Thursday, October 28, 2010

Witchy Poo and the Amendments, or What’s in First?

So, witch-dabbler, Teabagger Senate candidate and walking punchline Christine O’DonnelL appeared on a local radio station in Delaware to spread her message of enlightened ignorance. As usually happens these days, the radio interview was also videotaped (most radio shows have live webcams of their broadcasts).

The O’Donnell campaign was apoplectic (that means “really mad,” Christine—don’t sue me!) and demanded that the video be turned over and destroyed. (Uh, pick one. They can’t turn it over AND destroy it. Chain of custody. Dumb ass.)

The best part was when O’Donnell’s attorney (I’m picturing a baby-faced ideologue with a third-rate law degree in an ill-fitting hand me down suit) called the station to say he would “crush” them with a lawsuit if they didn’t turn the tape over.

The stations attorney apparently suggested that the campaign lawyer might need a bottle and a nap—and maybe a refresher first year constitutional law class. Because, you see, there is nothing illegal about videotaping a guest on a radio show. In fact, the action is protected by the First Amendment.

Apparently, when told of the response, Christine (the candidate, not the haunted car) rolled her eyes and said, “THAT’S in the First Amendment?!?!?” When told that, in fact, it was, O’Donnell said. “Somebody get me a copy of that thing. What the fuck ISN’T in there?”

If you’ll recall, Ms. O’Donnell (who apparently thinks her first name means she’s related to Christ) has been having lots of confusion about the First Amendment lately. Given all the new information she’s been getting lately, it wouldn’t surprise me if the crazy lady decides to “plead the first” the next time she doesn’t want to answer a difficult question.

Seriously, people, can you imagine this woman in the Senate? I mean, sure, we’d have a few laughs as we watched h the American empire continue to crumble on the shoulders of the O’Donnells and Angles. It would certainly give me plenty of blog fodder. But honestly, shouldn’t John Cornyn really be the low water mark for a Senator? Anything worse than Cornyn should be against the law. Isn’t that in the first amendment?

No comments: