Intermarkets' Privacy Policy

Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!

Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

And Howard Kurtz Misses The Point, Besides | Main | OMG, Sarah Palin Totally Tweeted Something Idiotic and Ahistorical, Just Randomly Throwing Out Years Without Thought, And Those Smart Liberals Like Kos Caught Her
(But Not Really)
October 19, 2010

O'Donnell's Kinda Bad Answer On The First Amendment

Actually I'd say it's "really bad," except I know what she was getting at.

But even though I know what she was getting at, she doesn't give much evidence demonstrating the truly important thing: Does she know what she's getting at?

Maybe she does. Sure would be nice if I knew for sure, though.

Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.

The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

There is no doubt the Constitution bars the "establishment of religion." Says so. And O'Donnell did not, in fact, challenge that.

There is considerably more doubt whether it imposes a "wall of separation between Church and State" -- that notion is doctrinal, not textual, and comes not from the Constitution, but from (IIRC) Thomas Jefferson's letters about it.

Now, Jefferson is certainly an important commentator on the Constitution, but his word is not dispositive. The Constitution, by its own terms, prohibits the establishment of a state religion -- anything beyond that is gloss and interpretation.

This is what Christine O'Donnell was getting at -- an important and quite-legitimate argument offered up by conservative-leaning (usually religious) constitutional scholars.

And nothing she actually said betrays a mistake on this point.

But, of course, it does sound as if she questioning that which cannot be questioned, that yes, in the First Amendment, it does prohibit a state religion. It should be pointed out, though, that the moderator and Coons and O'Donnell kept speaking of different terms -- O'Donnell kept asking about the separation of church and state, and Coons spoke of the establishment clause (plus his unstated assertion that this does in fact create the "wall of separation" Jefferson spoke of).

I don't know if she's wrong here, really, or uninformed. But yes, she could have made it very clear and removed all doubt by offering the sort of detail I just did, conceding yes, the establishment clause prohibits the establishment of a state religion, but a state religion is very different than vouchers for private schools (including religious schools), and one cannot take the former to mean the latter.

I don't know. You're supposed to be careful in these areas, and make sure people get what you are saying, not just so you don't look foolish, but so that you can perform a truly critical aspect of politics -- persuasion. Education. Advocacy.

I feel like people keep blowing off this crucial element when looking for leaders. If a leader can't actually persuade the hostiles to your side, is that leadership? Does that advance the cause or retard it? Does that increase acceptance of these views or decrease acceptance by making them seem foolish or outlandish?

This gets into my beef with the idea of True Conservatives. Yes, I'd like True Conservatives in office too. But a True Conservative who fails at the persuasion function of politics isn't helping the cause at all. In fact, it often hurts it.

Oh: It occurs to me I am not respecting the 24 hour rule and what the media quoted might not be all she said -- the media is now simply a partisan enterprise, unofficial worker-bees for the DNC, and it no longer surprises me at all that they simply lie. It could very well be she offered a more expansive answer which they truncated in order to make her look foolish.

Assuming they got the quotes right, which is a dubious 40% proposition, I expect now that Rush and Levin and all of them will now explain to their viewers how her answer wasn't that bad (as I did above).

But it's not the job of a candidate's supporters to do the backfilling and dot-connecting necessary to make an answer work. That's the candidate's job. She's the man in the arena (well, woman).

Reagan was The Great Communicator. He wasn't The Great Half-A-Good-Answer-Giver-Whose-Answers-Could-Be-Rescued-By-Supporters-icator.

This is not a blow-off consideration. It's not enough to just vote right or have the right conclusions; a candidate needs to be able to explain those conclusions in such a way that people with half-baked opinions might be persuaded.

digg this
posted by Ace at 01:34 PM

| Access Comments

Recent Comments
blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1): "Just looked up Ronald Rowe Jr. Former cop who migh ..."

MAGA_Ken: "Where was Cheadle on that Saturday? What if she wa ..."

It's me donna : "351 Insider Paper @TheInsiderPaper 3h BREAKING: S ..."

Axeman: "Insider Paper @TheInsiderPaper 3h BREAKING: Sec. ..."

[/i][/b]andycanuck (wse2C)[/s][/u]: "Bullshit alert... Insider Paper @TheInsiderPape ..."

Intercepted DU Transmissions brought by the Intrepid AoS Liaison: "[B]Allow President Biden His Dignity [/b]By lettin ..."

I denounce myself: "344 I know we’re doing a thing, but I wouldn ..."

Soothsayer is Axiosoothsayer now: " If true, the biden-harris SS/DHS just declared t ..."

Thomas Bender: "@336 >>Seriously?? That was probably one of the ..."

Axeman: ""Who is that guy? Is he one of ours or yours? No o ..."

[/i][/b]andycanuck (wse2C)[/s][/u]: "Insider Paper @TheInsiderPaper 3h BREAKING: Sec. ..."

Kindltot: "[i]I don't know but there was a whole bunch of lef ..."

Recent Entries

Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64