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

[Cheesesteak]

@Starving_Artist

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

[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]

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.

The unstated assumption here is that the “right thinking” person cannot or need not be knowledgeable. You know that’s not true, why not get a Senate candidate in there who shares your values and has actually read a SC ruling or two?

I don’t necessarily expect someone to vote for a candidate with an opposing viewpoint over policy knowledge, but if you’re on the fence, do you really vote for the person who doesn’t seem to know a damned thing about how the government works?

[Snickers]

I wasn’t going to weigh in, until I read some of her press release. And this is what I have a big problem with:

@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."

ISTM that she’s flat out admitting here that she has no time or inclination to listen to opposing viewpoints. She’s flat out saying that the “liberal activist position” is one she can’t agree with, no matter how nuanced or well-reasoned. This betrays the utter lack of intellectual curiosity or honesty in the bobbleheads the tea partiers prefer. It’s unconscionable.

I’ll admit it: Starving Artist has a point. I’m a liberal, and I have little time for the Republican position. Would I vote for a Republican who demonstrates a solid knowledge of national issues, reasoned viewpoints, and tons of foreign policy experience? I honestly can’t answer that question. I’d like to say that I would, but I really don’t know.

I’ll say this, though: there are people on this board whose viewpoints I don’t agree with. However, I respect them for being here, and I can’t tell you how much I’ve learned from their discourse. I may disagree, even violently, with Starving Artist, but I also appreciate his posts because they make me think, and reconsider, and research. Likewise, I don’t agree with every liberal out there simply because they’re liberal - some of those ideas are plain nutty.

To discount the lot of what the other viewpoint says, en total, (like O’Donnell’s done here) speaks much about you. And none of it good.

[Dumbguy]

@Rhythmdvl

[ol][li]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. [/li][li]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.[/ol][/li]
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.

No it doesn’t. Being smart and informed is necessary but not sufficient.

In any other field people demand competence and expertise. You expect your doctor, lawyer, accountant, and auto mechanic to be an encyclopedia of relevant knowledge. Even some minimum wage guy working at the neighborhood nursery would be expected to know what concentration of nitrogen phosphorus, and potassium is good for a dieffenbachia. But we’ll elect the leaders of the free world based on a smile and a ‘good gut’. Would you choose a dentist for your family because she’s cute and has a strong personal relationship with Jesus, or would you rather have someone who knows a lot about teeth?

[gonzomax]

@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.

Good grief, now the New Castle County Executive is responsible for the unemployment problem? But Bush was not. The republican party was not. It was always the County exec. Now I know.

[Starving_Artist]

@Snickers

I’ll admit it: Starving Artist has a point. I’m a liberal, and I have little time for the Republican position. Would I vote for a Republican who demonstrates a solid knowledge of national issues, reasoned viewpoints, and tons of foreign policy experience? I honestly can’t answer that question. I’d like to say that I would, but I really don’t know.

I’ll say this, though: there are people on this board whose viewpoints I don’t agree with. However, I respect them for being here, and I can’t tell you how much I’ve learned from their discourse. I may disagree, even violently, with Starving Artist, but I also appreciate his posts because they make me think, and reconsider, and research.

A person can’t ask for more than that. Thanks.

[Bricker]

@Chefguy

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.

No, this is an example of hanging her for something that she didn’t say. By referring to “emanations and penumbras,” she is pretty obviously objecting to a style of Constitutional interpretation, not to the fact that the Constitution may be amended. After all, its mode of amendment is itself clearly laid out in the text. The Ninteenth Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, was added to the Constitution correctly, and I am certain Ms. O’Donnell has no problem with its legitimacy.

Again: she’s said much that’s truly idiotic. That gives us the license to mock her for it, but not to invent or mischaracterize her words into new idiocies.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

@Chefguy

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.

No, this is an example of hanging her for something that she didn’t say. By referring to “emanations and penumbras,” she is pretty obviously objecting to a style of Constitutional interpretation, not to the fact that the Constitution may be amended.

Do you think she objects to this style of interpretation when it comes to “ceremonial deism” or corporate “personhood?”

[Robot_Arm]

@Bricker

No, this is an example of hanging her for something that she didn’t say. By referring to “emanations and penumbras,” she is pretty obviously objecting to a style of Constitutional interpretation, not to the fact that the Constitution may be amended.

You think Christine O’Donnell came up with the phrase “emanations and penumbras” on her own?

[psychobunny]

I want to hear her define “emanations and penumbras”. It sounds like a witch’s spell to me.

[guizot]

@Jack_Batty

I think the important thing to point out to Ms O’Donnell is that of course she’s not a witch? You know why? Because witches aren’t fucking real! Nobody thinks she’s got a big cauldron full of eye of newt and bat’s breath in her cellar, ferchrissakes. The fact that she thinks she needs to clear this up proves to me what a total door-knob she is in the first place.

