logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Tea Party win Delaware nomination, A victory for Democrats?
Julian
post Sep 15 2010, 12:03 PM
Post #1


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,940
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



Christine O'Donnell wins Delaware Republican Senate nomination

QUOTE
O'Donnell was the leader of the Christian lobby group Saviour's Alliance for Lifting the Truth. In a television interview a decade ago, she said: "The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can't masturbate without lust."

She will now stand for the US Senate in November for the seat vacated by Joe Biden when he became vice-president two years ago.

Such is the anger among conservatives who think Obama is a socialist and the Republicans not rightwing enough that they were prepared to vote in O'Donnell, even though polls suggest she has little chance of beating the Democrats for the seat in November. The same polls suggested that Castle could win the traditionally Democratic state.


In the UK, for most of the last decade, the Conservative party (closest equivalent to the GOP) shifted rightwards, under pressure from their own right wing, after losing to the left-of-centre landslide in 1997 that put Tony Blair in power. This caused 13 years of electoral failure (small gains here and there, but generally poor performance on the national stage) until David Cameron took over a few years back, under whom they moved back towards the political centre and with whom they have now regained office (though only through coalition with the centrist Liberal Democrat party, moving the whole coalition somewhat further to the centre, at least in theory.)

Labour underwent a similar crisis of identity during the Thatcher years, when party loyalists moved the party further to the left, resulting in repeated failure to gain ground, which was only turned around when more moderate leadership made efforts to expel extremists (under Neil Kinnock) and move the party back toward the centre.

I wonder if something similar is not now happening to the Republicans. It seems to me that the battle for the soul of the party - between hard right grassroots activists, and more moderate leaders, which the hardliners seem to be winning at the moment - is not particularly attractive to a majority of voters. What point is there in winning an argument on the direction of the party if that direction is somewhere that voters don't want to go?

Is this win counter-prouctive for Delaware Republicans, Tea Party or not? Why, or why not? Edited to add: Or, is it a realignmnet of an out of touch elite with mainstream Republicanism?

Does a Tea Party Republican nominee, for House or Senate, stand a chance to win a seat in Congress? Who and where? Edited to add: If not, why not, and is that a problem for Republicanism or for the country?

Is the push to the right among Republicans, exemplified by the Tea Party, taking the rest of the country with it, or alienating middle of the road voters and leaving the political centre open for Democrat gains?


Edited to balance the debate questions a little better

This post has been edited by Julian: Sep 15 2010, 02:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 77)
Raptavio
post Sep 22 2010, 02:24 PM
Post #61


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(winepusher @ Sep 22 2010, 02:02 AM) *
http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2010...ist-for-senate/

Just out of curiousity, am I required to substantiate all my claims with internet sources?


No, but if challenged to prove your assertions, you should be prepared to do so -- and by primary sources, direct quotes, citations of legislation, news reports (and Glenn Beck's latest rant is not a news report), even Wikipedia articles work.

You can of course choose not to do so, but then you ought to expect to not be taken seriously if you have a habit of making claims you can't support. And frankly, we already have a right-winger who can never support his claims on the forum, so that position's taken. whistling.gif

Likewise, you have the right to, when you see a claim made that you doubt is true, ask for that claim to be supported with evidence, and you are well within your rights to reject that claim if the evidence is not forthcoming.

Regardless, the case has been made fairly solidly that your claim that Coons is a self-described Marxist is a false one, and even if it were not obviously tongue-in-cheek what he wrote in 1985, as compares to O'Donnell's foray into witchcraft, you seem to be inconsistent with whether you hold someone's youthful dabblings against them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Sep 22 2010, 02:32 PM
Post #62


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 22 2010, 10:24 AM) *
QUOTE(winepusher @ Sep 22 2010, 02:02 AM) *
http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2010...ist-for-senate/

Just out of curiousity, am I required to substantiate all my claims with internet sources?


No, but if challenged to prove your assertions, you should be prepared to do so -- and by primary sources, direct quotes, citations of legislation, news reports (and Glenn Beck's latest rant is not a news report), even Wikipedia articles work.

You can of course choose not to do so, but then you ought to expect to not be taken seriously if you have a habit of making claims you can't support. And frankly, we already have a right-winger who can never support his claims on the forum, so that position's taken. whistling.gif

Likewise, you have the right to, when you see a claim made that you doubt is true, ask for that claim to be supported with evidence, and you are well within your rights to reject that claim if the evidence is not forthcoming.

