religious content in an
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/19/2010 @ 5:20 pmincreasingly more narrow public space, just because
Hugo Black said it, doesn’t make it true, just as with Blackmun’s ‘penumbras and emanations
Mawy is an abject idiot. That is all. Christoph is not much better.
JD (eb1dfe) — 10/19/2010 @ 5:35 pmthe guy I was talking to did a lot of fundraising in New England during the 2008 campaign and I know he “gets” states up there better than I do, having never lived there.
LOL! Since when is Delaware part of New England? I don’t think you can base too much of anything on whatever this person says.
madawaskan (565543) — 10/19/2010 @ 5:43 pmThat’s who they sent down to Delaware, someone from New Hampshire,
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/19/2010 @ 5:47 pmI agree with Ayn Rand on conservatives.
Rand’s statements don’t apply to all of you (some of them do to some of you), but much of what she says there sure as heck applies to Christine O’Donnell.
But then forget Rand, for a second. I agree with Penn Jillette on pretty much everything.
Christoph (8ec277) — 10/19/2010 @ 5:58 pm^troll du jour.
Dmac (84da91) — 10/19/2010 @ 6:34 pmThe First Amendment does? … So you’re telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase ‘separation of church and state,’ is in the First Amendment?”
That happens to be the whole quote, which puts things in some kind of perspective, now the correct
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/19/2010 @ 6:47 pmanswer is some have interpreted it that way, but
that is not the plain text of the document
Maybe Christoph could tell me my position on O’Donnell. I doubt it, as he appears to prefer to argue against the caricature in his head.
JD (eb1dfe) — 10/19/2010 @ 6:47 pmWell, JD, I could tell you your position on her.
btw, I googled Cristoph and now I realize the joke’s on me. It would just amount to stirring up problems to go into it, but I’m amused at his self righteousness.
Christoph, your initial claims in this thread are obviously wrong. If you had the intellect you claim to have, or the honesty you relentlessly say others do not have, you would admit this. Your own goal post shifting amounts to a concession that you were wrong.
I realize you have some kind of obsession. You’ve probably been reading this blog every day for years, even after… your problems. So you know I’m a reasonable person. Take my earnest advice to stop worrying about how much better you are, and start listening to other points of view. It is clear you have not developed a capacity for understanding other people. This is clear from so many of your comments, where you either refuse obvious corrections or absolutely mangle other people’s claims when restating them.
I don’t think you really mean to straw man so much as you just think carefully considering other POVs is beneath you. And the nastiness you show when forced to do this makes me think this is a defense mechanism.
I’m not trying to ‘burn’ you or bash you. I think you must be pretty miserable and I hope you get a grip.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 7:45 pm_________________________________________
Maybe Christoph could tell me my position on O’Donnell.
If Christoph is of the left, then he shouldn’t feel so alienated from O’Donnell. After all, her background is rather flaky — which is a trademark of leftism — she’s played the ambulance-chasing-lawsuit game in the past — which is another trademark of leftism — and her former campaign manager scoffed at the assumption that O’Donnell is a true-blue conservative.
As for the unnamed Democrat insider who estimates the race will be closer than assumed, I wonder what polling data he’s seen, if any, that makes him feel that way?
I know recent trends in America’s answer to Greece/Mexico/Spain — with a bit of France and Venezuela thrown in for good measure — otherwise known as the state of California, show a lot of its electorate is as idiotically liberal as ever before.
Mark (411533) — 10/19/2010 @ 7:46 pmPresented without comment.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 7:59 pmShe did that in the New York Times, and other staffers went to CREW, the folks who chased the wardrobe issue, which endorsed Bide, time and again, despite the fact that their reporter (actually Maureen Dowd) actually uncovered his plagiarism, Speaking of Greece, the Karamalis regime
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/19/2010 @ 8:15 pmwhich seems to alternate with the Papandreous, didn’t get very far in their budgeting
Dustin
Holy crap, elvira’s still alive? i’m getting ugly flashbacks.
All said, that is hilarious.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/19/2010 @ 8:24 pm“Alien Contamination” was one of the classic takedowns in 1983
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/19/2010 @ 8:29 pm“don’t tell me to shut up about these problems”
Personally, I don’t read, at best skim. I don’t research before commenting and proofing, fugetaboutit. But I never, not once, tried to tell Patty or you or anyone to “shut up and pass the ammunition”.
I told youse to shut up because you’re stupid, because hearing the obvious three times is enough, because I wouldn’t vote for anyone you vapid ciphers think honorable and competent.
So there, quit with the lie that you can find someone, on some blog, somewhere telling you to shut up for no other reason than “she’s our candidate”. DE voters decided that. Even if some tried to silence you it’s because of this dragging a corpse out under our noses for the sole gain of detesting the very fabric of your being.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 10/20/2010 @ 6:40 amGary,
You say my complaints are obvious. That’s true. You say I’m lying about someone telling folks to silence themselves on these scandals because ‘she’s our candidate.’ That’s not correct. I complain A LOT about Castle, Coons, and Obama, and yet you never call me stupid or tell me to “shut up” as you just did. Why?
I’m disappointed the best choice for DE is a dishonest weasel, even if that’s because “DE voters decided that” (because they didn’t have good choices).
My point is simple: your attempt to shut me up, by claiming my points are stupid, is easily rebutted by showing my points are not stupid. I can specifically detail an inability to handle money like an adult, or that she’s broken contracts, or that she lied at the drop of a hat.
All I’m saying is that I can easily show my complaints were reasonable, and it’s predictable that I will when folks like you do what you did. I’d rather not bring it up, but YOU brought it up.
My thinking is that this is mostly interesting because O’Donnell’s doing very well considering the baggage. It’s been quite a while since I cared to criticize her directly without being prompted by folks like you. And I’m not speaking directly about me (if you think I’m having any impact on anything, you’re crazy, but you probably do not think that). Most of the conservative bashing of O’Donnell is directly prompted by attacks on those conservatives. If you can slow down for a sec, you’d realize the entire motivation of this comment is to minimize O’donnell bashing.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/20/2010 @ 10:41 am