Schooled by Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell, all in one day!

Via Michelle Malkin: In this morning’s radio debate:

---

Read:

Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell questioned on Tuesday whether the Constitution provides for the separation of church and state.

The comment came during a debate on WDEL radio with Democratic opponent Chris Coons, who argued that local schools should teach science rather than religion, at which point O’Donnell jumped in. “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” she asked.

The audience at Widener Law School was taken aback, with shouts of “whoa” and laughter coming from the crowd.

Coons then pointed to the First Amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

“You’re telling me the First Amendment does?” O’Donnell interrupted to ask.

Following the next question, Coons revisited the remark — likely thinking he had caught O’Donnell in a flub — saying, “I think you’ve just heard from my opponent in her asking ‘where is the separation of church and state’ show that she has a fundamental misunderstanding.”

“That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell again asked.

“Yes,” Coons responded.

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.

Yep, when he got caught with his own intellectual pants down, Coons runs to the moderators for cover.

---

Having the bearded Marxist intellectual get schooled by the uppity peasant girl is sweetness in and of itself.  But it gets even better, folks. 

Via Cuffy Meigs:

---

OMG, will this blithering idiot ever shut up?!

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.

I mean, 1773?! WOW. Glad I wasn't the only one who caught this latest Palin gaffe:

And finally, channeling the Insane Clown Posse:

I mean, hell, it must be extremely embarrassing to have your obvious ignorance of 5th grade American history revealed by the likes of the Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas and PBS anchor & presidential debate moderator Gwen Ifill. HAHAHAHAHA, what a freakin' dumb ass! What happened in 1773, indeed!

oh, wait:

Boston Tea Party, 1773

Like they were saying: Ummmmm...

PS: In case you're thinking Palin got lucky, here's the video of her remarks ... which clearly refer to the original Boston Tea Party.

---

Comedy Gold.  The left gets schooled on history by Sarah Palin and schooled on the Constitution by Christine O’Donnell, all in one, nifty, tidy, ready-to-ship news cycle.

Why are Obama and Biden campaigning for Chris Coons?

Don’t the polls show that Chris Coons, the Democrat for Delaware’s Senate seat, leads the race over Republican Christine O’Donnell by anywhere from 11 points (Rasmussen) to 20 points (Monmouth)?  If these polls are accurate, then why are the Democrats’ #1 and #2 dogs going to bat for Coons?

---

President Barack Obama’s efforts to stave off Democratic losses in the Nov. 2 congressional elections take him today to Delaware, where the party’s chances of holding a Senate seat have risen.

Obama will be joined by Vice President Joe Biden at a fundraiser for Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Chris Coons at the Grand Opera House in Wilmington, the state’s largest city.

A recent poll in the state gives Coons, 47, county executive of New Castle County, Delaware’s largest county, a 19- point lead over Republican Christine O’Donnell, 41, a marketing consultant.

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said Obama was making the campaign stop because the contest is “important” and the political climate this year is volatile.

“We leave no stone unturned in this unpredictable electoral environment,” Pfeiffer said.

---

Coons is supposedly leading by double digits, after Columbus Day, and despite a decent showing by O’Donnell during their recent debate.  This race is all but over.  Isn’t it?

Color me suspicious, but this isn’t about leaving no stone unturned, as Pfeiffer puts it.  This is either about avoiding the embarrassment of losing the seat long held by Joe Biden, meaning that the regime thinks face-saving is more important than winning close races (Nevada, California, Pennsylvania); or the regime has some data that shows this isn’t a double-digit race at all.

OR IT’S BOTH.

O’Donnell has been running a pretty decent campaign.  Her “image” ads are good stuff.  She also has the support of nearly all conservative opinion movers and she has been a fundraising animal since the primary victory over Mike Castle. Perhaps the regime has caught whiff of an ill wind in Delaware, and are rushing in to shore up Coons in the hopes that November 2 isn’t a complete debacle for the White House.

O’Reilly vs. Krauthammer, and Krauthammer is wrong

I wrote this in a post last week, but it’s worth recycling here after watching Bill O’Reilly ruffle the Krauthammer feathers on The Factor tonight:

---

It’s the Senate races that bear the most interest because, if you’re going to start shifting the center of gravity, the most deliberative body of Congress is the place to establish a long term trend.  The Senate elects one-third of its members every six years. And, because of the rules of debate in the upper chamber, the minority party holds considerably more power than a minority in the House of Representatives.  If you’re going to make an ideological stand, it makes sense to put your assets in play in the Senate, and take a few risks with candidates who line up more closely with the principles espoused by the movement.  The power of the minority party allows you to block measures that run counter to the center-right agenda while building coalitions with moderate Democrats to pass measures supporting the center-right agenda, all while building for the next cycle of elections, where you’ll have a shot at another one-third of the seats.  How do you think the Democrats did it?

You’re not going to win every race. Angle faces a formidable foe in the sitting Senate Majority Leader.  That’s a toss-up.  Rubio is up against two candidates, one backed by a well-funded Democrat party apparatus; the other the sitting Governor.  Another toss-up. O’Donnell has the longest, tallest road to climb in beating a Democrat in a deep blue state without any party establishment support at all.  That’s almost surely a loss. 

But you will win some of them, and you’ll win enough of them so that your voices are heard loudly on Capitol Hill for the next six years.  And, you’re also putting the GOP establishment on notice—conservatives are willing to lose races by nominating candidates on conservative principle.  That is to say, conservatives—and the grassroots movement that became the Tea Party—are willing to sacrifice a race here or there by nominating principled conservatives and unwilling to sacrifice conservative principles just to win.  Conservatives will nominate a “non-electable” candidate if they think the “non-conservative” candidate isn’t worth voting for. It will cause establishment-type Republicans to think twice about seeking nominations in the 2012 and 2014 Senate cycles while encouraging principled conservatives to explore and possibly seek seats.  This is a long process, but it’s the best one if we’re ever going to see center-right common sense on Capitol Hill.

---

Maybe, just maybe, the Delaware seat isn’t as far out of reach as I thought it was on the Wednesday after O’Donnell upset the GOP establishment favorite.  Yeah, she’s down a double-digit in the polls as of today, but there’s still six weeks of campaigning to go and O’Donnell is raising money from folks from coast to coast.  Can she win?

Not the point.

The point of the excerpt above is to make the case for nominating risky candidates here and there on the basis of the fact that the minority party in the Senate enjoys a very powerful position. We don’t need an outright majority in the Senate like we do in the House.  We just need a strong enough 41+ minority to block those measures that do not comport with our agenda.  The majority just determines what measures come to the floor for debate.  Ending debate requires 60+ votes, so a sizable minority lets the right begin a long term plan to establish a center-right majority while gambling in a few places that would likely have been lost anyway.

Castle was the wrong Republican.  He’s a liberal.  He’s no better than another Lindsey Graham.  So why not go all in with a real conservative?  Why not gamble on O’Donnell getting her message to Delaware voters in a way that might get her seated in a volatile year like this?  Sometimes, you have to put your chips in the pot when the odds are against you.  People who don’t take big risks don’t make big returns.

Krauthammer, Rove et all seem to miss this point completely.  It’s Ok if a conservative-laden GOP doesn’t win the Senate in 2010. Going all-in on O’Donnell doesn’t lose the tournament.  The 2010 election is one hand in a long, long process where taking a risk here or there makes sense and is part of a long term strategy. 

Tens of millions more people will be voting in this off-term election than in recent such contests.  There’s no reason to think that a long shot can’t win, and the way O’Donnell is raising money and managing her message, she might not be as much of a long shot as the experts think.