Regardless, the case has been made fairly solidly that your claim that Coons is a self-described Marxist is a false one, and even if it were not obviously tongue-in-cheek what he wrote in 1985, as compares to O'Donnell's foray into witchcraft, you seem to be inconsistent with whether you hold someone's youthful dabblings against them.

Anytime you want to start support your left wing crap please feel free to do so Rap and spare us the silly insults. whistling.gif

Start by proving that republican policies “drove the economy into a ditch”…..http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20161&pid=309426&st=80&#entry309426
Post #88

This post has been edited by Ted: Sep 22 2010, 02:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Sep 22 2010, 06:12 PM
Post #63


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,355
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 22 2010, 10:24 AM) *
Regardless, the case has been made fairly solidly that your claim that Coons is a self-described Marxist is a false one, and even if it were not obviously tongue-in-cheek what he wrote in 1985, as compares to O'Donnell's foray into witchcraft, you seem to be inconsistent with whether you hold someone's youthful dabblings against them.


The youthful dabbling was an action, while the article that Coons wrote was not. The difference is that the action was not recorded and thereby cannot be referenced as a YouTube video. All we have is O'Donnell's word that she hung around with kids who were into what was probably goth, and as a clueless teen, she thought they were witches. Eh, okay. Most people have no idea what Wiccas are about.

Wicca Church and School

Nice, if it floats your boat. No blood and no Satanic worship. They do practice magic, which among most Christians is forbidden, although the rituals of Christianity also have elements of magic to them. But that's neither here nor there.

On the other hand, Coons' article is available for all to read and decide what was serious and what was humor. Apparently certain types of people can't tell the difference or never made it past the headline. I saw some clips of the Fox baying hounds calling for more investigations into Coons' Marxist leanings, which for even a casual read of the article would be a foolish thing to call for.

There's the bottom line on this sort of thing. Repeating the foolish call for investigation leaves the impression that the person doing the repeating is also foolish.

In any case, if there are serious questions about Coons and Marxism, that can be started in another thread. This one is about O'Donnell and her value to the Republican Party. She can also be looked at as an asset to the Democratic Party. Either way, it's all about her.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Sep 22 2010, 06:16 PM
Post #64


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Sep 22 2010, 01:12 PM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 22 2010, 10:24 AM) *
Regardless, the case has been made fairly solidly that your claim that Coons is a self-described Marxist is a false one, and even if it were not obviously tongue-in-cheek what he wrote in 1985, as compares to O'Donnell's foray into witchcraft, you seem to be inconsistent with whether you hold someone's youthful dabblings against them.


The youthful dabbling was an action, while the article that Coons wrote was not. The difference is that the action was not recorded and thereby cannot be referenced as a YouTube video. All we have is O'Donnell's word that she hung around with kids who were into what was probably goth, and as a clueless teen, she thought they were witches. Eh, okay. Most people have no idea what Wiccas are about.

Wicca Church and School

Nice, if it floats your boat. No blood and no Satanic worship. They do practice magic, which among most Christians is forbidden, although the rituals of Christianity also have elements of magic to them. But that's neither here nor there.

On the other hand, Coons' article is available for all to read and decide what was serious and what was humor. Apparently certain types of people can't tell the difference or never made it past the headline. I saw some clips of the Fox baying hounds calling for more investigations into Coons' Marxist leanings, which for even a casual read of the article would be a foolish thing to call for.

There's the bottom line on this sort of thing. Repeating the foolish call for investigation leaves the impression that the person doing the repeating is also foolish.

In any case, if there are serious questions about Coons and Marxism, that can be started in another thread. This one is about O'Donnell and her value to the Republican Party. She can also be looked at as an asset to the Democratic Party. Either way, it's all about her.


Indeed, but I think that O'Donnell's value or lack thereof is in the context of her race for Delaware's Senate seat with Coons, and therefore Coons, as relates to the same race, is valid to discuss.

I agree that anyone giving even a cursory reading to the article would easily conclude that Coons was being tongue-in-cheek and that therefore this is a tempest in a teacup -- that said, I think the controversy, ginned up though it is, plays to O'Donnell's base.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WinePusher
post Sep 23 2010, 01:04 AM
Post #65


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 183
Member No.: 11,253
Joined: July-19-10

From: California
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Raptavio

QUOTE
No, but if challenged to prove your assertions, you should be prepared to do so -- and by primary sources, direct quotes, citations of legislation, news reports (and Glenn Beck's latest rant is not a news report), even Wikipedia articles work.


