Posted on 10/20/2010 2:23:01 PM PDT by MichaelNewton
How much did the left show its keister on O’Donnell’s alleged gaffe? So much so that the AP/WaPo story on the subject was almost completely rewritten last night, and without an official correction. After the break I will have screen caps and a cut and paste of the text of the article, but let’s start with just the first paragraph.
Before:
WILMINGTON, Del. — 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.
After:
WILMINGTON, Del. — Republican Christine O’Donnell challenged her Democratic rival Tuesday to show where the Constitution requires separation of church and state, drawing swift criticism from her opponent, laughter from her law school audience and a quick defense from prominent conservatives.
Literally I ran a document comparison in word between the original text and every paragraph is completely rewritten.
(Excerpt) Read more at patterico.com ...
American Pravda
Is better than old Soviet version, no?
She is corrrect. “Seperation of Church and State” is a product of judicial fiat.
And judicial fiat is a product of Article 3.
A Catholic hating Klansman no less.
Might be a good story but this is a blog so it belongs in bloggers.
Philip Hamburger: “Separation of Church and State” completely annihilates the idea that it was a traditional position. It was a product of Catholic bigotry, the Klan and the Progressives to create the “Separation” myth. Once it was unleashed it has taken a life of its own that is more a product of the judiciary for the last 40 years, rather than the Framers of more than 200 years.
Get the book.
It sorta shows what shining many lights on a particular something can do. They changed it because the 1st version was so particularly wrong. And many of the original accounts were wrong, showing the ignorance of the author.
The irony is that, in fact, the event and the article show the ignorance of the media, a supposedly educated law school audience, and Coons regarding the constitution.
“a supposedly educated law school audience, and Coons regarding the constitution”
That is the irony isn’t it. I agree it shows the ignorance of the media, law school audience and Coons.
Her critics can get away with making fun of her on this because the average TV watcher doesn’t realize she’s right. There no such phrase in the constitution and the intent is to protect religion from government, not to protect government from religion.
WDEL (debate holders) had an article: “Widener professor: Coons was clear winner” (10/19/10) by Amy Smart.
Didn’t mention the professor is a Dem donor, $250 to Obama.
I emailed the info to them- no change, no response.
O’Donnell has a very hostile media with no compunctions or ethics.
The left was all over this....
You get the gist.
Know-Nothing Party. Ku Klux Klan. Progressives.
What kind of law school is Widener - that they did not understand her simple point?
Just liberal idiot law school?
They come out of this looking ridiculous.
Coons - and media - expected to be ridiculous. The “gasp from the crowd” - was very striking. Andtheir comments to follow - just make them seem small, and weak minded.
It's not ignorance it is a separate reality. And it's not irony, it is kind of scary to think our countrymen have a different reality than ours.
Understatement o' the day...
Ah, but the damage was already done. I’ll also note that the early CNN report left out an important sentence when “documenting” the back and forth between the candidates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.