Coons and O'Donnell Spar Over the First Amendment

Much is being made on the left this afternoon about what they perceive to be Christine O'Donnell's ignorance of the First Amendment of the Constitution, however, if those folks would actually watch the segment in question and apply just a few reasoning skills, it is quite clear that O'Donnell has a full grasp of the First Amenedment where Coons is the one who misrepresents it.

The conflict centers over the phrase "separation of church and state."  Coons insists that phrase is in the First Amendment.  It is not.

Amendment 1 says:

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 peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see the phrase "separation of church and state" in there either.

O'Donnell clarified her question for Coons, who continued to insist the phrase is there (emphasis mine):

She interrupted to say, "The 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?"

Yet the headline in the Washington Post is "O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church and State."  That's rather misleading, no?

When pressed to name the five freedoms in that Amendment, Coons could not.

O'Donnell was not without error; she had to be reminded what the Fourteenth and Sixteenth Amendments were.  But she had a full grasp of the First Amendment; when you watch the video clip, she presses Coons on the "separation" phrase, has him repeat it several times, and cocks her head in amusement, knowing she's caught him in a misrepresentation.  Yet all the left wingers hear is "You're telling me that separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"

As Michelle Malkin points out, that phrase is nowhere in the Constitution but comes from Jefferson's Danbury Baptist letter of 1802.

Criticize O'Donnell if you must, but let's recognize the limitations of Coons, too.   In truth, it's all semantics.  We all know what Coons meant, and we all know what O'Donnell meant.  It's the left wing media's ballyhooing about O'Donnell's "ignorance" that is ridiculous.

But what else is new.

(More at Memeorandum)

Maureen Dowd's Irrational Rationality

Is Maureen Dowd attacking Christine O'Donnell in her latest column or Barack Obama?  It's hard to tell.  Both?  Probably.  She begins with one thesis and ends with another and I completely miss the rationale that ties them together.  Did she write two columns and a poltergeist in her computer blended them?  I don't know.  She tries to tie it together but it just doesn't work.

She begins clearly enough mocking Christine O'Donnell and her "Palin Mini-Me" look, (because that's what matters so much about politicians, right?  Their looks?) then picks up the witchcraft and Tolkein threads that have moved through the blogs this week. 

This is the line where Dowd attempts to ties her two threads together...

She’s also smart to think of politics in terms of passion and myth — two elements Barack Obama was able to summon during his campaign that are sorely missing from his presidency.

 ...because now she's mentioned Barack Obama and now she can spend the rest of her column about him without another word on O'Donnell (which isn't necessarily a bad thing.)

The last third of  Dowd's column deals with Obama's lack of passion and empathy.  She spends two thirds of her column mocking O'Donnell's passion yet then bemoans Obama's lack of it.  Which way do you want to go, Maureen?

This is actually the closing line which Dowd seems to believe ties it together:

The insane have achieved political respectability while the sane act too good for it all. The irrational celebrate while the rational act bored and above-it-all.

Is she calling O'Donnell "insane" or just people with passion?

If this is best high dollar talent the New York Times can offer, there's hope for us all when it comes to making the big bucks.

(H/T:  Memeorandum)

O'Donnell Will Have to Represent Delaware, Not the Tea Party

The party fallout over Christine O'Donnell's victory in Delaware continues to dominate the blogs and Memeorandum.  Charles Krauthammer, for example, in his column today reaffirms his statements from earlier in the week that her election is a win for the Democrats and the the Palin and DeMint endorsements were reckless and irresponsible

Can O'Donnell win in the general election?  This article in the CSMonitor suggests that she has become a more mature candidate over time, which seems to indicate that should she run a smart campaign, she could indeed win. Linda Feldman, author of the piece quotes political scientist Joseph Pika who says:

“Democrats could be overconfident,” he continues. “Democrats could be overaggressive – she could quickly become a more sympathetic candidate if everyone seems to pile on. If Democrats seem to practice politics as usual – be seen as committing character assassination, for example – they could confirm the basic appeal she has of challenging the establishment and ‘politics as usual.’ ”

What is important to remember, Tea Party or not, is that the Senator from Delaware must represent the interests of Delaware, not the Tea Party.  If the Tea Party got Christine O'Donnell to the general election, she will still need to convince Delaware voters that she will represent their interests.  She may have to, at times, cast an unpopular vote if it's in the best interest of her state as Scott Brown has had to do for his state.  However, Delaware voters cast their ballots for her so there is apparently some longing for a more conservative track.