Well, my concern is why prove something that is generally obvious, not that I'm saying Coon's supposed marxism is obvious.

QUOTE
You can of course choose not to do so, but then you ought to expect to not be taken seriously if you have a habit of making claims you can't support. And frankly, we already have a right-winger who can never support his claims on the forum, so that position's taken. whistling.gif


Who is this right winger? But I would suggest that feigning ignorance and constantly asking for documentation isn't productive debate, if something you know is an outright lie then I think it would be fair to ask for documentation to ensure that the other debater isn't lying. But if its a generally obvious claim, asking for sources isn't really neccesary.

QUOTE
Likewise, you have the right to, when you see a claim made that you doubt is true, ask for that claim to be supported with evidence, and you are well within your rights to reject that claim if the evidence is not forthcoming.


Ok then.

QUOTE
Regardless, the case has been made fairly solidly that your claim that Coons is a self-described Marxist is a false one, and even if it were not obviously tongue-in-cheek what he wrote in 1985, as compares to O'Donnell's foray into witchcraft, you seem to be inconsistent with whether you hold someone's youthful dabblings against them.


Well, forgive me if I engage in unwarrented hyperbole and painting pictures with a large brush. Chris Coons certainly alligns himself with marxist ideology, I may have overstated my case when I said he was a "self proclaimed" marxist, but his he certainly agrees with this political stance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Sep 23 2010, 01:38 AM
Post #66


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(winepusher @ Sep 22 2010, 08:04 PM) *
Raptavio

QUOTE
No, but if challenged to prove your assertions, you should be prepared to do so -- and by primary sources, direct quotes, citations of legislation, news reports (and Glenn Beck's latest rant is not a news report), even Wikipedia articles work.


Well, my concern is why prove something that is generally obvious, not that I'm saying Coon's supposed marxism is obvious.


I understand that. I've seen that tactic employed. I would suggest that you use your judgment in such a circumstance. If you think someone's just trying to divert you by challenging you on obvious or useless points, then don't jump through his hoops.

QUOTE
Who is this right winger?

Stick around, it will become obvious.

QUOTE
But I would suggest that feigning ignorance and constantly asking for documentation isn't productive debate, if something you know is an outright lie then I think it would be fair to ask for documentation to ensure that the other debater isn't lying. But if its a generally obvious claim, asking for sources isn't really neccesary.


Agreed.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Regardless, the case has been made fairly solidly that your claim that Coons is a self-described Marxist is a false one, and even if it were not obviously tongue-in-cheek what he wrote in 1985, as compares to O'Donnell's foray into witchcraft, you seem to be inconsistent with whether you hold someone's youthful dabblings against them.


Well, forgive me if I engage in unwarrented hyperbole and painting pictures with a large brush. Chris Coons certainly alligns himself with marxist ideology, I may have overstated my case when I said he was a "self proclaimed" marxist, but his he certainly agrees with this political stance.


Oy. Unless you fail to differentiate between Democratic politics and Marxism (in which case you need more of an education than I have the patience to try to give you), I don't know why you make this claim. Has Coons rejected private industry in favor of state ownership of the means of production? When? I know very little about Coons but all I've seen so far is that he's a fairly mainstream Democrat.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WinePusher
post Sep 24 2010, 02:48 AM
Post #67


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 183
Member No.: 11,253
Joined: July-19-10

From: California
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 22 2010, 05:38 PM) *
Oy. Unless you fail to differentiate between Democratic politics and Marxism (in which case you need more of an education than I have the patience to try to give you), I don't know why you make this claim. Has Coons rejected private industry in favor of state ownership of the means of production? When? I know very little about Coons but all I've seen so far is that he's a fairly mainstream Democrat.


Well, here's a much more objective source outlining my case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Coons#Controversy

While I am capable of differentiating between democratic politics and marxism, there is a branch of that party that embracing marxist/socialist policies and candidates that undermine our capitalist system. If we're judging Christine O' Donnell by her past history, we should also be able to do the same with Chris Coons who has had a history that seems sympathetic with marxism.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Sep 24 2010, 03:28 AM
Post #68


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(winepusher @ Sep 23 2010, 09:48 PM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 22 2010, 05:38 PM) *
Oy. Unless you fail to differentiate between Democratic politics and Marxism (in which case you need more of an education than I have the patience to try to give you), I don't know why you make this claim. Has Coons rejected private industry in favor of state ownership of the means of production? When? I know very little about Coons but all I've seen so far is that he's a fairly mainstream Democrat.


