Replies

CO'D was a bit over her head trying to debate this. She ended up looking like she never read the first amendment before: 'CO'D gets in trouble talking First Amendment' link ref #23. She needs to avoid this subject.

I like Phyllis Schlafly’s book The Supremacists better than Levin's ‘Men in Black’. Bought them both. Levin gets himself in a corner on the chapter about filibustering judges. It is like he thought a Democrat could never win.

She is sharper than the media spin. She has stood up to GOP elitists and would help in stopping progressive agenda and possibly Lame Duck damage.

If she wins it is a slap to elitist inside GOP group. They would have to concede the Tea Party power. There are many forces working against her.

If DE is against Obamacare and new taxes, this is their only option.

Christine was right in the debate. She might’ve accidentally stumbled into it, but she was right. And Coons was wrong. Unfortunately Christine went on to explain herself to national review a few minutes or hours after the debate. Don’t read that article if you want to think that Christine does in fact have a clear understanding of the issues. Or maybe the national review writer had no understanding of what Christine was trying to say.

But, Christine was right, and Coons was wrong.

“that’s in the Constitution?”
You’re right Christine, it isn’t. Not even close. The written Constitution says Congress, because the 1A was designed to protect States from the Federal Government. Today, we think that the 1A does prohibit states from enacting the very same things the 1A was originally designed to protect. Everson was in error.