The Non-Thinking Man's Sarah Palin

It's amazing to me, but there are Republicans out there who would love Sarah Palin but for the fact that she's just too damn smart. Well, God created Christine O'Donnell just for them. And he did, you know. There's no way that she could have evolved because if evolution were scientifically factual, there would be monkeys out there that refuse to masturbate.

Against the advice of everyone who has ever known anything about politics, Palin and the Tea Party Express managed to get O'Donnell the Republican nomination for Joe Biden's Senate seat despite having been crushed once and an increasingly "colorful" personal history. Predictably, every poll known to man has her losing by as much as twenty points in what is looking to be a "wave" year for the GOP.

Of course, Miss O'Donnell isn't without her supporters. She's the darling of about half of the conservative blogosphere, and talk radio can't get enough of her. That should hardly surprise anyone, since "hot and stupid" has an appeal that never goes away.

The worst part about this is that the Democrats are running an incredibly bad candidate. It was widely assumed that Biden's kid (and Delaware's Attorney General) would run and destroy all comers. When he declined, the suddenly worthless privilege of getting beaten by the presumptive Republican nominee, Mike Castle, was offered on a "first come-first serve" basis. The first guy who showed up was a nobody named Chris Coons. Coons, a pretentious, sneering ballbag of a candidate would have had his ass handed to him by anyone not named Christine O'Donnell. He can't help it if he's lucky.

The two candidates debated last night and O'Donnell successfully proved that Palin isn't the dumbest person in politics. In fact, I'd be worried for my job at Fox News today, were I the former governor.

It was a stunning performance and a beautiful thing to see. It was almost a ballet of ignorance. I personally didn't know that so much stupidity, factual and legal errors could be stuffed into a mere two hours. I guess you really can learn something new every day, unless, y'know, you're Christine O'Donnell.

Let's go to the tape, shall we? If you're the literary sort, you can read along.




For real? That's hardly an uncommon question in these debates, particularly since the part about "advice and consent of the Senate" is right there in there in the Constitution and she couldn't think of one recent opinion that she disagreed with? The only thing that could've made the answer better is if she said "Senators confirm judges?"



Actually, she sold her house to her boyfriend-attorney (which makes her sound a lot like Anna Nicole Smith) after foreclosure proceedings had begun. There's also a great deal of controversy about whether the IRS lien really was a "computer error" or not. She's also awfully ballsy taking about her education, given the misrepresentations that she's made about same on her resume.

Christine O'Donnell decidedly isn't "you." There's no way that you'd win a major party nomination wth her background. In fairness, I doubt that O'Donnell herself would have were it not for the sloppiness of Palin and the Tea Party Express. The woman is a financial train wreck and that fact that any Republican is seriously thinking about letting her anywhere near the federal budget tells you everything that you need to know about the modern GOP.

Which brings us to evolution.



Once again, she's lying. Miss O'Donnell went a great deal further than talking about local control over school curriculum, unless of course the lack of classroom debates on monkey evolution was the topic of discussion.



Besides, what's she's arguing is ridiculous on it's face. Creationism is not as equally valid as a theory as evolution because there's no scientific basis in it, which science is kinda big on. At best, creationism is predicated solely on faith and, at worst, a form of organized superstition. And there's absolutely nothing in the United States Constitution that allows local government (which, by the way, isn't mentioned once) to teach nonsense as science. However, there is the Establishment Clause, which prohibits it.

There are already places you can go to learn all about creationism. They're called churches, which are conveniently also masturbation-free zones. Okay, you might get a reach around in one, but that's another matter, presumably for "local control."

Schools aren't allowed to teach any number of concepts. They can't teach that anyone who works on Sunday should be killed (Exodus) or that disobedient children should be stoned to death (Leviticus). Nor do they boycott Red Lobster, which Deuteronomy firmly recommends, also on penalty of death.

What she believes is in fact irrelevant, but only because it's so bouncing-off-the-walls insane.

Miss O'Donnell goes even further into the warm womb of her own joyful ignorance, this time on the Ground Zero mosque, which is somehow a serious issue in fucking Delaware. Is Delaware actually "too close", too?

Sadly, I couldn't find video of this exchange, so we'll have to rely on the transcript:

BLITZER: We have another student question on the sensitive issue of religion in America.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In light of the events in the past decade, Islam has been viewed as a religion for extremists and terrorists, where Muslims, including myself, can attest that Islam is far from that. Now recently there has been much controversy over the mosque being built in the vicinity of ground zero and also the Florida pastor making outrageous remarks about the Koran. Now my question to you is, as senator, where is the line between the freedom of speech and the respect of other religions? Both of which freedoms are found in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

(...)

O'DONNELL: Well, I would agree. The Supreme Court has said that there are restrictions on our First Amendment rights. Again, you know, you can't, as you said, go into a crowded theater and yell fire. You can't stand up on a plane and yell hijack. You can't slander and libel someone.

However, where the question has come between what is protected free speech and what is not protected free speech, the Supreme Court has always ruled that the community, the local community has the right to decide.

And then the issue with the "9/11 mosque," that's exactly where the battle is being fought, by the community members who are impacted by that. And I support that.

BLITZER: But the community members have -- at least the city council, the mayor, and the representatives -- the elected representatives support this mosque and community center that is supposed to be built near 9/11.

O'DONNELL: And a lot of the people on the ground do not. And they're going to have a lot to face from their constituents and maybe their re-election is even going to be jeopardized.

I think that what O'Donnell is talking about when she said that "where the question has come between what is protected free speech and what is not protected free speech, the Supreme Court has always ruled that the community, the local community has the right to decide" is Roth v. United States (1957) and Miller v. California (1973), but she's so hilariously wrong on the facts that it's hard to say.

What Roth and Miller did was established tests based on "contemporary community standards" in obscenity cases, not the First Amendment generally. For example, the community doesn't have the right to say that you can't build a Lutheran church because they choose not to see the First Amendment your way. Not only would that church be protected by the First Amendment, it would be covered by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteen Amendment, which broadly applies the Bill of Rights to the states and (gasp) communities of America.

The fact that no one on that stage burst out laughing at Christine O'Donnell's kindergarten understanding of virtually everything is a testament to just how polite people can be sometimes.

Now, more than ever, I want that woman elected to the United States Senate. If I thought that I could legally put up a contribution to her website, I would. Cute, ignorant and crazy is a helluva combination and I think that the Senates needs more of it.