Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go! // Copyright (c) 1996-1997 Athenia Associates. // http://www.webreference.com/js/ // License is granted if and only if this entire // copyright notice is included. By Tomer Shiran. October 19, 2010 Effing Idiot Go to 2:50 and listen as the audience laughs and laughs at O'Donnell's stupidity. Damn. Well, at least she's losing. Badly. Thanks again, Sarah Palin! You successfully turned a Republican seat to a, you know, "Marxist" seat. Good job. You're a genius. Filed under: Christine O'Donnell, Election 2010, Sarah Palin, Teabaggers, Wingnuts Posted By Bob Cesca | October 19, 2010 2:43 PM Comments I heard this same accusation on Kos today, that the audience is laughing AT Christine O'Donnell on the first thing she says, but I disagree entirely: On THAT point, HER supporters are laughing at COONS, it's absolutely a "She's got YOU, DUMBASS!!" laugh, the sort of "Oh-No-She-D'I'INT!" laugh you'd hear from a studio audience when the slightly stupid but affable and hitherto ineffective Dunce Character finally gets a zinger in on the Handsome Lead. Remember that at least half the audience in a venue like this would be there to support O'Donnell, and the "Point to 'Separation of Church and State' in the Constitution" dig is a virulently popular meme in the loonosphere from whence comes the Teabagger Political Playbook. Those are hoots and calls of SUPPORT for O'Donnell supposedly putting one over on Coons, they aren't laughing at her. There may very well have been a gasp, and some uncomfortable "Okay, that's enough now" chuckles at the end, but the guffaws at the top of the clip are WITH her, not AT her. Posted by: ELDING at October 19, 2010 2:52 PM Hilarious. Posted by: adx at October 19, 2010 3:00 PM I don't think the audience is laughing at Coons; the laughter has an incredulous, oh-my-god sound to it. But it's obvious that O'Donnell thinks they're laughing at him, not her. When she hears the reaction, she looks out at the audience with a big, proud grin. She thinks she just scored mucho points on Baldy. Elding is right; "separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution" is a major wingnut talking point. They routinely claim that the establishment of religion clause doesn't mean what everyone else thinks it means. So although this shows what an extremist nut O'Donnell is, it's not really a gaffe; it's standard stuff right out of their playbook. Posted by: Steve8489 at October 19, 2010 3:04 PM Well, if one is looking for the phrase, "Separation of Church and State," yeah, that's not in there, so TADA! Yay! Looks at me, I wins a big arguments and I poops my pants. But the principle is in there. I love when ignorant fucks like O'Donnell and her little orcling hordes make huge category mistakes like this. It's is akin to taking a tour of a college and starting it off at the administration offices and when that part of the tour is finished, someone like O'Donnell says, "Ok, that's great, but when are we gonna start seeing the college?" Posted by: at October 19, 2010 3:10 PM Yes, it's standard stuff, and HER CROWD would have springboarded OFF of it, that's what I'm saying: As far as she's concerned, it's not a gaffe, and as far as HER SUPPORTERS in the room are concerned, it was not only NOT a gaffe, it was a Direct Hit. They should have applauded, that would have settled this matter for good. I'm convinced that's not laughing at her, that's "Ooo, good one!" FOR her. Posted by: ELDING at October 19, 2010 3:11 PM Well ELDING, its already being reported that it was HER that was clueless so Coons gets the last laugh on that. Posted by: Allonfla at October 19, 2010 3:30 PM I don't believe this was a public event, Elvis, I think it was a debate before the students at the law school. I mean, it could be some of her supporters infiltrated, but I truly believe there would've been lots of catcalling, etc. if that were the case. Posted by: pea at October 19, 2010 3:30 PM Yeah, Pea, you have a point there, but still: The laughter doesn't sound incredulous to me, it sounds appreciative and snarky. Put yourself in a non-partisan Law School Student position: Would you laugh at loud at a Teabagger Meme like the one she dropped, or would you mutter/grumble to yourself, whispering to your colleague, "What a fucking idiot!" I don't see a crowd like that laughing out loud at such a pitiful little meme, it's not even worth a laugh-out-loud guffaw. Posted by: ELDING at October 19, 2010 3:53 PM well, keep in mind that all of them probably know what a freak she is. I think it might be more of a "holy crap, I can't believe she just topped all the other stupid shit she's said, and I got to bear witness to it!" laughter. I know if I had the opportunity to attend a Sarah Palin rally, I'd be overjoyed to hear some incredible stupid falling out of her mouth. Posted by: pea at October 19, 2010 4:07 PM which would be, uh, ANY Sarah Palin rally. Also. Posted by: pea at October 19, 2010 4:08 PM ELDING...... the debate was at a LAW SCHOOL. You really think lawyers are going to laugh at Coons rather than O'Donnell??? Not a snowballs chance in hell. Posted by: Nicole473 at October 19, 2010 5:00 PM Excerpts from http://tinyurl.com/26ddbvd "'You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp,' Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution. Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said that while there are questions about what counts as government promotion of religion, there is little debate over whether the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making laws establishing religion. "She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise," Daly said. "It's one thing to not know the 17th Amendment or some of the others, but most Americans do know the basics of the First Amendment." O'Donnell didn't respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate." Posted by: Big_Ben at October 19, 2010 5:48 PM Anyone who says "Evolution is only a THEORY...it's not a fact" is so stupid; so utterly fucking brainless, uneducated, ignorant, clueless and unread they should immediately be sterilized on the slim chance that there's a genetic component to their imbecility. Anyone who stubbornly knows so little about science cannot possibly be expected to develop the analytical skills necessary to interpret Con Law. Posted by: cousinavi at October 19, 2010 5:50 PM If the laughter was with her, then the joke is on everyone there in support, of course, because moments later, after she's basically pounding the desk talking about the constitution and her unyielding devotion to that which does not separate church and state(ha-ha), she can't recall the 14th and 16th amendments and needs to be refreshed by the questioner. That's the real "busted!" moment here, if you ask me. For people who speak so militantly about adhering to the constitution, I expect a military like response to such a simple question. Wingnuts will turn blue arguing about a Christian nation and constitution, but not knowing two amendments, as a person running to uphold and defend the constitution containing those amendments, this clip exposes her and the Tea Party faithful as constitutional frauds. Not knowing what the constitution says when asked is bold font black over white. There's no grey area, here. As a defender, you can say, "well, she believes church and state are indivisible, so do I." But you can't say she knows the constitution when she clearly does not. As someone trying to get a government job with great benefits where the qualification is basically, "take this constitution and defend it with your life," Tea Party Republicans spend an awful lot of time tearing it up and reassembling the pieces to their acquired tastes. Her argument dismissing the separation of church and state is dessert before dinner. Slightly off-topic, I've been spending a lot of time on potential swing vote forums adding fact to fiction. It's hilarious when republicans who voted for Bush twice and approved the majority of the way through(approval among republicans was pretty consistent)are telling me about all the mistakes Obama makes and imparting their Bush-loving "wisdom" to those less in-the-know. If you think Bush was good enough to vote for twice, and you're one of the 60 million McCain/Palin people, your qualifications and insight, like Christine O'Donnell's, are comical at best. Make no mistake, I'm laughing AT you, Tea Party Republican people. Posted by: MrBrink at October 19, 2010 5:50 PM If the laughter was with her, then the joke is on everyone there in support, of course, because moments later, after she's basically pounding the desk talking about the constitution and her unyielding devotion to that which does not separate church and state(ha-ha), she can't recall the 14th and 16th amendments and needs to be refreshed by the questioner. That's the real "busted!" moment here, if you ask me. For people who speak so militantly about adhering to the constitution, I expect a military like response to such a simple question. Wingnuts will turn blue arguing about a Christian nation and constitution, but not knowing two amendments, as a person running to uphold and defend the constitution containing those amendments, this clip exposes her and the Tea Party faithful as constitutional frauds. Not knowing what the constitution says when asked is bold font black over white. There's no grey area, here. As a defender, you can say, "well, she believes church and state are indivisible, so do I." But you can't say she knows the constitution when she clearly does not. As someone trying to get a government job with great benefits where the qualification is basically, "take this constitution and defend it with your life," Tea Party Republicans spend an awful lot of time tearing it up and