Christine O'Donnell has replaced Palin in my heart of hearts...

[Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew]

@kaylasdad99

@Bricker

I am confident that the US has a plant to occupy Antarctica.

Monsanto been working on a cold-resistant strain of kudzu?

The Thing!

[Bricker]

Here is O’Donnell’s post-debate press release:

Wilmington, Del. – Unfortunately, some pundits are already criticizing Christine O’Donnell, the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat in Delaware, for her answer to a Supreme Court question during Wednesday night’s debate. In response, O’Donnell released the following statement:

“Frankly, it makes sense that it wasn’t easy to recall some egregious Supreme Court cases when asked about ‘recent’ cases with which I disagreed. Such cases are few and far between with an outstanding bench of four solid constructionist Justices and a swing vote that often votes with them. There have been only a few cases during the Roberts and Rehnquist courts in which the liberal activist position has prevailed.

“One such case was Kelo v. City of New London in 2005 in which the court incoherently ruled that local governments could misuse the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause to throw private citizens out of their own homes and give the land to private developers to increase tax revenue.

“Such Constitution-shredding rulings should occur rarely, if ever. It is why it’s so important that Delaware’s next Senator commit to voting for federal judges and Supreme Court Justices who know how to read the plain English in the Constitution, apply that plain English to complex modern cases and don’t invent ‘emanations and penumbras’ that the Founders never intended. Unlike my opponent, who just tonight referenced his view that we have different Constitutions based upon what year it is, I believe that the original version serves just fine.

“Tonight Chris Coons said that ‘this campaign is a job interview.’ By the end of the debate it was clear that Mr. Coons does not deserve a promotion. His tax-and-spend record and the doubling of the unemployment rate during his tenure as New Castle County Executive were just two of the items on his political resume that Delaware voters will reject.

“I was grateful for the opportunity to speak directly to Delawareans and to lay out a common sense way forward.”

My translation: “I was too flustered, and/or stupid, to think of saying this during the debate, so I’ll say it now and try to pretend that I should get the credit for having said it during the debate.”

If this was a job interview, this is like calling the interviewer the next day and saying, “I didn’t know the answers yesterday, but today I do.” Thanks, but a major point of the interview is to see how you respond right then, not after study and consultation with your staff.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Bricker

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Yes, but nobody talks about them. While she may be factually correct, the fact that she is bringing up the Chinese plan clearly implies that the Chinese intend to put their crazy plan into action.

There’s probably a British plan to invade the US too, but there aren’t any Senatorial candidates wringing their hands over it.

Then the proper criticism is not “Look at the crazy woman saying there’s a plan!” but rather “Look at the crazy woman insinuating that this is a serious issue.”

This pattern is disturbing. It’s as though the decision is made that since she’s an idiot, any criticism of her may be made, whether factual or not.

Look at the snickers above about her claims that we fought against Soviet interests in the 80s and 90s. Ha! Ha! What a moron she is, saying the Soviets were around in the 90s!

What’s that? Oh? They were?

Well, they weren’t involved in Afganistan in the 1990s.

Oh. They were.

Well, that’s a reasonable mistake, one that anyone can make.

:rolleyes:

When she makes the error, she’s an idiot. But I am willing to bet that we won’t see similar condemnations against the posters here who, it turns out, were actually the ones in error on the claim.

How about we stick to actual, factual reasons to dismiss Ms. O’Donnell? She has given us no shortage of those.

Aside from whether China has nefarious plans for the US, what I find disturbing is O’Donnell’s claim that she is privy to such plans due to her membership in whatever crazy ministry/spy organization she was in. If she has such info (which I don’t think she does), it seems she’s suggesting that her ministry has their own spy in either the State Department or the Defense Department feeding stuff out.

While most people seem to think that her claim is that she is privy to US classified intelligence about China’s strategy, it is at least as plausible that she thinks she has access to Chinese classified plans. Perhaps they were acquired through Chinese dissidents or from a spy ring that the ministry runs within China.

