14 Days ... anyone have any predictions?

[Anonymous]

Senate ?
House ?
Gubernatorial ?

[Anonymous]

Dems hold the senate, GOP gets the house, remains the party of "no", still doesn't know what it is anymore.

Meanwhile nothing gets dine for two years.

[Anonymous]

Oh forgot your last question. GOP wins big in governor races. Media spends inordinate amount of time trying to figure out what that means.

[Anonymous]

what it means is that when they start looking at boundary lines for congressional seats, the Republican governors will have a huge influence on how they get drawn.

[Anonymous]

I am all for nothing getting done for two years...it will provide the opportunity for the private sector to heal on its own without govt interference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Senate ?
House ?
Gubernatorial ?

I think Dems are in for a rude awakening which they brought on themselves.

[Anonymous]

It will be really interesting if Barney Frank loses or Christine O'Donell wins early on.

[Anonymous]

Christine O'Donnell can't win. The tea party gave the senate back to the Democrats with the simple act of her nomination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Christine O'Donnell can't win. The tea party gave the senate back to the Democrats with the simple act of her nomination.

Don't bet the farm.

[Anonymous]

This is an excerpt of her latest debate:

Coons: "Government shall make no establishment of religion."
O'Donnell: "That's in the First Amendment?"

You may think that she can still get elected. I have more faith in the electorate. The above exchange is appalling.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and I have some faith in the polls. The best poll she has going is Rasmussen, and they have her down 11 points.

[Anonymous]

I hate to shock everybody but O'Donnell was spot-on! There is NO seperation of church and state in the US Constitution except at the federal level.

Coons completely misstated article 1 when he said "Government shall......", it actually reads:

"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."

The word "Congress" was used, not "city", "school", "town", "state", "county", because at the time religion was part of many organizations at the state and local levels.

The US Congress is part of the government but certainly not synoimous with "government".

The purpose of our founders was to avoid the creation of another Church of England, which was not simply parcticed by the British government, but was part of the government. The establishment clause exists in our 1st amendment NOT to protect the people from religion, but to protect religion from the federal government!!

[Anonymous]

17:12, I think you are correct that that was the point she was trying to make. However, it is a subtle argument to say that "separation of church and state" is an inadequate and possibly misleading, term for what the First Amendment says. She botched it by acting as though the First Amendment has noting to do with it.

Jefferson spoke of the wall of separation that he believed was set up, and the Supreme Court has held that freedom of religion is a fundamental right that no part of our government should interfere with, so one can say that total separation of church and state is there, stemming from the words of the First Amendment.

Or one can argue that it is all interpretation, and the phrase "separation of church and state" is not there. This is what O'Donnell was surely trying to say, but she totally failed to make it clear, and sounded like she did not know what the First Amendment says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:17:12, I think you are correct that that was the point she was trying to make. However, it is a subtle argument to say that "separation of church and state" is an inadequate and possibly misleading, term for what the First Amendment says. She botched it by acting as though the First Amendment has noting to do with it.

Jefferson spoke of the wall of separation that he believed was set up, and the Supreme Court has held that freedom of religion is a fundamental right that no part of our government should interfere with, so one can say that total separation of church and state is there, stemming from the words of the First Amendment.

Or one can argue that it is all interpretation, and the phrase "separation of church and state" is not there. This is what O'Donnell was surely trying to say, but she totally failed to make it clear, and sounded like she did not know what the First Amendment says.

17:12 again:

I agree completely that she did not articulate the answer as well as I would have liked; however, Coons misquoted the first amendment, to the point that the meaning was lost.

When Jefferson spoke of the "wall of seperation" he was reassuring the Baptists of Danbury that their religious freedom would remain protected from the federal government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:12, I think you are correct that that was the point she was trying to make. However, it is a subtle argument to say that "separation of church and state" is an inadequate and possibly misleading, term for what the First Amendment says. She botched it by acting as though the First Amendment has noting to do with it.

Jefferson spoke of the wall of separation that he believed was set up, and the Supreme Court has held that freedom of religion is a fundamental right that no part of our government should interfere with, so one can say that total separation of church and state is there, stemming from the words of the First Amendment.

Or one can argue that it is all interpretation, and the phrase "separation of church and state" is not there. This is what O'Donnell was surely trying to say, but she totally failed to make it clear, and sounded like she did not know what the First Amendment says.

17:12 again:

I agree completely that she did not articulate the answer as well as I would have liked; however, Coons misquoted the first amendment, to the point that the meaning was lost.

When Jefferson spoke of the "wall of seperation" he was reassuring the Baptists of Danbury that their religious freedom would remain protected from the federal government.

You can't say that the meaning is lost. As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, states and local governments cannot establish religion either. His statement is fundamentally correct.

Furthermore, you are glossing over the major point. She did not understand that the establishment clause is in the First Amendment. Watch the video and tell me that she was making a nuanced point but merely didn't articulate it well enough. Please.