reassembling the pieces to their acquired tastes. Her argument dismissing the separation of church and state is dessert before dinner. Slightly off-topic, I've been spending a lot of time on potential swing vote forums adding fact to fiction. It's hilarious when republicans who voted for Bush twice and approved the majority of the way through(approval among republicans was pretty consistent)are telling me about all the mistakes Obama makes and imparting their Bush-loving "wisdom" to those less in-the-know. If you think Bush was good enough to vote for twice, and you're one of the 60 million McCain/Palin people, your qualifications and insight, like Christine O'Donnell's, are comical at best. Make no mistake, I'm laughing AT you, Tea Party Republican people. Posted by: MrBrink at October 19, 2010 5:50 PM Oh, double-post. Why do you taunt my caffeinated clicky finger? Posted by: MrBrink at October 19, 2010 5:53 PM Oh, double-post. Why do you taunt my caffeinated clicky finger? Posted by: MrBrink at October 19, 2010 5:53 PM I have to agree with Pea and Nicole...you can clearly hear a man's voice say "Oh my god" after O'Donnell says that and his tone is "I can't believe she said something so incredibly stupid". Yeah, they were laughing at her, as is appropriate. Posted by: Irish Girl at October 19, 2010 5:53 PM It's beyond frustrating to me, as someone who has studied Constitutional Law, who competed on the the national level on it in law school, and who published an article on it, to hear people who clearly haven't done the first of these talk about it as if they know better than I do what the Constitution says, means, and is all about. I had a TPer over at HuffPo tell me I didn't know what I was talking about vis-à-vis the need for Constitutional interpretation and Constitutional Law (he believed that any and all Constitutional questions must and can only be resolved by Amendment , not by judicial review), before proudly proclaiming that he had never gone to law school and "despise[d] the legal profession." Where do you go from there? Posted by: GrafZeppelin127 at October 19, 2010 6:41 PM I thinks this illustrates their biblical view of the Constitution, and by that I mean they regard it the same way as they regard the Holy Bible. It's a document that is not to be questioned, but merely followed to the letter because it was handed down to us by greater beings. Oh, and like the Holy Bible, that we mere mortals are not supposed to question or interpret, they'll let us know what it really means and that will often conflict with what it actually says. They try to exert some sort of control over it's meaning by elevating it to a level that makes it untouchable. To them it's not a living document that was designed to change with the nation, but essentially carved in stone like the Ten Commandments. Immutable and unchanging. Except for, you know, maybe an amendment barring gay marriage. But in order to regain some control over their lives that they firmly believe they've lost, they're now trying to determine, with unwavering certainty, that we've all been doing this wrong the whole time and if we just get back to what the founders wanted, everything will be ok. Give 'em a few minutes, though. They're waiting on an email reply from the Washington re-enacter at Arlington to hand down some decisions. Posted by: Nanotyrannus at October 19, 2010 7:19 PM @GrafZeppellin127 In answer to your question -- where do you go from there? I've recently come to the conclusion that the answer is "nowhere". I used to be against making blanket statements about the hard core tea partiers, like the person you described..."they're not all crazy" "they're not all hateful" but lately, i'm over it. they don't believe in: evolution, climate change, the dept of education, public education, taxes in order to pay for roads/police and firemen. they believe the President is not an American. they see no problem with racism, sexism and fascism. they don't understand that "freedom of speech" doesn't mean freedom from consequences. they confuse losing an election with tyranny. they horde food because glenn beck told them so -- they conflate their "movement" with the civil rights movement --they "detain" reporters, on public property, for the crime of asking questions... you don't reason with people who believe these things, any more than you'd try to reason with charles manson. they're crazy -- plain and simple and it's really, really sad. Posted by: mslarry1973 at October 19, 2010 7:23 PM @ ELDING - Have to disagree, buddy. The debate was at Widener Law School. They laughed at her the second time as well when she incredulously asked, as if not believing Coons, "That's in the First Amendment?" I don't think they were laughing at him. If they were, they'd be reacting after his comment (and probably booing and calling him a liar) rather than reacting after her comment. Posted by: Broadway Carl