Replies

Well, Christine is right. If they want to call it a gotcha, well, they’re liars.

Here’s from a cbs news article

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020015-503544.html

“The First Amendment does?” O’Donnell asked. “Let me just clarify: You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

“Government shall make no establishment of religion,” Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Coons was off slightly: The first amendment actually reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”)

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

I will say that there’s a real difference between what the 1A says “make no establishment” is much different from “respecting an establishment”

States and localities CAN establish under the constitution.

Congress can’t pass a law repecting that establishment.

I believe that’s basic Constitution 101 - Federalism. Small Federal Government. Letting the states decide.

Christine WAS RIGHT. No “Gotcha”. We need our people on the TV MOCKING those who disagree with Christine. She was 100% right.

..............................

I’m astounded CBS would be so accurate.

Dumbfounded even.

This doesn’t clarify. I just now heard the actual audio on Rush. The statement by Coons to which she was responding include both a reference to separation and to non-establishment, equating the two. So her “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment” was her stringing him along, to get him to confirm that “separation” was in the 1st Amendment. The journalist omitted the “separation” and mentioned only the “non-establishment.”

So yes, she was absolutely right but the way it is being quoted is misleading.

But, just from a tactical standpoint, she would have helped herself by “teaching” him at that moment, saying to him, “Yes, non-establishment is in there, but separation is not.” From Rush, just now, apparently she twice strung him along, asking ‘that’s in the 1st Amendment” a second time. Obviously from the laughter of the audience, they were ignorant of her point—the distinction between separation and non-establishment. They laughed when she first asked him “where is separation in the Constitution.”

Three times she tried to trap him into an error that all of us know about. She should instead have, once he entered the trap the first time, sprung it shut and told him and the audience about the distinction and why it matters.

If her audience had been a bunch of Freepers, he’d have egg on his face. But her audience and the media audience didn’t “get” the distinction and by failing to nail it down, she created their sound bite for them.

It’s a missed opportunity. She was trying to be too clever by half.

I hope she wins, I have defended her again and again. But this was a tactical mistake.