October 19, 2010

What happens when you blindly follow "the narrative"

You get burned.

Sarah Palin "told hundreds of supporters Monday they couldn't 'party like it's 1773' until Washington was flooded with like-minded conservatives."

The reaction?

That's Daily Kos head-man Markos Moulitsas and PBS's Gwen Ifill above, respectively. So let's ask the question:

Oh, just this:

The Boston Tea Party was a direct action by colonists in Boston, a town in the British colony of Massachusetts, against the British government. On December 16, 1773, after officials in Boston refused to return three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded the ships and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor. The incident remains an iconic event of American history, and other political protests often refer to it.

Good job there, Kos and Ms. Ifill (among others). What was that about "elites" again?

RELATED: Predictably, the LGOMB has picked up on Delaware US Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell's comments made today in a debate regarding the First Amendment and religion. Here's what O'Donnell said:

"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?"

Coons responded that O'Donnell's question "reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. ... The First Amendment establishes a separation."

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?"

The last clarification (in bold) is key. (And as the AP reported in the link above, O'Donnell's campaign made that clear.) And it's immediately what I thought she meant when I had first heard about this supposed "gaffe" on the radio while driving home from work. But you don't expect the MSM to actually explicitly point this out, do you?

Unfortunately for the LGOMB's pandora, the AP and others, you're in the company of Markos and Ifill above. O'Donnell is right. The phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the First Amendment or the Constitution in general. It was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Danbury Baptists in 1802. And since conservatives in general tend to believe that the courts have over-interpreted the original meaning of the First Amendment to exclude virtually any mention and/or practice of religion in the public arena, O'Donnell's point -- even if clumsily made -- is a valid one.

UPDATE: Just read Daniel Foster's take on O'Donnell. His is the same as mine (or vice versa).

UPDATE 2: Wonder why the MSM hasn't harped on the fact that Chris Coons couldn't note the five freedoms listed in the First Amendment? And he's an attorney!

Posted by Hube at October 19, 2010 06:24 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

"And he's an attorney!"

More importantly he had the text of the amendment right in front of him. You should be able to figure most of them out just from that.

Of course knowing Coons, he probably can't figure out the freedom protected by the 2nd amendment either.

Posted by: Jeff the Baptist at October 19, 2010 08:26 PM

Most liberals are unaware of the text of any amendment, reading over number 1 and 2 makes them uncomfortable.

Posted by: anon at October 19, 2010 09:56 PM