at October 19, 2010 7:23 PM @Irish Girl.....so good to see you!! I hope you're well. :) Posted by: Nicole473 at October 19, 2010 7:59 PM GrafZeppelin: I had a TPer over at HuffPo tell me I didn't know what I was talking about vis-à-vis the need for Constitutional interpretation and Constitutional Law (he believed that any and all Constitutional questions must and can only be resolved by Amendment, not by judicial review), before proudly proclaiming that he had never gone to law school and "despise[d] the legal profession." There is nowhere to go with these ignoramuses. They would not believe you if you parted the sea for them first. I learned my lesson at HP. While it can be personally satisfying to present all your little ducks in a row, they will never stop erroneously knocking the damn ducks out of line. Posted by: Nicole473 at October 19, 2010 8:02 PM You know she had better watch out! The separation between church and state is what saves us from SHARIA LAW! I think those trying to diminish the separation are probably secret Muslim sympathizers that are sneaking SHARIA LAW in on us! Posted by: Ron Spridgen at October 19, 2010 8:17 PM Nah, I'm convinced that the audible gasps and stifled chuckles were from her attempt to bluff her way through an exchange regarding the Constitution in a room full of lawyers. Performance art, people. She's not running to win, and if you think she is, you're not paying attention. Posted by: Lexaburn at October 19, 2010 10:58 PM Think of those Bill Maher clips. The constant television appearances for the last decade or so. Think of who endorsed her, and how O'Donnell could teach her a thing or two about...moderate ad-libbing. The strategy is this: be as foolish as possible, so no one anticipates you actually knowing anything. Embrace the derision and/or ridicule. Go on the circuit as a passionate advocate for whatever cause you choose to co-opt. In O'Donnell's case it's the same pseudo-Christianity holy rollers dignify to play within the political arena. In Palin's case, it's the crypto-fascism that oozes within the GOP. The Teapublicans fool no one with their talk of independence and the theatrical in-fighting. They always tame those they let in their ranks or they destroy them. Palin knows her place, as do they all. Do you really think a serious candidate would go around asking for hints during a debate? Seriously! O'Donnell is not that stupid. I know some of you want to think she is for the sake of mirth and merriment, but she ain't. Sorry. Just like Palin isn't stupid enough to confuse PA with WV. Poke fun all you want, but at least be realistic with yourselves: you have just as much fun as they're having. Trust me, y'all, they are faking it! O'Donnell's running on personality alone, nothing more, nothing less. Regarding politics, she's a glorified booster, same as with Mangle in Nevada. Lowden the chicken-lady and Mangle were merely supposed to challenge and beat Reid, then get out of the way. O'Donnell is to be a face for the underdog teabaggers. This is why they're not making a full investment in her. Her place is not in the senate, but on television. Posted by: Lexaburn at October 19, 2010 11:17 PM Elvis, having watching the video several times, I have to disagree. The audience was clearly laughing at her and her ignorance. However, she clearly thinks she that she has scored a huge win and that the audience was on her side. Just more of her complete separation from reality. Posted by: DC at October 19, 2010 11:23 PM Oh, and ELDING, their reaction stems from the fact that she broached the subject again after the moderator moved on. Her question was the equivalent of asking "Where're the pictures?" when staring at the document, especially in that setting. She did it on purpose, not to further the discussion, but to establish that, yes, she is a dependable dumbass. I'm telling you all, she's running a game. Posted by: Lexaburn at October 19, 2010 11:24 PM Lexaburn, I have to disagree with your assessment that this is all a game and that she's not that dumb. I don't believe she's as dumb as she is ignorant. It if really is a game for O'Donnell, then what's the end game? She may have flown under the radar for her previous campaigns, but now she's made herself a fool in the national spotlight and effectively ruined any chance of continuing her charade, if her intention was to be a lifelong nominee in the first place. Being a perpetual campaigner can only get you so far, and if they don't intend to win after getting the nomination, then that con game is limited. Maybe Palin fits more into the realm of your assessment, but if she runs and loses in 2012, her shelf life is limited too. Posted by: Broadway Carl at October 20, 2010 12:29 AM @Nicole, hi! It's good to be back. I've been awol due to having a baby....little Liam was born on 9/21 (a couple of weeks early but he's doing well). Thank goodness for FMLA