Well, here's a much more objective source outlining my case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Coons#Controversy

While I am capable of differentiating between democratic politics and marxism, there is a branch of that party that embracing marxist/socialist policies and candidates that undermine our capitalist system. If we're judging Christine O' Donnell by her past history, we should also be able to do the same with Chris Coons who has had a history that seems sympathetic with marxism.


No.... he cracked a joke about Marxism when he was actually describing his evolution from a conservative Republican to a progressive Democrat. This has been explained several times in this thread. Did you miss it, or ignore it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Sep 24 2010, 12:03 PM
Post #69


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,355
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(winepusher @ Sep 23 2010, 10:48 PM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 22 2010, 05:38 PM) *
Oy. Unless you fail to differentiate between Democratic politics and Marxism (in which case you need more of an education than I have the patience to try to give you), I don't know why you make this claim. Has Coons rejected private industry in favor of state ownership of the means of production? When? I know very little about Coons but all I've seen so far is that he's a fairly mainstream Democrat.


Well, here's a much more objective source outlining my case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Coons#Controversy

While I am capable of differentiating between democratic politics and marxism, there is a branch of that party that embracing marxist/socialist policies and candidates that undermine our capitalist system. If we're judging Christine O' Donnell by her past history, we should also be able to do the same with Chris Coons who has had a history that seems sympathetic with marxism.


What exactly in this Wikipedia entry leads you to believe that Coons is sympathetic to Marxism? I read the entry, and there's nothing I can identify as paralleling Marxism.

Did Karl Marx go to divinity school to study ethics? Nope. Did he ever go to Africa to work with the down-and-out? Not that I'm aware of. He did doubt that capitalism was the end-all-beat-all of economic system. Yep, so do a lot of other people after the economic meltdown of 2008. Those who have dealt with private health insurance companies have their doubts. Still, that does not equate to embracing the principles of Marxism.

Without any clear parallels, the seeming to be Marxist thing is just hyperbole. Coons in truth seems to be a healthy, thoughtful and concerned citizen of the United States of America who wants to make this country better. For that assertion, the Wikipedia article is chock full of supporting evidence.

But by all means, go ahead and explore whether your logic will hold up here. Let us know what leads you to think the way that you do. Your link begs a whole lot of questions.

Here's the Wikipedia entry for Karl Marx:

On Karl Marx

I provide this as a strong hint that one should know about Marx in order to understand Marxism.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DCjumper
post Sep 25 2010, 11:15 PM
Post #70


****
Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 68
Member No.: 2,144
Joined: January-7-04

From: United Kingdom
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Is this win counter-prouctive for Delaware Republicans, Tea Party or not? Why, or why not? Edited to add: Or, is it a realignmnet of an out of touch elite with mainstream Republicanism?

This is a strategic loss for the Republicans in an otherwise banner year. I feel Christine O'Donnell, not unlike Sarah Palin, will be bandied about as the summation of all the uncouth and at times unrefined stereotypes of conservatives in general and the Tea Party in particular, the media loves to loathe. She's clearly not the best candidate here, but Mike Castle has so alienated his own constituency, I tend to view his loss as the loss of confidence that he was really representing them any more. As for any real "realignment", I see none. This may be more a case of conservatives in Delaware really believing they have a chance. I for one do not think they do at least there.

Does a Tea Party Republican nominee, for House or Senate, stand a chance to win a seat in Congress? Who and where? Edited to add: If not, why not, and is that a problem for Republicanism or for the country?

There are plenty of Tea Party GOP candidates that are going to win, it just won't be everywhere. The Senate candidates, like Mark Rubio will win going away, b/c their talent and ability as a candidate speaks well beyond the tea party's overall list of core American principles they wish to reclaim. In short, the candidates who are able to articulate in policy what the tea party may espouse at a rally or in reading the likes of Hayek or Friedman, are going to win and win big. Many of their crop however were beaten by the party aparatus's "establishment" incumbents but do not be the least bit surprised if you find those very same incumbents espousing much of the same rhetoric down the road.

Is the push to the right among Republicans, exemplified by the Tea Party, taking the rest of the country with it, or alienating middle of the road voters and leaving the political center open for Democrat gains?


