Game Over

The blogosphere is burning up with this video of Christine O’Donnell admitting that she hasn’t read the Constitution. I was going to write a longer article ripping apart her performance in this debate.

Why bother?

This is the best the tea baggers can come up with?

This is who they support?

This is the type of representation they want?

I give up. I really do. It’s clear the cancer has spread too far. This battle is unwinnable.

You can’t fight stupid.

16 Responses to “Game Over”

  1. Iason Ouabache Says:

    You can take solace in the fact that everyone in the room was laughing at her. Not a single person applauded for her. And she currently has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the election. So there’s a tiny sliver of hope left in Pandora’s Box.

  2. Ron Britton Says:

    They were laughing, because they were all law students. They aren’t representative of the electorate.

    This woman is on the ballot! She’s on there by the majority vote of her party. Even if this particular sub-moron doesn’t make it, there are dozens more around the country. This is what our retarded population wants representing them in Washington. No wonder we’re the laughing stock of the civilized world.

  3. Richard T Says:

    Taken with your man in Alaska who seems to wish the trappings of genuine fascism to be brought into the election (not to mention his admiration for East German border controls), these Teabaggers look pretty impressive. The question is how many will vote for them despite all this?

  4. Lindsay Says:

    I am of the belief that the teabaggers do not anyone too intellegent representing their party. C’mon…look at most of the Tea Party members, they aren’t exactly Rhodes Scholars. They want a sassy, decent looking MILF who’s not too uppity and intellectual. Christine O’Connell fits the Sarah Palin prototype almost to a T…I wouldn’t be surprised to see more female MILF Tea Party candidates coming out of the woodwork in the future.

  5. ericsan Says:

    I think about 25% of the population is insane. That represents the percentage of people who were satisfied with Bush’s performance by the end of his second term. You should be expecting this amount of support for the teabaggers. That’s manageable, as long as the sane people don’t compromise with them.

    There is still hope for this country, but we have to stop compromising with the nutbags, teabaggers, and wishy-washy politicians. We need the progressive equivalent of Dubya, someone who can steamroll a progressive agenda instead of a “fierce advocate” who shits his pants every time the right threatens to say “boo”.

  6. Jeff Says:

    No wonder we’re the laughing stock of the civilized world.

    I’ve been a bad influence on you… but, yeah.

  7. Jeff Says:

    We need the progressive equivalent of Dubya, someone who can steamroll a progressive agenda instead of a “fierce advocate” who shits his pants every time the right threatens to say “boo”.

    Well, we THOUGHT (or at least hoped) that’s what we were getting this last time. What we wound up with was a goddamn community organizer who wants to f*cking compromise with everyone.

  8. Barbara Says:

    Frankly, it’s a bit surprising that Christine O’Donnell has never claimed to be a Rhodes Scholar. She’s claimed just about every other academic achievement that’s easily refuted.

  9. matt Says:

    While it is undeniably true that she is an ignorant moron unequipped to run a lemonade stand, let alone represent a state, the old tired point she was trying to make was that the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the constitution. And to be fair, Coons misquotes the first amendment himself.

  10. OtherRob Says:

    No, the phrase “separation of church and state” do not appear in the Constitution. But the embodiment of that phrase, the essence and reality of it, is enshrined in the First Amendment. When Jefferson wrote that phrase in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, he was describing the intent and purpose of the First Amendment.

  11. sue blue Says:

    Yes, Christine…see – it’s just like when I say to my husband, “Hey, let’s open that bottle of wine and get naked.” The words “f*ck me” do not appear anywhere in that statement, but the intent is clear.

  12. Ron Britton Says:

    Matt:

    Everything you said is true; however, it is apparent from the exchange that she has not actually read the First Amendment, or (if she has) she did not comprehend it.

    O’Donnell said: “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” Then later she said: “You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

    Coons then partially mangled a paraphrase of the Establishment Clause.

    Then she said: “That’s in the First Amendment?”

    If she had read and comprehended the First Amendment, she would have recognized Coons’ paraphrase (even though it wasn’t verbatim). But she specifically said “That’s in the First Amendment?”

    She hasn’t read it!!!

    The only thing she has read is the fundie talking points on the issue. The fundies have been harping on the fact that the actual phrase “separation of church and state” is not in there. That is indeed where she was trying to go with her statement. But it is clear from the above exchange that she didn’t recognize the text of the amendment itself.

    Also in that debate, she doesn’t know what the 14th and 16th amendments are. Again, she’s familiar with the talking points, because she then goes on to express an opinion of them once they are explained.

    This is somebody who is applying for a job as a lawmaker. The position requires that the laws be written in compliance with the Constitution. The teabaggers make a big deal about the Constitution and how the “activist judges” aren’t following it. All of these things would suggest that actually knowing the Constitution would be beneficial.

    She doesn’t.

    People get mad at me for being uncivil. For “calling people names”. For throwing around words like “retarded” and “moron”.

    I think I’m justified.

  13. Pete Moulton Says:

    Yes, Christine…see – it’s just like when I say to my husband, “Hey, let’s open that bottle of wine and get naked.” The words “f*ck me” do not appear anywhere in that statement, but the intent is clear.

    I’m pretty sure Christine wouldn’t understand this, sueblue.

  14. sue blue Says:

    Yeah, the light bulb doesn’t get much dimmer than this before finally burning out, does it? This kind of crap just makes me cringe for America. I mean, people like this woman (and Sarah Palin) used to get ignored or shushed or hidden away somewhere as the family embarrassment – “Well, you know, her Ma n’ Pa was brother n’ sister…I tolt ‘em you cain’t marry closer than first cousin”. But then, the one thing the Repugs have been especially good at is empowering the stupid.

  15. Jeff Says:

    But then, the one thing the Repugs have been especially good at is empowering the stupid.

    Truer words, Sue. Truer words.

  16. Parrotlover77 Says:

    We need the progressive equivalent of Dubya, someone who can steamroll a progressive agenda instead of a “fierce advocate” who shits his pants every time the right threatens to say “boo”.

    That’s a nice firedog you got there, too bad it will never get elected in the real world. And even if it defied the odds and did, none of the progressive agenda would be able to be steamrolled. Did you just not notice that it requires 60 Senate votes for anything liberal to pass? Do you have a way to get 60 liberal Senators and are not sharing this with the rest of the class?

    I’m hugely progressive, but I’m also realistic in that I think anybody that progressive would have about as much success as Ralph Nader in 2000. And we all know how that election turned out *shudder*.

    Give me middle of the road Gore and Obama any day over the inevitable “split the vote” result you get from running a hard liberal.

    My tune might change if this country ever gets a decent run-off system to allow third party candidates, like instant run-off (my personal fav).

    Well, we THOUGHT (or at least hoped) that’s what we were getting this last time. What we wound up with was a goddamn community organizer who wants to f*cking compromise with everyone.

    Somebody didn’t pay attention to a certain candidate’s positions and instead invented in his head his ideal candidate and projected it on said candidate. Not naming names, but just saying…considering said candidate has actually had the most progressive agenda and had the most success in nearly 40 years of any politician on the left side of the isle.

    I think I’m justified.

    You are. She’s an embarrassing moron.