About Me

My photo
TX, United States
My name is Michael Gonzalez. I am a moderate Democrat. My political experience is limited to voting. My biggest influence is my family, including my wife. I am taking this class because it is important to me to have a good understanding of our government and the factors that help to bring about change in our country. I hope this class teaches me more about politics, including lobbyists and other group influences. I unfortunately did not do well on either quiz; although I did do better on the current events quiz than the civics quiz. The civics quiz was definitely the harder of the two. The civics quiz asked questions that at times had me saying, “I have no clue.” When I am not doing government homework, I enjoy sports and spending time at home. I also enjoy my job in sales for AT&T.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Christine O’ Donnell: A Constitutional Conservative?

              On Tuesday, the 19th, in a debate for a U.S. Senate seat in Delaware, something unpardonable happened.  During the debate between Democrat Chris Coons and Republican Christine O’Donnell, the topic of “separation of church and state” took center stage.  Through this exchange, Mrs. O’Donnell showed the world how uninformed she really is.  She repeatedly asked her opponent to show her where separation between church and state exists in the constitution.  With Mr. Coons being forced to point out the painfully obvious—that the principle is expressed in the First Amendment—the audience at Widener Law School could not help but laugh.  Most who know about our constitution are aware that the mandate for government not to interfere in freedom of religion comes from the First Amendment.  It might not say word-for-word, “separation between church and state,” but this has long been the interpretation—as originally stated by Thomas Jefferson himself.  What really gets me heated is that this so-called leader of the Tea Party movement claims to be a constitutional conservative.  How can someone say that about themselves and have a fundamental misunderstanding of our First Amendment?  This idea boggles my mind! It is one thing for Tea Partiers to claim to be constitutional conservatives, but they need to be able to back up this claim with actual knowledge of and actual support for the principles set fourth in our constitution. 
            In actuality, many Tea Partiers support policies based on religious beliefs that infringe upon the American freedoms granted by the constitution.  Additionally, many Tea Partiers support altering the constitution in the form of an amendment designed to promote bigotry and discrimination against gays and lesbians.  Finally, many Tea Partiers, including Christine O’Donnell, support repealing the 17th amendment of the constitution—while simultaneously touting the dangers of the deficit?!  How can these politicians claim to be constitutional conservatives when they want to bend the constitution every which way to support their whims?
            It scares me to know that there are people out there who may actually vote for someone like Christine O’Donnell, even after she has displayed such ignorance about the foundation of our country.  This is only one episode in a string of questionable statements and positions of Mrs. O’Donnell’s.  From her days of witchcraft to her misleading statements about her educational background, this candidate is not qualified enough, nor dignified enough, to represent our country as an elected official.  If Christine O’Donnell and other Tea Partiers are really the future of our national government, we should all be frightened.
Posted by at

1 comment:

Jeffrey Edwards said...

I read “Christine O’ Donnell: A Constitutional Conservative?” on Political Spotlight. This was written by my fellow classmate D. Michael Gonzalez. I have to admit, I was caught up by this years election process. I really liked the race in Delaware. I am no fan of Christine O'Donnell, but I think she was a perfect example of the freedom we have. Where else would someone like Christine be able to get as close to a seat of power as she did?

Michael's article starts off by pointing out the faults of the Tea Party candidate. I have to say that there was a good point made at the debate. The constitution does not have anything about “Separation of Church and State.” This phrase was a metaphor that Thomas Jefferson came up with later. The truth of it is the First Amendment states that there will be no national religion, there is nothing that says there has to be a separation. Now before we go any further there have been many rulings where we have established the “Separation of Church and State” and this is where we are today. I would have loved to see this really play out in the debt, instead of the spinsters adding this tab after the debate. I think it would have made for a much closer race. Christine did not have the mental quickness to catch on to that and play it to her side. No I think the race ended like it should have. She was not qualified to have that much voting power.

The article continues with the Tea Party's agenda. I have to disagree with the statement in here as well. The media has distorted this movement's image for the sake of News. I think the Tea Party is just an emotionally driven group trying to protect the country the best way they think they can. As misguided as they are, I still think it is a wonderful example of how free we really are.

There is no real reason to be scare of the Tea Party. Most of the candidates that ran in key races were not qualified and didn't win. Of the ones that did win, let them try working in government. I really want to see how they vote with their extensive knowledge of the Constitution. Don't buy into the hype that the Media has sold you.

November 12, 2010 at 6:40 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)