This depends a great deal on how the Tea Party is perceived to be "pushing things to the right". In some respects they sound more like firebrand libertarians than anything else. In poll after poll the Republicans have a sizable advantage among independents and last I checked even among their own numbers the Tea Party is not universally a GOP entity. This tells me it is among the self-proclaimed "Independents" who have been alienated in the past two years and many have found something to latch on to in the Tea Party. I have to confess though there is something comical about calling a competitive primary season a "Civil War". That to me smacks of wishful thinking by some in elite circles.

This whole electoral cycle will show to some extent the Republicans have returned to their roots and that their base is once more breathing fire and ready to reduce the size of government. However, I don't know if it will have legs. From the GOP's standpoint, they largely want the president to be dragged into the "center" (wherever that is) a la Bill Clinton circa 1995. I do not know whether that's going to happen, but regardless, if the worst thing I get from all of this is gridlock, then that's more than good enough for me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Belshazzar
post Oct 16 2010, 05:53 AM
Post #71


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 634
Member No.: 11,406
Joined: October-14-10

From: New Yawwwk
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Is this win counter-prouctive for Delaware Republicans, Tea Party or not? Why, or why not? Edited to add: Or, is it a realignmnet of an out of touch elite with mainstream Republicanism?

Yes. CoD is a mini-Palin and we all know how polarizing Palin has been. Delaware is a Democrats' state, so the GOP just lost itself the moderate vote in this race.

Does a Tea Party Republican nominee, for House or Senate, stand a chance to win a seat in Congress? Who and where? Edited to add: If not, why not, and is that a problem for Republicanism or for the country?

I think they stand a good chance to win, but only in the Republican strongholds and maybe in a few swing states. Joe Miller, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ken Buck and a few others seem to have a high possibility of winning.

Is the push to the right among Republicans, exemplified by the Tea Party, taking the rest of the country with it, or alienating middle of the road voters and leaving the political centre open for Democrat gains?

Probably depends on the region specifically. Overall, I think they may have sparked some debate about the role of government among moderates and taken some in, but have otherwise been too polarizing and alienating. In my case, they have a done a good job at the alienating part. I was on board back in the days of the Santelli rant, but then the movement was quickly hijacked by the astroturfers. I have heard this feeling expressed by many others who were aware of it early on as well. They have not only alienated the moderates, but many within their own movement. Even the libertarian-types like Rand Paul aren't really so libertarian.

New York's resident teabagger, Carl Paladino, even had me thinking about voting Democrat until I came to my senses and remembered that Paladino doesn't have a chance in hell to win. He's like that one guy in your group of friends who gets too drunk at the bar and acts so obnoxiously that you have to apologize to the rest of the patrons for his stupidity. Every time he opens his mouth, he drops in the polls. Ah, well, at least you're making this a, uh, colorful race, Paladino.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Oct 19 2010, 11:32 PM
Post #72


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(DCjumper @ Sep 25 2010, 07:15 PM) *
I feel Christine O'Donnell, not unlike Sarah Palin, will be bandied about as the summation of all the uncouth and at times unrefined stereotypes of conservatives in general and the Tea Party in particular, the media loves to loathe.


It's not a case of 'bandied about', it's a case of her [like Palin] opening her mouth. It's mighty sad when even the debate moderator struggles to maintain composure in the face of such obvious ignorance...as occurred with the most recent Delaware Senate debate. For a party or movement or whatever they claim to be, to be so boisterous in support of the Constitution, to be so ignorant of it, is laughable.

It takes more than catchy phrases, fear and playing dress up to be a patriot. It actually takes some *gasp* intellect.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julian
post Oct 20 2010, 10:20 AM
Post #73


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,940
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Oct 20 2010, 12:32 AM) *
QUOTE(DCjumper @ Sep 25 2010, 07:15 PM) *
I feel Christine O'Donnell, not unlike Sarah Palin, will be bandied about as the summation of all the uncouth and at times unrefined stereotypes of conservatives in general and the Tea Party in particular, the media loves to loathe.


It's not a case of 'bandied about', it's a case of her [like Palin] opening her mouth. It's mighty sad when even the debate moderator struggles to maintain composure in the face of such obvious ignorance...as occurred with the most recent Delaware Senate debate. For a party or movement or whatever they claim to be, to be so boisterous in support of the Constitution, to be so ignorant of it, is laughable.

