Palin Could Not Remember a Single Supreme Court Case Either
This moment, when O’Donnell could not name a single recent Supreme Court decision that she disagreed with, captured the pure essence of O’Donnell.
She did not “debate” per se. She simply ticked off her prepared zingers and wingnut talking points. She didn’t have any sense of any of the downstream implications of any of the conservative tropes she regards as policies. There was no attempt to strive for any logic or consistency. (think endless war v. budget hawk) It was just a cascade of words and phrases tested and retested by the daily lunatic focus groups convened by Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh.
Her statements were a jumbled mess. Honestly, I couldn’t make sense of what she was saying. She was all over the place – especially when it came to specifics. With Christine, there’s simply no there there.
And what’s up with Tea Partiers being unable to articulate anything coherent concerning Supreme Court decisions? This is hardly a trick question – and one she should have been prepared for.
I have no doubt she fired up her supporters – something she didn’t need to do. Everyone else was either laughing or scratching their head.
Mike Castle probably laughed more than anyone and is thumbing his nose at the teabaggers who dethroned him.
The transparency question was also a doozy. She went from “people” hiding in her bushes to “people” (who oppose her candidacy) harassing her supporters by calling them.
My head still hurts this morning.
Of course not. That’s not included in her morning affirmation which must consist of something like this: ” I will cut taxes. I will reduce the size of government. I will protect the country from the terrorists, the russkies, chinks and Democrats…”
I haven’t had my coffee.
Feel free to add on to her affirmation.
O’Donnell was huffing and puffing during the entire debate, she interrupted and made sounds, it was like watching Al Gore in 2000. She’s the most immature candidate I’ve ever watched, and clearly full of herself.
I guess I wish Coons would have turned and said, “what the fuck?”. But I see why that probably would have been satisfying but not helpful.
How ’bout the her wanting to make campaign donors secret from the public? Oh, and she does support Obomba’s initiative to “take out” (assassinate) American citizens. I guess that they must have both had the same Constitutional professors.
O’Donnell is not a Tea Partier, she is an opportunist who hijacked a true movement for her own benefit. She did nothing for the cause and never put one ounce of energy in to either big Riverfront events.
Her showing last night was horrible and shows again how bad the GOP has sunk.
I hope the GOP has some ideas right now on who they will run for Clark’s job. There should be a shadow campaign in effect right now. If Ross and company are serious then get moving-or resign.
I agree anon451, the other stuff people watch was terrible for her. That influences a lot of people. Seriously, watch her with the sound off for a bit.
I recorded the CSPAN coverage because I was out working on a campaign last night. While I was out we had the CNN coverage playing in the background and the split screen without sound did not do O’Donnell any favors. She was all facial expressions all the time. Then I came home and watched the CSPAN recording and she was still just awful, but at least she didn’t appear so petulant and childish. She just came off as stupid, ignorant, and way out of her depth.
She is, by definition, by endorsements, and by her own acclaim, a Tea Partier. You cannot deny her. You own her.
O’Donnell is representing herself as a Constitutional expert. Shouldn’t she be hyper-aware of SCOTUS decisions.
I think she could have said Kelo.
From the NJ – When asked to name a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that she disagreed with, O’Donnell was unable to name one.
“Oh gosh, give me a specific one,” O’Donnell responded.
When Karibjanian told O’Donnell she had to think of one herself, she said she would post one on her website later. Coons cited the Citizens United decision, which ruled that corporations could spend unlimited funds on political advertisements.
O’Donnell spokesman Dave Yonkman said afterward that she was caught off guard by the question.
Caught off guard? She should have been prepared. She’s an empty suit.
Re: the people commenting on her noises and body language,
I disagree. I think she did just what the uncivilized Bagger what to see. Just remember, Joe “you lie” Wilson is getting re-elected. The right wing doesn’t care about civility anymore if you are running against and evil muslim democrat. They want to see their politicians acting just as childish as they do. This obviously hurt COD in sensible Delaware, but think about the precedent it will set for whack jobs in more Confederaty states.
I predict a big deal will NOT be made of her behavior, and if it is, saran Palin will swoop into Fox to praise COD’s “realness”
Remember folks, the right wing has always and (as long as we let them) WILL always hold this country back.
She had a pretty good delivery. The incoherence will stand out starkly in a transcript though.
If you all want a good laugh, go over to batshitcrazypolitics.net (the site run by Delusional David) and read the posts from Don Knotts’ brain-dead brother, Frank. I wonder what debate he was watching.
No you’re right, anon, she looks much worse in transcripts.
If you’re going to be a tea party candidate the frequently harps on the constitution, you should probably be at least vaguely versed in it’s interpretation since, you know, that’s pretty much all study of the constitution consists of.
And I feel like she totally could have punted and said Roe if she wanted to, she just couldn’t think of any. Not even that one. I feel like as long as she didn’t say Marbury v. Madison she would have been fine. The moderators probably thought this would be a slam dunk for both candidates and it backfired (since Coon was obvi going to say Citizens United). It’s like the “what newspapers do you like to read” softball debacle. Who would think that the constitution candidate didn’t have a couple of memorized Supreme Court rulings in her pocket?