and maternity leave. Posted by: Irish Girl at October 20, 2010 1:08 AM BC, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying she knows a damned thing about the Constitution. In fact, I'd go a far as to say she doesn't give one damn about it. What I'm saying is that going into these discussions, she's fully aware of her deficiencies. To tell the truth, I can't tell you her actual "endgame," per se, but if I had a guess it would be an extended stint on a cable news channel. The "shelf life" of both women is only limited to the fraction with which they uphold a standard. Palin took standards out of the equation when she quit her job. Were she to actually run, it would be for vanity's sake. She's reaching for what O'Donnell has already achieved. They've both lowered themselves to being cheerleaders for so-called "conservative" causes. Well, Palin did anyway. I attribute part of my assessment of O'Donnell to info I've gleaned from a good friend of mine that knew her on the media circuit at the start of the decade. My friend describes her as a "bad actress" primarily, that co-opts "conservativism," but doesn't necessarily cling to it as some may believe. This friend tells me that Christine doesn't believe half provocative and/or boneheaded things she's saying. O'Donnell is described as a normal conservative Republican woman by my friend. I am convinced personally that O'Donnell's just a starved media personality that found a new gimmick in running for public office. That is the lifestyle choice she has made, and she's sticking with it. Some of the innuendo surrounding her leads me to this conclusion, as well. However, I can't be too conclusive... You know what, I'm being too much of a stuffy doctor. Anyway, that smile she gives after asking about the 1st Amendment may very well be her being in on the joke she's making of herself. It's not the fact that she tried and failed to dictate content within a Constitutional Amendment; it's the fact that she knew she did not know and said what she said regardless. Do not try to make sense out of anything of this if you're not thinking like a...celebrity of whatever quality, let's say. Here's what you do: gather all the O'Donnell appearances that you can from online sources. Go through all, and see if her point of view EVER evolves beyond the con-servative blather or the crank conspiracy theories. Next, ask yourself why she continues to be invited to these public forums. What exactly is she adding to these conversations? In all my cable news watching, I've seen far more dim characters than O'Donnell with regular gigs, so it's not the fact that she's dumb that gets her on television. My friend tells me of certain connections individuals like O'Donnell have that gets them the leeway they need to raise their public profile. Since they really have no one to answer to, they can go on television and say anything, get away with it, and do it again in yet another televised venue. It's a perpetual cycle. She's not campaigning to win anything, I'm telling you, BC. You see how Rove immediately rejected her. I don't believe that was because she beat the "establishment" candidate. In fact, my theory is that Rove wasn't so much as rejecting her, as limiting her role within the media environment. I'm thinking she's aiming to be on FNC on a regular basis. This all comes from my observing her debate performances, as well as her more recent TV appearances. She's not so much running for office, as she is auditioning to be a regular voice for the Cons. A reaffirmation of sorts. She's been at this for a while, and they have younger, more loopier and dim-witted Con tarts traipsing about. Palin's taking time away from them, but she has her own plans, which have yet to be revealed (though they may be all too obvious). Posted by: Lexaburn at October 20, 2010 3:42 AM Christine O'Donnell is certainly ignorant in the sense that, while perfectly aware that there are many things she doesn't know, she is clueless as to how that might be an impediment. It's an odd combination - knowing you don't really have a solid grasp on a subject, but still being convinced that one's core principals are enough to overcome any obstacle. O'Donnell believes in the bible. She's a Jesus freak. And that's enough for her. O'Donnell is opposed to anything liberal, anything progressive, anything Obama, anything Democrat, anything that can in any way be determined NOT to accord with the demands of her savior and lord jesus christ (as SHE interprets his word) in any way. And that's enough for her. The only reason she's a Republican / Tea Party gangster is because her brand of theocracy and batshit stupidity would simply never fly anywhere else. In the stumped, frustrated, hypocritcal idiocy of the extreme right - in that gang of redneck ignoramuses who want simple answers to complex questions they do not understand - she finds the only market for her brand of