It takes more than catchy phrases, fear and playing dress up to be a patriot. It actually takes some *gasp* intellect.


Well, quite.

This YouTube video of a debate between O'Connell and her Democrat opponent shows her questioning where the Constitution separates Church and State.

Rather than just admit they picked a dud candidate who's never read, or just never understood, the First Amendment, Republican and Tea Party partisans have tried to spin her wilful ignorance (not to mention her tin ear for when an audience is laughing at her rather than with her) as some kind of legalistic challenge of where the specifc phrase "separation of Church and State" appears in the Constitution. Watching the clip, her expressions and phrasing do not indicate, to me at least, that she's trying to catch her opponent out in his misreading of the constitution - it looks much more as though she just didn't realise the Constitution specifically binds Congress against making any law establishing religion one way or the other i.e. she doesn't have a Constitutional clue.

Now, I feel DCJumper is spot on in his assessment that O'Connell is, overall, unrepresentative of the bulk of Tea Party candidates who stand a chance of getting elected, and that - like Sarah Palin, she's very easy to characterise as a deeply ignorant loudmouth who would be catastrophically ill-suited to high office. It's also easy to characterise something that waddles on webbed feet while quacking loudly as a duck, after all.

But I'm not sure that it's the "liberal media's" fault that they keep hitting the softballs that the Tea Party/Republican Right keeps throwing to them out of the park. If the Tea Party/Republican right want to get a fair shake in the media, rather than complaining about the batter, maybe they should just get better at pitching? There are a lot of workmanlike performances going on, but just doing what's expected of you never makes headlines. Only abject failures, or perfect scorers, get to be the lead story, and so far, recent right-wing playmakers have been more in the mould of Babe the Pig than Babe Ruth.

Sorry, I'm new to baseball analogies - hope I'm being clear? - if not:
If the Tea Party want to be taken seriously, they shouldn't keep putting forward any comedy candidates.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jobius
post Nov 3 2010, 01:00 AM
Post #74


*******
Five Hundred Club

Sponsor
September 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 521
Member No.: 5,538
Joined: October-13-05

From: California
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Jobius @ Sep 16 2010, 01:21 PM) *
Does a Tea Party Republican nominee, for House or Senate, stand a chance to win a seat in Congress? Who and where?

Let's just consider the Senate races where the establishment-supported candidate lost to a tea party candidate:

Mike Lee, UT, beat incumbent Bob Bennet
Pat Toomey, PA, chased incumbent Arlen Specter out of the GOP primary
Marco Rubio, FL, did the same to governor Charlie Crist
Joe Miller, AK, beat incumbent Lisa Murkowski
Rand Paul, KY, beat secretary of state Trey Grayson
Christine O'Donnell, DE, beat at-large congressman Mike Castle

Of those, 5 out of 6 have a good chance to win a seat in the Senate. Delaware looks like the anomaly.

As expected, Christine O'Donnell has lost the Delaware Senate race to Chris Coons.

Rand Paul and Marco Rubio have won their races.

Still undecided: Toomey, Mike Lee, and Joe Miller.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Belshazzar
post Nov 3 2010, 01:22 AM
Post #75


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 634
Member No.: 11,406
Joined: October-14-10

From: New Yawwwk
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Julian @ Oct 20 2010, 06:20 AM) *
Rather than just admit they picked a dud candidate who's never read, or just never understood, the First Amendment, Republican and Tea Party partisans have tried to spin her wilful ignorance (not to mention her tin ear for when an audience is laughing at her rather than with her) as some kind of legalistic challenge of where the specifc phrase "separation of Church and State" appears in the Constitution. Watching the clip, her expressions and phrasing do not indicate, to me at least, that she's trying to catch her opponent out in his misreading of the constitution - it looks much more as though she just didn't realise the Constitution specifically binds Congress against making any law establishing religion one way or the other i.e. she doesn't have a Constitutional clue.


It's not a case of denial. O'Donnell was just blindly parroting the "It doesn't say 'separation of church and state' in the First Amendment'" line. I have heard this verbatim from many evangelicals. They substitute the interpretation of "separation of church and state" with their own interpretation: "The First Amendment was meant to keep the government out of religion but not to keep religion out of the government." Glenn Beck uses this logic frequently, twisting Jefferson's letter to Danbury's Baptist Association to support this.

