Posted on 11/05/2010 5:38:33 PM PDT by markomalley
Rove's behavior was inexcusable. He could have just as easily let her lose on her own merit; or do you think his trashing of her shortly after the primary was appropriate?
I believe the GOP will lose a lot of support due to his temper tantrum. It didn't exactly give the party, as a whole, a very united appearance.
LOL. My thoughts exactly.
Not appropriate at all; of course, I believe in Reagan’s 11th commandment. However, I also think that there’s a sizable contingent on FR who blame Rove for her entire loss, and while he was wrong in his tantrum, they’re wrong in their delusion.
I’ll take hotheads over delusional people any time... Conservatism is about logic, reason, rationality. Blaming Rove (I’m not saying you are, Bear) for O’Donnell’s loss is the antithesis of this. It’s not logical, reasonable, nor rational.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”
I’m sorry I don’t understand what you mean by nothing about separation of church and state being in the constitution. Technically yes those exact words to not appear in the text. The constitution does not read “separation of church and state” at any point. That does not mean that is not the effect of the constitution.
The above quote from the 1st amendment lays out the principles:
1) no official state sponsored religion
2) can’t stop people from being a religion
3) can’t stop them from speaking their belief (or lack thereof)
If your in such a hurry to defend her can you actually do it? Is there some specific policies or laws she has proposed? Is there a record of work she can point to on tea party points of interest? Is there anything other than a reflexive instinct on your part to defend her from “Elitists” like Karl Rove?
Well said. However, I’ll argue that we can’t truly say how much better she’d have done had she not been hit by both parties plus the eneMedia.
This website got really ugly over the last few days. I’ll admit, I’m responsible for more than my fair share of the vitriol. Along with the sizable contingent who blame Rove, there’s also a lot of posters, including long time posters, who expressed outright glee over her loss. Although it doesn’t excuse my behavior, it did sort of set me off. The FReepers who celebrated O’Donnell’s defeat may have cemented her supporters in assigning blame to Rove.
Incidently, had Castle won the primary and lost the election, I don’t believe you’d find O’Donnell supporters cheering his defeat.
Excellent question! It applies to Miller/Murkowski in AK, and Angle/Reid in NV, as well...
If the RNC hadn't thrown its childish tantrums, we would hold the Senate now.
And Rove deserves to have his mercenary @$$ kicked all the way across this continent -- and back -- several times!!!
Actually, the first amendment doesn't really separate the church from the state but rather separates the federal government from the church. At least that's my interpretation.
Remember, the bill of rights is about defining individual freedoms and limiting the government's power.
Too bad Bernie Goldberg already has copyright to the title “Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right” or O’Donnell could use that as her memoir of this campaign.
You and Castle damage us more.
“Rove and the establishment,along with a few on this forum, kept telling the voters just how bad a candidate they thought she was.”
And a lot of those people are here on this thread, still doing somersaults.
But Karl Rove made her say that! ;-)
Seriously, though...the reason I knew the polls were right was that there was so much Chris Coons could have run but didn't even feel the need to use.
That wasn't the problem. The problem was when she was denied that the Establishment Clause is in it...
So you're telling me the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?" repeated O'Donnell.She also showed she had no clue what Chris Coons was saying about decisional law--instead of addressng that point, she got caught up on a talking point that she didn't really understand.
"Government shall make no establishment of religion," Coons replied.
"That's in the First Amendment?" asked O'Donnell.
That would be beneath her. She doesn't stoop to run for anything but Senate. ;-)
“All Coons had to do was run a clip of that interview. The race would’ve been over the next day.”
It’s depressing that so many here have drunk the O’Donnell kool-aid. She is a poor candidate and there is nothing about her to be taken seriously.
My parents, who are lifetime Goldwater conservatives, could not watch her. They think she should be running for class President.
I’m thinking that everything she said the GOP establishment did is true.
And that had the GOP establishment not tried to undermine her and had supported her... she probably still would have lost.
“Go Christine! Out those corrupt bastards!”
AMEN! She’s a fighter - my kind of candidate.
The above quote from the 1st amendment lays out the principles:
1) no official state sponsored religion
2) can’t stop people from being a religion
3) can’t stop them from speaking their belief (or lack thereof)
Actually, it says that Congress can make no law establishing a religion. It says nothing about states, counties, or cities doing the same. Nit-picking, I know, but the US constitution applies to the federal government only.
"Separation of Church and State" has been bastardized by groups like the ACLU to mean that no religious words or symbols can be used or spoken by ANY government entity, and that is NOT what the constitution says. It simply says that Congress can't establish a religion. It doesn't prohibit the ten commandments from being displayed on a state capitol building. It doesn't prohibit having a prayer before a high school football game. It doesn't prohibit a Senator from quoting the Bible - it merely prohibits comgress from establishing a religion. No more, no less.
Barney Frank, wins! CDO just loses and keeps running. Big difference. What else does she do with her life? What has the women actually accomplished in life? Please. She is as immature as 40 year old women come. Because her politics are good, does not do away with that incredibly large character problem. She needs to go away. She is terrible for the GOP/Conservative brand, which is exactly why she will not be “used” by that very MSM she claims she hates. But she will show up on every talk show now...without a doubt.
Excellent analysis.
What does this have to do with the price of corn?
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.