1. What do you mean by Smart? They were so determined to pass universal health, they voted for a bill they hadn't read yet, and they knew the bill was full of useless crap that would make medical care in this country worse (they already planned to pass a "fix"). Add to that they knew that the bill was wildly unpopular. Then they did it all again with the banking regulation bill.
I personally would say they are not smart for sticking to this plan of spending more and more money and racking up more debt to HELP the economy. Emotional perhaps, but not smart.
2. I think you need to evaluate what you want in a politician. If all you want is an Ivy league educated smooth talking con man, you are getting it. If you want "normal" people to run for office, you need to realize they won't be so polished. In addition, most of those current politicians are not nearly so polished as the media and others would lead you to believe. If they got the same media attention as Angle and O'Donnell, they wouldn't look so good. If they didn't have armies of staff, advisers, image consultants, and others working for them, they definitely wouldn't look so good.
3. On the constitution, I would like them to know it also, but do you really expect them to quote it verbatim in a debate on national TV? How many of the current Democrats or Republicans in Congress could do that? I bet very few of them could.
Also, my impression of the O'Donnell stuff was that she knew the Bill of Rights as well as anyone, but wasn't quite clear enough in her speaking and left herself open to being misinterpreted by the a media that is looking for anything negative they can get. That is a landmine that is difficult to avoid.
What do I mean by smart? Primarily, I mean that they have an education. They understand at least college level English, science, economics, civics, and math. I want someone that can understand, and speak proper english. I did not know much english until I moved here, and I learned it. Being born here, you should speak it perfectly. I want someone who understands the scientific method, and doesn't put up with bad science. I want someone who has a good understanding of the constitution, and the law. I want someone who knows that 2+2=4, so they can put together a budget.
Christine O'Donnell scary to me. She has gotten really good at parroting talking points. That's all i ever see any politician do these days; parrot talking points. Christine O'Donnell obviously doesn't understand that the supreme court has ruled that the first amendment effectively says there is a seperation of church and state. I can name 10 decisions from the supreme court since 1948 that say just that, offhand. (I'll post those decisions below.) Sure, that phrase is not in the constitution. The 1st amendment, as interpreted by the supreme court since 1948 says that. It's not as clear cut as "That phrase isn't in the constitution".
A bit of background from me, here. My parents escaped Iran with me in 1989, for America specifically because of America's "melting pot" attitude, and secular legal system. (Secular, meaning not "christian" or not "Muslim")
I have seen and have stories of what a theocracy can do, and the idea that my home country could even bend that way scares me a whole lot.
Please don't think that I am a fan of the Democrats more so than the Republicans, I am not. To better clarify my previous statement, I think they are smart, learned people too afraid to do what they feel is right (wether or not i agree with them is irrelevant to this.) 2 good examples of this would be Obama's refusal to end the gay ban on the military, and the Democratic majority in congress refusing to even try and vote on the tax cuts until after the election.
I would generally call myself a Republican, except that party's propensity to favor the religious is a non starter for me, for reasons I explained above. I think the Democrats have the right idea on some things like health care (but the law they passed is terrible) as well as ideas for equality for gays and the like.
The name I use on this forum comes from a Kurt Vonnegut story I read years ago. It is about a future America where the government enforces equality by knocking the exceptional down to an average level. My views on government are somewhat like this; being that government cannot enforce equality on people. I do not think the government should "make" people equal, but I do think they should help, when the investment is a good one, in helping people be better. They should not make it harder, only make it easier, if it makes economic sense. In this sense, I agree with the republican party. I am probably socially a Democrat, and economically a Republican; so my politics are strange I think.
As far as mainstream media, I am also not a fan. My father says cable and TV news reminds him too much of the propaganda he used to see in Iran; far too little real news, and far too much puff and crud meant to entertain rather than inform. I try and read from as many different sources as I can.
I am answering multiple replies to my post here, I hope I did not miss anything.
----
Court cases:
McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) (religious instruction in public schools violates establishment clause)
Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) (State cannot force people to swear to the existence of God to hold public office)
Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) (bible reading over school PA violates establishment clause)
Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) (banning evolution violates establishment clause)
Stone v. Graham (1981) (posting 10 commandments unconstitutional)
Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) (moment of silence unconstitutional - read this one, its more complicated than it sounds)
Edwards v. Aquillard (1987) (creation science teaching, with religious motivation unconstitutional)
Allegheny County v. ACLU (1989) (nativity scene inside govt building)
Lee v. Weisman (1992) (school district cannot provide religious instruction at school graduation)
Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah (1994)