Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Narratives In Chief

Yesterday two stories went kind of viral but with exactly the same theme. Regardless of facts or history the Left's narrative in the media always triumphs.

First the O'Donnell supposed gaffe in her debate with Chris Coons. In case you have been under a rock or really do not pay attention to the news the last two days, Christine O'Donnell gave this "ridiculous" answer in her debate in response to a question regarding local school boards teaching intelligent design and separation of church and state:

O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?"
Crowd of ignorant Widener Law students: audible laughing

As I have had many discussions with my liberal friends over the years, they too believe this is in the Establishment Clause. You know what, I used to think that as well because that is what school taught me. That the 1st Amendment creates a wall between church and state, even though it does not expressly say so. The liberals that run the media and your schooling have been peddling this bull since the 1940's in an attempt to marginalize any religious person running for office. This phantom separation was first spit out in a landmark 1878 Supreme Court case Reynolds v. United States. It had to do with the Mormons in Utah or something to that effect (I'm not the legal scholar....yet). In the decision they contort Thomas Jefferson's writing to a Baptist convention in 1802. Ever since then and after another decision in 1947 (Everson v. Board of Education) we are taught that there is separation of church and state and it is guaranteed by the Constitution. We are somehow made to believe that a nation founded on religious freedom has no place for a congressman or woman to hold personal religious faith and have it guide their morality. Well that is exactly what the Progressives have in mind, it is to strike religion out of the heart of the people by marginalizing it. Making it seem "wacky" or un-scientific. Ann Althouse breaks down the exchange as such:

Plainly, the Constitution does not say "separation of church and state," so there's nothing stupid there. It's provocative, because many people like that gloss on the text.

Coons responded that O'Donnell's question "reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. ... The First Amendment establishes a separation."
He's talking about interpretations of the text, and she was talking about the text. What we're hearing is 2 individuals talking past each other.

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?"
She's telling him to pay attention to her limited point about the text.
So as I said earlier what's so ridiculous about her answer? It's a stupid answer to them because it fits the preconceived notions that a)she's an idiot and b)she's a Conservative...usually in the media those go hand in hand. When in actuality she gives a perfectly nuanced answer showing her understanding of the history and the facts. Then she asks him what are the five guaranteed rights in the Establishment Clause and he can't name them...he went to Yale Law. Why does the media not jump on him? Oh yeah it doesn't fit their narrative.

The second story is more of the typical Palin idiocy from the Left. She has been living in their heads rent-free for a few years now. They just can't take it, and it's funny to watch. It stems from a recent speech she made and telling her largely tea party flavored crowd to not "party like it's 1773" and to make sure to get out and vote. Holy cow the immediate outrage from the online Lefties was great and classic. Cuffy Meigs over at Perfunction blog broke it and catalogued all the stupidity on Twitter:

Historic Illiteracy

Well if that doesn't sum up the Left's problem in a nutshell I don't know what does. Before those people could think about what she actually said they jumped all over it as a supposed gaffe. Because once again the narrative is Sarah Palin = idiot. Therefore anything she says or does is idiotic. The Left's reliance on the ad hominem instead of fact bites them in the ass this time. I admit I am painting with a broad stroke as it was mostly the online Left, Daily Kos, etc. but Gwen Ifill? Really? Once again Moe Lane taking the words out of my mouth:
While I understand and expect that your average online progressive blogger has about much awareness of American history as, say . . . Oh, this is awkward. An online progressive blogger would be the actual yardstick for 'abysmally ignorant about American history.' Nonetheless, while I understand that the Online Left is dumb . . . really, Gwen Ifill. You're supposed to be one of the bright talking heads.


Post a Comment