I think it’s quite relevant to her election to consider whether she may be shielding traitors within the US government, part of a privately organized spy ring, or simply living in a total fantasy world. My best guess is the latter.

It may turn out that being a witch was her most rational act ever.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Yes, but nobody talks about them. While she may be factually correct, the fact that she is bringing up the Chinese plan clearly implies that the Chinese intend to put their crazy plan into action.

There’s probably a British plan to invade the US too, but there aren’t any Senatorial candidates wringing their hands over it.

Then the proper criticism is not “Look at the crazy woman saying there’s a plan!” but rather “Look at the crazy woman insinuating that this is a serious issue.”

Given her claims to possess classified information, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say either of those things. A plan drawn up in 1983 sitting in an archive hardly has to be distinguished from one that Communist Party officials are poring over right now while cackling excitedly.

@Christine O'Donnell

Frankly, it makes sense that it wasn’t easy to recall some egregious Supreme Court cases when asked about ‘recent’ cases with which I disagreed. Such cases are few and far between with an outstanding bench of four solid constructionist Justices and a swing vote that often votes with them. There have been only a few cases during the Roberts and Rehnquist courts in which the liberal activist position has prevailed.

This is probably the worst thought-out prepared statement I’ve ever seen from any politician. Who is pulling the strings in her campaign?

“There are so few recent SCOTUS decisions that bother me I can’t think of a single one!”

[Cheesesteak]

@Starving_Artist

I can think of lots of Supreme Court decisions I’ve disagreed with over the years but I couldn’t name most of them to save my life and I’d bet there isn’t a poster on this board who couldn’t say the same.

You’re not running for national office. You’re not asking to be given a job where you get to vote on whether or not a person is qualified to be on the Supreme Court. You’re not asking to be given a job where you write and vote on legislation that has to pass constitutional muster.

This is publicly available information regarding important national issues, I expect national office holders to have more than a passing familiarity with national issues.

This came up with Palin, and she got a bunch of crap for not being able to scrounge up any court cases she disagreed with, not even the Exxon case that she disagreed with so strongly she had to go on TV to voice her outrage.

I want our national representatives to actually know what they’re talking about, and contribute meaningfully to the debate, instead of being one more check box for the party line vote.

[ElvisL1ves]

I’d do her. Using a ball gag, though.

[BrainGlutton]

Do you really want to cross her?

[Merijeek]

@Boyo_Jim

I think it’s quite relevant to her election to consider whether she may be shielding traitors within the US government, part of a privately organized spy ring, or simply living in a total fantasy world. My best guess is the latter.

It may turn out that being a witch was her most rational act ever.

It’s the same line of bullshit that McCain tried to use to make himself seem more important. Remember, if he got elected he was going to get Bin Laden because he KNEW where he was.

All we had to do was elect him. Apparently we didn’t want to get Bin Laden that badly.

Now, in 20 years when we’re all being forced to learn Mandarin don’t come crying to Christine!

-Joe

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I think McCain was just trying to make the point that dialysis recipients understand how other dialysis recipients think.

[Bricker]

@Cheesesteak

@Starving_Artist

I can think of lots of Supreme Court decisions I’ve disagreed with over the years but I couldn’t name most of them to save my life and I’d bet there isn’t a poster on this board who couldn’t say the same.

You’re not running for national office. You’re not asking to be given a job where you get to vote on whether or not a person is qualified to be on the Supreme Court. You’re not asking to be given a job where you write and vote on legislation that has to pass constitutional muster.

This is publicly available information regarding important national issues, I expect national office holders to have more than a passing familiarity with national issues.

This came up with Palin, and she got a bunch of crap for not being able to scrounge up any court cases she disagreed with, not even the Exxon case that she disagreed with so strongly she had to go on TV to voice her outrage.

I want our national representatives to actually know what they’re talking about, and contribute meaningfully to the debate, instead of being one more check box for the party line vote.

Agreed, in total.

And ETA that she could have said, “the land forfeiture case” or “the eminent domain case” and been fine. She didn’t have to give the US court report citation number, just an indication that she knew of a case.