The religious right tries to use the "doesn't say that in the First Amendment" line as a "gotcha!" question. I think she was trying to trap Coons. I have little doubt that one of O'Donnell's advisors was sitting with her during the preparation, saying "If Coons brings up 'separation of church and state,' ask him where it says that in the Constitution. He'll never see it coming. You'll make him look like a total dummy!" Of course, Coons remembered that it says "no law respecting an establishment of religion" and then O'Donnell had no idea to react because he didn't give her the answer she was expecting (and she had no idea what the real answer was anyway).

But let's not forget Coons' later failure to name any other First Amendment protections. All around a shameful display on both sides -- ignorance on parade.

QUOTE
If the Tea Party want to be taken seriously, they shouldn't keep putting forward any comedy candidates.


The great majority of them are comedy candidates. Some of them just stand a chance of winning, though.

This post has been edited by Belshazzar: Nov 3 2010, 01:27 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jobius
post Nov 3 2010, 06:09 AM
Post #76


*******
Five Hundred Club

Sponsor
September 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 521
Member No.: 5,538
Joined: October-13-05

From: California
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Jobius @ Nov 2 2010, 06:00 PM) *
QUOTE(Jobius @ Sep 16 2010, 01:21 PM) *
Does a Tea Party Republican nominee, for House or Senate, stand a chance to win a seat in Congress? Who and where?

Let's just consider the Senate races where the establishment-supported candidate lost to a tea party candidate:

Mike Lee, UT, beat incumbent Bob Bennet
Pat Toomey, PA, chased incumbent Arlen Specter out of the GOP primary
Marco Rubio, FL, did the same to governor Charlie Crist
Joe Miller, AK, beat incumbent Lisa Murkowski
Rand Paul, KY, beat secretary of state Trey Grayson
Christine O'Donnell, DE, beat at-large congressman Mike Castle

Of those, 5 out of 6 have a good chance to win a seat in the Senate. Delaware looks like the anomaly.

As expected, Christine O'Donnell has lost the Delaware Senate race to Chris Coons.

Rand Paul and Marco Rubio have won their races.

Still undecided: Toomey, Mike Lee, and Joe Miller.

Mike Lee has held the Republican seat in Utah. Toomey has taken a narrow lead (20,000 votes out of 3.4 million) in Pennsylvania, with 92% reporting. Polls aren't closed yet in Alaska.

Update: Mike Lee, Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul have all won their Senate seats. Joe Miller is running second to "write-in" (presumably incumbent Republican Lisa Murkowski).

Another update: I should mention NVSEN, which I didn't quite include in the list above:
QUOTE(Jobius @ Sep 16 2010, 01:21 PM) *
I'm not sure how to call Nevada, where the "establishment" Republican became known as the chickens-for-health-care lady before losing to Sharron Angle. Angle has said things that are even crazier, but Harry Reid is unpopular enough that she might just Daschle him.

Harry Reid remains un-Daschled, having beaten tea party favorite Sharron Reid Angle. Would the establishment Republican, the chickens-for-health-care lady have done better? Who knows?

This post has been edited by Jobius: Nov 3 2010, 06:18 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Nov 3 2010, 06:12 AM
Post #77


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



Angle also lost on the hypocrite issue- she recieves government money as her husbands retirement, while wanting to privatize everyone elses- that obviously played hard in Reno when I was there
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Belshazzar
post Nov 3 2010, 05:21 PM
Post #78


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 634
Member No.: 11,406
Joined: October-14-10

From: New Yawwwk
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Belshazzar @ Nov 2 2010, 09:22 PM) *
I have little doubt that one of O'Donnell's advisors was sitting with her during the preparation, saying "If Coons brings up 'separation of church and state,' ask him where it says that in the Constitution. He'll never see it coming. You'll make him look like a total dummy!" Of course, Coons remembered that it says "no law respecting an establishment of religion" and then O'Donnell had no idea to react because he didn't give her the answer she was expecting (and she had no idea what the real answer was anyway).


My suspicion was confirmed after seeing this:

QUOTE
Apparently not content to let her humiliating performance at the Widener Law School debate die, Christine O'Donnell's 2008 campaign manager, Jonathon Moseley, is doubling down on her ignorance and making himself a buffoon by offering a $1000 reward to anyone who can find the phrase "separation of church and state" in the constitution.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/10...ager_double.php

(I tried to edit my previous post to add this, but I guess you can't edit after a certain amount of time?)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: September 21st, 2018 - 12:35 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.