Maybe is it just all an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment backlash.  Either way, O'Donnell can still carry the day in November.

Peggy Noonan today explains that Tea Party candidates are being elected partially because voters want them to go to Washington and temper the out of control spending.  Noonan constructs an elaborate yardstick and clock analogy, but she makes a valid point when she says:

"So there's a sense that dramatic action is needed, and a sense of profound urgency. Add drama to urgency and you get the victory of a Tea Party-backed candidate".

The left is already throwing everything they can at Christine O'Donnell, who incidentally has hit the money bomb since Tuesday.  TPMDC, in particular, is dredging up every word and utterance O'Donnell has made in the past twenty years, and O'Donnell is, so far, handling this gracefully.   In a candidate forum yesterday she said

“I was in my twenties and very excited and passionate about my newfound faith. But I can assure you, my faith has matured and when I go to Washington, D.C. it’ll be the Constitution on which I base all of my decisions, not my personal beliefs,” she explained Thursday to cheers.
 

She is definitely a candidate that can win; she's proven that now.  It the end it is important to remember that the Republicans dug the hole they're in themselves and did it a long time ago.  To place the peril of a potential Senate majority in the lap of Christine O'Donnell just isn't fair.  And at this point, I'm not sure if the Republican establishment just may be doing her a favor by railing against her.  While one would hope that the Republican party could unite and come together for the good of the party, it appears that the time for some pruning may be in order.

Christine seems to be doing just fine without them.

(AP Photo)

The Fallout Begins

Primary night got even wilder after the Delaware race was called, it seems.  I shut everything down and tried to go to bed (not very successfully, I might add - UP every hour for one thing or another...) but I did see Karl Rove trashing O'Donnell on Hannity.  It was, of course, a sign of things to come. 

Never mind the "let's unite" philosophy that normally takes place after an election like this.  Never mind pulling together for November.  Now we have Rove acting like a sore loser trashing the winner.  We have Rachel Madow who, in the absence of a Christine O'Donnell Sex Tape, is pulling out a Christine O'Donnell TALKING about sex tape.  Michelle Malkin reports that the NRSC is refusing to back O'Donnell in the general election, a move Professor Reynolds calls "dumb" more than once.

And it hasn't even been 24 hours since the victory in Delaware.

Oh, and Charlie Rangel held off his challengers in New York.  Go figure.

The good news?  Rubio is trouncing Crist in Florida. 

Primary Night UPDATED

I'm watching Delaware - live results here.

Right now?  O'Donnell is up 952 to 733.  It's early.

The Other McCain is live on scene.

Update:  Moving right along...O'Donnell 3963 to Castle 3236.  That's with 14% reporting.

Update 7:36:  The site is SLOW loading now!  We've got O'Donnell 8104 and RINO Castle 6660 and that's with 26% reporting.

 Update 7:38:  Including absentee votes, the totals are now O'Donnell 9,280 and RINO  7855.  That's with 31% reporting.

Update 7:44:  With 47% reporting it's O'Donnell at 15,145 and RINO at 12,186.  Stacy is reporting cheers of "Go Christine Go!"  at headquarters.

Update 7:51:  With 65% reporting we now have O'Donnell at 21,422 and RINO at 17,993.

Update 7:58:  And now we have 75% reporting and O'Donnell has 24,686 and Castle has 21,349.

Update:  8:00 p.m.and Stacy calls the race:  O'Donnell with 54% and Castle with 46%.

Last Thoughts:  And now the pontificating can REALLY begin as to whether or not O'Donnell can win the general election or not.  Has Delaware now turned over the potential Senate majority all because of the Tea Party?!   Mary Katharine Ham "retweets" that DE has gone from "Strong Rep: to Strong Dem".   On the other hand, Michelle Malkin notes that

Nine-term, cap&tax, bailout buddy Soros Republican Mike Castle has been denied a Senate seat. Thank you, @ChristineOD.