Who are you to say she’s not a witch? I think it would be cool to have a witch in Congress, even of the common door-knob variety.

She’s got my vote.

[Robot_Arm]

@psychobunny

I want to hear her define “emanations and penumbras”.

If there’s another debate, I’d like to see that be the first question. “Miss O’Donnell, what does ‘emanations and penumbras’ mean?”

Some people would still say the media is picking on her.

[elucidator]

I thought a “penumbra” was one of those lady parts.

[descamisado]

So, I guess emanations is what comes out every month?

[Starving_Artist]

@Cheesesteak

The unstated assumption here is that the “right thinking” person cannot or need not be knowledgeable.

I think the assumption is largely that they need not be knowledgeable.

@Cheesesteak

You know that’s not true, why not get a Senate candidate in there who shares your values and has actually read a SC ruling or two?

Because by the time a candidate or would-be candidate has acheived enough policy and background knowledge to pass as a ‘qualified’ candidate, he or she has more often than not become a polished part of the established machine of politics - gaming the system, schmoozing their colleagues, conning the voters and doing all the other things that politicians tradionally do in order to get themselves elected or reelected in the first place.

Tea Partiers and many other people on the right no longer want candidates in office simply because they are Republicans. They want people in office who will take a strong stand against the direction the country has been headed, who will fight tooth and nail not only to keep spending and taxes from growing but actually seek to reduce them, to reduce the size and scope of government, and to try to move the country socially back toward the more traditional moral values and standards (and no, I’m not talking about racism) that existed during the period of time when they feel the country was at its best.

@Cheesesteak

I don’t necessarily expect someone to vote for a candidate with an opposing viewpoint over policy knowledge, but if you’re on the fence, do you really vote for the person who doesn’t seem to know a damned thing about how the government works?

If you’re on the fence, probably not. But I don’t think Tea Partiers are trying to attract fence-sitters in the first place. That’s where the kind of compromise takes place that eventually turns Republicans into the big spenders and social moderates that we have today and which the Tea Party regards itself as the alternative to.

@psychobunny

I want to hear her define “emanations and penumbras”.

O’Donnell is certainly lacking in polish, and even compared with Palin is lacking in accomplishment. The last I heard she was some nineteen points behind Coons and I doubt very seriously that she will win the election.

And this of course raises the question of why so much media attention is being paid to her in the first place? Could it be perhaps that the the media is hoping to defame the Tea Party in its entirety by keeping the focus on its weakest and least adept candidate? Hmmm? Inquiring minds want to know.

[ShadowFacts]

@Starving_Artist

And this of course raises the question of why so much media attention is being paid to her in the first place? Could it be perhaps that the the media is hoping to defame the Tea Party in its entirety by keeping the focus on its weakest and least adept candidate? Hmmm? Inquiring minds want to know.

Could it be because she is a candidate for the US Senate, and her votes on upcoming legislation can and will have national implications for years to come if she is elected?

[Boyo_Jim]

@Starving_Artist

A person can’t ask for more than that. Thanks.

Wong again. Please give me a new car.

[elucidator]

Its been five minutes already, and nobody has seized upon that typo to make a stupid joke. Proud of you guys.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Yeah, why doesn’t the media pay attention to stories that matter like Barack Obama’s hamburger toppings and the fact that a bunch of people who worship a different God than us want to put up community centers and houses of worship right smack dab in America.

[Starving_Artist]

@ShadowFacts

@Starving_Artist

And this of course raises the question of why so much media attention is being paid to her in the first place? Could it be perhaps that the the media is hoping to defame the Tea Party in its entirety by keeping the focus on its weakest and least adept candidate? Hmmm? Inquiring minds want to know.

Could it be because she is a candidate for the US Senate, and her votes on upcoming legislation can and will have national implications for years to come if she is elected?

Nah, like I said, she’s not really a viable candidate. It’s simply more of the MSM’s concerted attempt to create the impression of Tea Partiers as dumbasses, despite the fact that Tea Partiers on average are both better educated and more successful than the general public. Caroline Kennedy, for example, was not subjected to anywhere near this level of scrutiny or ridicule despite the fact that she was no more prepared for the role of senator than O’Donnell is. Sure, she was ridiculed around the internet and on Youtube for her ridiculously inept interview with those two NYT reporters, but that was about it. The MSM was very gentle with her, even when pointing out her lack of ideas and qualifications. And, as much as I’m surprised to find myself being able to truthfully say this, O’Donnell, as bad as she may be, has shown herself to be considerably more eloquent than Caroline Kennedy ever did during her aborted run for senator from New York. Who’da thunk that, huh?

[villa]

Did Caroline Kennedy ever tell me I couldn’t beat off?