incompetent yammering. Facts don't matter. Evidence doesn't matter. History doesn't matter. Just look at the clips Bill Maher runs of her blithering, insistent certainty. She pisses off EVERYONE, all the time, and never once = not a single time ever - stops long enough to even CONSIDER that maybe she's the one who doesn't get it. It's THEY who don't get it. The constitutional lawyers don't know fuck all about the constitution. She does because she took a week long course at Oxford University! That she lies about her academic credentials, inflates beyond all reason and truth the actual degree of study she has accomplished, does not in any way diminish her insistence that she IS highly educated - really VERY knowledgeable about all of these things she doesn't know about. Richard Dawkins doesn't know anything about the "Theory" of evolution...he's just a cranky atheist! She read a pamphlet from the Discovery Institute that totally explains the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design...which are not the same things, not at all, and anyone who says they are is just wrong. Especially that court in Dover that found, as a matter of FACT, that the ID crowd simply used "Find & Replace" to substitute "Intelligent Design" for "Creation" (resulting in numerous instances of "Intelligent Designism"). But fuck it. Everyone is wrong, Christine O'Donnell is right. And if you disagree with her, then you are properly an object of scorn and derision for being so poorly informed about things. It may not be campaigning to WIN. She may well know that she's unelectable. But in her mind that's because the voters have been brainwashed by the same evil, wrong-headed liberal / progressive indoctrination that has corrupted our schools, our leaders and our society. Christine O'Donnell doesn't have a hidden agenda. She sees herself as morally correct, profoundly right (in both senses of the term), and struggling as only a jebus loving martyr can against the tide of evil sweeping her nation. As for why she consistently gets to appear on television: She's fuckable, in that weird Sarah Palin way that makes me recoil in horror and wonder what the fuck is wrong with anyone who would touch those women with their worst enemy's cock. She'll say apeshit nuts things about masturbation, and flirting with witchcraft, and insist that these things that SHE knows - things no one else knows (like the top secret information about China's plans to take over the USA to which only SHE is privy!) places her in the unique position to lecture Obama on Con Law, Henry Kissinger on foreign policy history, Richard Dawkins on evolution, Lawrence Krause on cosmology and Murray Gell-Mann on particle physics. She KNOWS things, see? Jebus tells her things. Frankly I think it's the result of the move in the 70's and 80's to tell students that they were ALL special; that no one was any better or any smarter than anyone else; that everyone has a RIGHT to their own opinion; to make sure that everyone who played the game got a trophy. Now those self-inflated, self-important, self-esteem fiddled crowd are running for office, and they are fucking well convinced that they DO know as much as anyone else, and their OPINIONS about things are just as valid as anyone else's...even moreso because "it's MY opinion...and who are YOU to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about? YOU don't know what you're talking about!" Knowing she's going to lose is not the same thing as running TO lose... in the same way that knowing she really doesn't know much about the constitution will never prevent her from telling you what it must mean. She thinks she's right today, and she will think she's right after being stomped to death at the polls. She will continue to blither her vacuous bullshit on any platform she can find, spend campaign money on her rent, and go to bed every night feeling as though she is fighting the good fight for jebus, truth and America. Posted by: cousinavi at October 20, 2010 4:43 AM Lex - Thanks for the clarification. It looks like you might have an inside track into this person's make up. But I'm still going to think that her smile wasn't so much that she's in on the joke as it was she really does think she knows what she's talking about. It is a debate after all, a competition. To just shrug your shoulders and throw a hail mary pass with a smile on your face would be suicidal. But really, who the hell knows? Posted by: Broadway Carl at October 20, 2010 9:56 AM Avi- I agree with you completely, except that I believe the "everyone is special" crowd started in the 90's. I grew up in the 70's and there were no "gifted" programs for kids who didn't happen to drool on themselves back then. The "entitlement because I deserve it" generation is currently in their early to mid 20's. My wife deals with them all the time at her place of employment. Posted by: at October 20, 2010 10:06 AM