So can O'Donnell win a Senate seat?  The way I see it, maybe Delaware Republicans did sacrifice "the Senate majority" for the sake of ideology, but honestly, putting Castle back up there is no different than having a Democrat in the seat regardless of the designation after his name.  If Delaware voters wanted to send a message, I believe they just did.

Latest tally:  With 322 of 325 precincts reporting, O'Donnell has 30,429 and Castle holds 26,912.


Now let's see if New York puts Rangel back in there.
 

Repbulicans v. Conservatives in Delaware

Here's the video, via Matt Lewis, of  Krauthammer's negative outlook I posted yesterday of Christine O'Donnell's chances in Delaware today:



Stacy McCain scoffs and thumbs his nose at Dr. Krauthammer...meanwhile, John McCormack, who has been pulling against O'Donnell from the beginning, notes that the Democrat in that race polls 26 points better than O"Donnell.

This race has pitted Republicans against conservatives in a way I've never seen before. 

Follow the thread at Memeorandum today.

Down to the Wire in Delaware

The Delaware Senate race is getting all kinds of buzz today because of the latest PPP poll putting Christine O'Donnell ahead of Mike Castle.  This race has garnered the attention of nearly every pundit from one end of the country to the other, including Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh. 

In this particular race the lines are sharply drawn and people feel strongly about their position.  Mark Levin is convinced that O'Donnell is the right candidate while Charles Krauthammer just told Brett Baier that a vote of O'Donnell is simply self-indulgent as she cannot win.  Krauthammer believes that Republican control of the Senate could rest on this one race.  He's not alone in that position, either; Ed Morrissey at Hot Air writes:

If control of the Senate comes down to this race, and it very well might, would it be better to have a Republican squish holding the seat and give the GOP control of the Senate floor and all the committees, or to hand it to either Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer for the next two-year period in which we’ll see at least one Supreme Court retirement and Obama still attempting to push through his radical agenda? 

Rush Limbaugh takes the opposite stance.  On his program today he drew parallels between O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, and Sharron Angle, suggesting that they threaten the ruling class because these women are "not like them."  Limbaugh points out that O'Donnell, for example, isn't being attacked because of her stance on any issues.  She's been attacked for numerous personal grievances, as Palin was, but not on the issues.   Nobody is digging into Mike Castle's personal life; just O'Donnell's. 

By the way, Rush also quoted from Professor Jacobson's blog today, too.  Big Time!  He referenced this post (which wins the Great Title Award of the Day) by the good Professor in which he said,

The "nuts and sluts" defense is a common employment law tactic whenever a female employee brings a claim.  It doesn't matter what the claim is, the defense -- after the usual legal mumbo jumbo -- will be something like this:

"She's nuts.  And by the way, pssst, she may be a slut."

That is the mode of attack Democrats use against conservative women.  Sarah Palin is the prime example, as she routinely is called crazy and is sexualized by the left (to the silence of liberal feminist groups).

The nuts part of the attack is being used against Christine O'Donnell in Delaware by the local Republican establishment, and also by two leading conservative magazines, The Weekly Standard and National Review. 

Rush said, "A Senate full of Mike Castles isn't going to get us anywhere...if that's our majority with a bunch of Mike Castles in there, we're in trouble."

So where do you go with that?  If you're a Delaware Republican, do you vote for the RINO just because he's supposedly electable?  Charles Krauthammer insisted Castle will win the general election:  "They'll call off the fight in the first round," he said.  O'Donnell, he said, doesn't stand a chance.

Does it really come down to how badly one wants the majority?  Can O'Donnell win the general election should she win the primary?  She's collected a number of big endorsements, including the NRA, Sarah Palin, Tea Party Express, and Senator James DeMint, yet FreedomWorks won't sign on.
Daniel Foster at The Corner suggests that O'Donnelll could actually win if she ran a smart campaign in the general election.

Michelle Malkin lays out the case for O'Donnell here.

It's a huge gamble, isn't it!  So much at stake.

Either way, the debate will be moot this time tomorrow.  We'll know how Delaware feels about it all soon enough.