[Merijeek]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I think McCain was just trying to make the point that dialysis recipients understand how other dialysis recipients think.

“Denny’s at 9:30AM! I’m certain of it!”

-Joe

[Starving_Artist]

@Bricker

And ETA that she could have said, “the land forfeiture case” or “the eminent domain case” and been fine. She didn’t have to give the US court report citation number, just an indication that she knew of a case.

I didn’t see the debate, but the post I responded to implied…or at least seemed to to me to imply…that she was asked to cite the formal name of the case (along the lines of “Roe v. Wade” for example) rather than just referring to it based upon what it concerned.

[Bricker]

@Starving_Artist

@Bricker

And ETA that she could have said, “the land forfeiture case” or “the eminent domain case” and been fine. She didn’t have to give the US court report citation number, just an indication that she knew of a case.

I didn’t see the debate, but the post I responded to implied…or at least seemed to to me to imply…that she was asked to cite the formal name of the case (along the lines of “Roe v. Wade” for example) rather than just referring to it based upon what it concerned.

Not as I see it:

KARIBJANIAN: Well, we’ve talked about the Supreme Court, and obviously a United States senator has the opportunity to determine in a way the make-up of that court. So what opinions of late that have come from our high court do you most object to?

O’DONNELL: Oh, gosh. Give me a specific one, I’m sorry.

KARIBJANIAN: Actually, I can’t, because I need you to tell me which ones you object to.

O’DONNELL: I’m very sorry. Right off the top of my head, I know that there are a lot, but I’ll put it up on my Web site, I promise you.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Bricker

@Starving_Artist

I didn’t see the debate, but the post I responded to implied…or at least seemed to to me to imply…that she was asked to cite the formal name of the case (along the lines of “Roe v. Wade” for example) rather than just referring to it based upon what it concerned.

Not as I see it:

KARIBJANIAN: Well, we’ve talked about the Supreme Court, and obviously a United States senator has the opportunity to determine in a way the make-up of that court. So what opinions of late that have come from our high court do you most object to?

O’DONNELL: Oh, gosh. Give me a specific one, I’m sorry.

KARIBJANIAN: Actually, I can’t, because I need you to tell me which ones you object to.

O’DONNELL: I’m very sorry. Right off the top of my head, I know that there are a lot, but I’ll put it up on my Web site, I promise you.

So in fact her press release refudiated even the brief non-answer she managed live. Her press release says their bad decision are few and far between.

[pravnik]

@Starving_Artist

I can think of lots of Supreme Court decisions I’ve disagreed with over the years but I couldn’t name most of them to save my life and I’d bet there isn’t a poster on this board who couldn’t say the same.

I wouldn’t make that bet. Keeping track of Supreme Court decisions is in some of our job descriptions here.

[Chefguy]

@Bricker

Here is O’Donnell’s post-debate press release:

Wilmington, Del. – Unfortunately, some pundits are already criticizing Christine O’Donnell, the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat in Delaware, for her answer to a Supreme Court question during Wednesday night’s debate. In response, O’Donnell released the following statement:

“Frankly, it makes sense that it wasn’t easy to recall some egregious Supreme Court cases when asked about ‘recent’ cases with which I disagreed. Such cases are few and far between with an outstanding bench of four solid constructionist Justices and a swing vote that often votes with them. There have been only a few cases during the Roberts and Rehnquist courts in which the liberal activist position has prevailed.

“One such case was Kelo v. City of New London in 2005 in which the court incoherently ruled that local governments could misuse the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause to throw private citizens out of their own homes and give the land to private developers to increase tax revenue.

“Such Constitution-shredding rulings should occur rarely, if ever. It is why it’s so important that Delaware’s next Senator commit to voting for federal judges and Supreme Court Justices who know how to read the plain English in the Constitution, apply that plain English to complex modern cases and don’t invent ‘emanations and penumbras’ that the Founders never intended. Unlike my opponent, who just tonight referenced his view that we have different Constitutions based upon what year it is, I believe that the original version serves just fine.

