It’s been quite the 24 hours.
Liberals just love trying to beat up on Sarah Palin. They repeatedly question her intelligence. And she just wipes the poop off the floor with them.
Mark Hemingway had a glorious article at the Washington Examiner and I am posting the whole thing:
So the Los Angeles Times reported on a recent Sarah Palin event:
Seeking to channel the sign-bearing, flag-waving enthusiasm of the “tea party” movement into ballot-box victories, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told hundreds of supporters Monday they couldn’t “party like it’s 1773″ until Washington was flooded with like-minded conservatives.
Immediately, Palin’s critics leapt into action. Here’s The Daily Kos himself on Twitter:
Sarah Palin to supporters: “Don’t party like it’s 1773 yet”. http://is.gd/g7rRb. She’s so smart.
And here’s PBS’s Gwen Ifill, moderator of presidential debates, also on Twitter:
Sarah Palin: party like its 1773! ummm,
Blogger Cuffy Meigs rounds up all kinds of similar “HAHAHAHAHA! She’s so stupid!” reactions to Palin’s reference to 1773. So what did happen in 1773? Oh, right.
That, ummm, would be the Boston Tea Party.
Moulitsas and Ifill were in such an orgasm to insult Palin they stuck their feet not only into their mouths but up where the Sun doesn’t shine as well. Idiots.
Nicely done, Sarah.
Then there’s Christine O’Donnell and her debate with Chris Coons:
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.
“Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked while Democrat Chris Coons, an attorney, sat a few feet away.
Coons responded that O’Donnell’s question “reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. … The First Amendment establishes a separation.”
But O’Donnell probed again.
She interrupted to say, “The First Amendment does? … So you’re telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase ‘separation of church and state,’ is in the First Amendment?”
That’s pretty clear. And as any Constitutional scholar should know, the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. O’Donnell was right, yet Ben Evans, the author of the piece, characterized the exchange as another controversy to “befall” O’Donnell.
Why is being right something that “befalls” someone? Because she’s a Republican?
Then Coons tried again to school O’Donnell.
“He noted again the First Amendment’s ban on establishment of religion” reported Evans.
(There is no ban on the establishment of religion in the Constitution.)
O’DONNELL: “Let me just clarify, you’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”
COONS: “‘Government shall make no establishment of religion’”
O’DONNELL: “That’s in the First Amendment?”
For the record, the First Amendment says:
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Then a local law school professor chimed in:
Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said, “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.”
This is something I despise about both academicians and reporters. Liberal bias.
It’s pretty obvious that O’Donnell was being literal and it’s painfully clear that she was right on both counts. O’Donnell was surprised that Coons, Daly, Evans and the rest of the smug twits in the audience could actually believe that the phrase “separation of church and state” resides in the Constitution and that the Constitution bans the establishment of religion.
Entirely unreported by Evans was O’Donnell’s challenge to Coons:
O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”
Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.
“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.
Game, set, match- O’Donnell.
Another report of the debate went this way:
Ms. O’Donnell likened Mr. Coons’s position on evolution to those of “our so-called leaders in Washington” who have rejected the “indispensible principles of our founding.”
When Mr. Coons interjected that “one of those indispensible principles is the separation of church and state,” Ms. O’Donnell demanded, “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?”
The audience exploded in laughter
One would have to say that an awful lot of law students overpaid for their education and that some law professors are overpaid.