Christine O'Donnell Blows Open the Blogosphere

The Delaware Senate race has blown open a hole in the blogosphere this morning with bloggers like Ace, Stacy, and Dan Riehl drawing lines in the sand and taking sides.

Start with Ace who has a detailed post on why he can't support Christine O'Donnell for Senate and is opting instead for RINO Mike Castle:

That is to say: We cannot win full control of the Senate without a Republican in this seat. This seat has long been one of the seats we were just assuming we would win. Because Castle has been comfortably out front for a long, long time.  This is not some longshot pick-up where it really makes little difference because we have no realistic chance anyway, so might as well swing for the fences. We have been counting this as an easy pick-up. When you read "Republicans will pick up at least 7 seats" this is number two or three on that list, after the gimme Arkansas pick-up.  And we're going to toss this away? For what?  She can't win. Period.

You need to read his whole argument. The upshot is that he'd rather have RINO Castle in that seat than a Democrat and to vote for O'Donnell in the primary is to hand the seat over to the Dems in November.

Stacy and Smitty aren't moved by Ace's argument and are still putting their money on O'Donnell as is Michelle Malkin who makes the case that Castle is a RINO who supports cap and tax; I don't think anyone disagrees with that assessment.  But, we're talking about Delaware.

At Hot Air, Allahpundit is in Ace's court, asking "What exactly would be accomplished by nominating her," seeing an easy defeat in November if she wins the primary.

I guess it depends on if you want to send a message to RINOs like Castle that true conservatives can't support your blue votes, or if your concern is all about taking back control of the Senate, even if you have to vote for a RINO who won't vote your way all the time.  I don't think anybody ever expected Scott Brown to vote like a true conservative 100% of the time, and he hasn't.

Dan Riehl can't support Ace on this one either:

As I've said in an email to a few, if someone has issues with O'Donnell, I don't think they should support her. But, helping Castle run her down is stupid, when one could just as easily have posted to help Angle, or Miller, or Rubio.

Even Mark Levin stands up for O'Donnell in an email to John McCormack of The Weekly Standard. In an interview with McCormack, O'Donnell admits to using campaign contributions to pay her rent on her townhouse.  Levin asks:

Um, John, is this really a thoughtful interview?  Where is she on the issues that I and millions of my listeners care about?  Did you not want to delve into them for some reason?  Also, who pays Castle's rent?  Well, let's see, he's been on the government payroll for how long?  I guess we, the taxpayers, pay his rent.  You can do better.  

McCormack's interview is here.

You can watch more of the online debate via Memeorandum.

In the end, I suppose Delaware voters will go for Castle; he's got a comfortable lead, and again, it IS Delaware.  That's not to say that O'Donnell's message is in anyway off base; she's got all the right conservative positions.  It comes down to the question of whether you vote for your principles or you vote for who you think can win, and that's a question the voters in Delaware will have to consider on September 14.

Christine O'Donnell Raises a Challenge

The Delaware Senate race just got a little more interesting with the addition of Republican Christine O'Donnell to the race. O'Donnell forces a September primary against Representative Mike Castle who is looking to move from the House to the Senate.

Could Delaware be another Massachusetts? O'Donnell another Scott Brown? Castle voted against the Obamacare bill but has recently come out against repeal of the bill which will put him at odds against Senator Jim DeMint who has repeal at the top of his agenda.

Castle's position against repeal fits right in with his moderate label; he also voted FOR Cap and Trade in the House and supports embryonic stem cell research. He's soft on immigration and voted against forbidding interstate transportation of minors to get abortions.

Christine O'Donnell, on the other hand, is a proven vote getter, having run against Joe Biden for the seat in 2008 and garnering 35% of the vote - not enough to win, but quite respectable in a state that is supposedly a blue state.

The political landscape is very different now than in 2008 and O'Donnell looks to be a strong candidate.

She's pro-life, vows to fight to reduce taxes, strengthen national security and support gun rights.

All in all it should make the race more interesting and in today's political climate, anything can happen! If Mike Castle isn't going to join the Republican fight to repeal this job-killing liberty-sucking behemoth that is Obamacare, we don't need him.

Go here to donate to O'Donnell's campaign and put a true conservative in the Senate.

(Cross posted at Not One Red Cent!)