“If you’re going to be a tea party candidate the frequently harps on the constitution…”
Except she’s not, and neither are a lot of the candidates being backed by the Tea Party — they are recycled ’90s God Squad people, hatched by Pat Robertson to take over the GOP at the grass roots (the same GOP that elected Robertson’s father in Virginia but couldn’t get a dead weight like Pat over the bar). She rose up through the conservative Christian ranks, not the libertarian ranks. It’s the libertarians who fetishize the Constitution. Conservative Christians fetishize Fetus-Americans. You’ll notice she sidestepped abortion questions like someone who has sidestepped them many, many times before.
While it’s relatively easy for many here to look down their noses at Ms. O’Donnell, I’d challenge everyone here to name 3 Supreme Court cases from the last term and to state their holdings. While I was perhaps a bit surprised she didn’t say Roe v. Wade, although one could argue that a 38-year old case is hardly recent. My point is that most folks don’t pay that much attention to Supreme Court cases, and, for better or worse, that goes for a lot of politicians as well.
So, while the chattering political classes may be aghast, most people couldn’t care less.
“While it’s relatively easy for many here to look down their noses at Ms. O’Donnell, I’d challenge everyone here to name 3 Supreme Court cases from the last term and to state their holdings.”
Nobody here is holding him or herself out as a candidate for U.S. Senate, either.
And “most people” couldn’t care less about the entire debate. The point is she looked lost and awkward. It’s one thing to slavishly emulate Sarah Palin’s look; it’s another to slavishly imitate her lack of knowledge in an area she claims to be so outraged about. “Pornography”? Seriously? Yet more evidence she’s actually a God Squadder, not a Tea Partier.
I’d challenge everyone here to name 3 Supreme Court cases from the last term and to state their holdings.
Except that wasn’t the question asked of O’Donnell, so thanks for trying to move the goalposts.
It really is simple — if you claim to have a special reverence or adherence to the Constitution, you can reasonably expect to hear about those Supreme Court cases that you have issues with. Otherwise, you are shown to be a Talking Point Repository, which we knew about her already…..
But thanks for sharing your daily rationalization.
I would have been able to name Citizens United right off the bat. Bush v. Gore would have come to mind as well. With only 5 minutes of studying I would have had several at my fingertips.
I doubt she even knows or understands Marbury….never mind Brown v Board of ED
roe v wade
bragendburg v ohio – that is on 1st amendment rights – which she doesn’t know either
or Citizens United
Padilla v Kentucky 2010 is so outside her pervue I doubt she has heard of it – but it was a HUGE decision just like Hernandez v Texas 1955
but she’s an idiot = and definately NOT me – I do know a little about the Supreme court decisions
and come on……Palin flubbed the same question
she only hope now is that her voters r dumber than she is – which they are
well Geezer I just did and look at the timimg of my post – I was writing mine unsolicited when you wrote your
I can rattle them odd if you want
Plyler v Doe 1982 education of immigrant children
Lau v Nichols 1974 ESl education – eqaul right for non english speaking atudents
Padilla v Kentucky 2010 immigrnats right to immigration counsel before taking a guilty plea and how it affects their immigration status
happy Now – trust me = I can keep this up all day
kim wong ark v us – immigrant rights wanna keep going
whoops missed the last term thing -i would know two
padilla v kentucky and citizens united
at least im honest – but i had 2
Name all you want; I don’t understand why you want to take up such a silly challenge. It isn’t about whether you or I can name Supreme Court cases — it’s about why someone who should have been intensively prepped for a Senate debate couldn’t do it.
Exxon vs. Baker. and the rejection by the Supreme Court of the tobacco damages appeal.
If you’re really serious about reducing taxes, collecting damages from corporations ought to be a GOOD thing.
Geezer, YOU know and I know that she’s a a culture-warrior disguised as a tea partier. I just think it’s nuts that if that’s the costume she’s going to put on, that she wouldn’t be prepared to continue the ruse by have a hold on constitutional law. She had ample opportunity to study up on it.
And if her legitimate Tea Party supporters who ardantly scream about the constitution all the time don’t have a problem with her lack of constitutional knowledge, they’re hypocrits.
Geezer – Im not zinging you I’m zinging Publius – he’s the idiot that I am referring to – I addressed you – you phrades it better and I agree with you – she should be able to answer it
Publius didn;t even get the question right – it was “name a recent Supreme Court decision you don;t agree with” if Im not wrong
Im just an average person – not running for office and I can rattle them off – no – COD is not me!!
Sorry Geezer – you were not the Target!!
Agree with all the above COD criticisms … she is much like Palin (minus any government experience at all) in that all she has to do is open her mouth and she instantly discredits herself.
Interesting article at foxnews.com, shows a view of the “victorious” COD. Event the article title is telling:
O’Donnell Says ‘I Am Still Fighting My Party’
Check it out, it is pretty entertaining.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/14/odonnell-im-fighting-party/
Palin without the resume. Eeeshhh…
Check out politico. Odonnell claims that the GOP has pulled the plug on her campaign, just because she is a nit wit. It’s like ISI all over again.
Well she is a nitwit. The surprise would be to find that the GOP would have enough respect for itself to not be drawn into this charade…..
anyone go to her website to see if she posted the SCOTUS answer???
I did bout 90 minutes ago – nope could not find it