“Tonight Chris Coons said that ‘this campaign is a job interview.’ By the end of the debate it was clear that Mr. Coons does not deserve a promotion. His tax-and-spend record and the doubling of the unemployment rate during his tenure as New Castle County Executive were just two of the items on his political resume that Delaware voters will reject.

“I was grateful for the opportunity to speak directly to Delawareans and to lay out a common sense way forward.”

My translation: “I was too flustered, and/or stupid, to think of saying this during the debate, so I’ll say it now and try to pretend that I should get the credit for having said it during the debate.”

If this was a job interview, this is like calling the interviewer the next day and saying, “I didn’t know the answers yesterday, but today I do.” Thanks, but a major point of the interview is to see how you respond right then, not after study and consultation with your staff.

Let’s see if her belief that “the original version serves just fine” still holds true when they take away her right to vote. What a dipshit.

[Starving_Artist]

Okay, that’s different. Thanks.

Now having said that, it’s probably time for me to state once again that I’m not necessarily either a Tea Party or an O’Donnell supporter, but I have been trying to call shenanigans when dishonest or unfair things have been said about them.

But I think Rhythmdvl hits the nail on the head when he says:

I think the question and Starving Artist’s response highlight a dichotomy between left and right expectations. Psychobunny noted it in her last paragraph, but it’s possible to strip away some of the negativity to see that the both views are defensible. Not that both sides can’t still deride each other and think the other is off their rocker for not seeing things their way, and not that there isn’t plenty of room for blending the two viewpoints, but in general, you have two outlooks prioritized differently:

[ul]
Office holders who are steeped in and adept at policy analysis will make better, more informed decisions. Contextual awareness is a crucial factor to this.[/ul]
[ul]Office holders who have an intuitive sense of right and wrong—one that most agrees with the voter’s sensibilities—will make better decisions overall. Contextual awareness is only necessary on a decision-by-decision basis.[/ul]
That smart, well-informed people have made notoriously bad decisions in the past greatly undercuts the perceived necessity of being well-informed to make good decisions. In addition, there is the necessity that a candidate share your intuition about right and wrong—someone who is well informed but holds values that are antithetical to your own is not a good voting choice.

And IMO this is why the Tea Party and Tea Party candidates are doing so well. Their supporters couldn’t care less what they know about certain Supreme Court decisions or what magazines they read - they just want someone in office who thinks like they do and who will make decisions accordingly on a case by case basis.

And of course it would make no sense whatsoever for them to support or vote for opposition candidates who would work to accomplish even more of what they don’t want than would a Tea Party candidate, even in the event that that candidate isn’t really up to snuff intellectually or in terms of their overall base of knowledge. Or to put it another way, how many of the board’s liberals would vote for a Republican simply because he’s smarter, has superior foreign policy experience and a broader range of knowledge regarding the history of Supreme Court and Congressional actions? I’m guessing low single-digits, if even that.

[Starving_Artist]

@pravnik

@Starving_Artist

I can think of lots of Supreme Court decisions I’ve disagreed with over the years but I couldn’t name most of them to save my life and I’d bet there isn’t a poster on this board who couldn’t say the same.

I wouldn’t make that bet. Keeping track of Supreme Court decisions is in some of our job descriptions here.

Excepting those in the field, of course.

Thanks.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

We’re not talking about reasons to vote for someone. We’re talking about basic qualifications.

I don’t particularly care which candidate has a broader working knowledge of jurisprudence. I didn’t think Obama’s Constitutional Law scholarship was a reason to vote for him as President.

I do care if one doesn’t understand it at all.

Look at it this way: you know all those employment threads where HR people always say they toss away any resume in which spelling or grammar are poor? Voters ought to do that too.

[gonzomax]

O 'Donnell is not running for dog catcher or city council. She is a totally unqualified, person with no experience what so ever. Yet she runs for the senate. She skipped mayor of Wasilla.
She and Angle would be totally lost and an embarrassment to their states.
Reid is a powerful and connected politician. He has important status and real power. Angle would not have that. Give away the power your state has to elect a bad joke. How dumb can you get.