baseless accusation
constitutional illiterate
double standard
hypocrisy
ignorance
lie
republican
sleaze
smear
Someone teach Sarah Palin what the First Amendment says, please
By ClarusVisum
@ClarusVisum (2163)
United States
October 31, 2008 6:55pm CST
"Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said." -- http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palin-fears-med.html
Does anyone find her wanting to silence media criticism of her negative attacks a little ironic?
4 people like this
6 responses
@scottshiny (2)
• United States
1 Nov 08
So anyone who brings up Obamas associations with these people are "attacking" him? Where is the logic in that? You say Palin is trying to silence the media criticism of her "negative attacks" but what I see is the complete opposite. They are the ones trying to silence Sarah Palin.
2 people like this
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
1 Nov 08
Yes. They "silence" her by echoing every attack of hers, no matter how ridiculous. Did you hear the latest? Obama is accused of nefarious activity by going to a going-away party for Rashid Khalidi. McCain argues that the LA Times should release the video they have of the party (that someone gave them on the condition that they wouldn't release it) and says he doesn't know if Khalidi is a terrorist.
Of course, problem is that McCain gave this guy nearly half a MILLLION dollars in 1998, and more money in '93. How could you give a guy hundreds of thousands of dollars, who you can't even DEFINITIVELY say is not a terrorist? I don't know about you, but if there's a question in my mind as to whether someone is a terrorist, I tend to be a little stingy with my money.
Are you for real?
2 people like this
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
1 Nov 08
"If there is no impropriety, why is he worried?"
Hey, let's call McCain a terrorist sympathizer on national television! If he isn't, why would he care?
What idiotic logic.
2 people like this
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
1 Nov 08
Exactly! When there is information brought to the attention of the American people so that they can make an informed decision is - then Obama is being attacked. If there is no impropriety, why is he worried?
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
1 Nov 08
Just when I think she really can't surprise me anymore with her stupidity - that's right, to those on the right, I said "stupidity" straight out this time, no more beating around the bush - she goes and outdoes herself! What does she think she'd be up against if she became the V.P.? When she gets off script the woman doesn't think at all before she speaks.
Annie
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
1 Nov 08
Nobody's "surrogates" did a thing to that goofball Joe the (not really a) Plumber. The media did what the media does - after the meeting between Barack and Joe, which hasn't been played in its entirety hardly at all, he became the darling of the right-wing whack job talk shows. Then, McCain brought him up over 20 times at the debate. Poor Joe got exactly what he wanted and he's now done what relatively few flashes in the pan manage to do, and that's milk much more from his original "fifteen minutes of fame". I'm beginning to think of him as a male version of Sarah Palin - someone who's trying to play a knowledgeable politician on TV. Hopefully, the season is almost over and their show won't be shown in reruns.
Annie
1 person likes this
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
1 Nov 08
"She's not the one who's sending out police and prosecutors as her "Truth Squad" to intimidate supporters."
Ignoring that ridiculous distortion for a moment:
Well, she's baselessly calling Obama a terrorist sympathizer to influence supporters. Is that better?
2 people like this
@sharra1 (6340)
• Australia
1 Nov 08
Ironic? She would not know what irony was. She thinks she is a princess who can slap down anyone who does not support her. I just hope she loses and finds out what its like to be a human being again.
She is such a fool. If she does not understand the constitution and the rights embedded in it then how can she possibly govern the country? Or will she rewrite it to read the way she wants it to?
@sharra1 (6340)
• Australia
2 Nov 08
Hmmm she must have missed the classes on government or maybe she does think that being president is like being an absolute monarch where she can make all the rules herself. Wow. Doesn't she know that the President is not actually the government, congress is? Has no one told her this?
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
1 Nov 08
May the descent into obscurity come swiftly.
2 people like this
@KLVentures (119)
• United States
1 Nov 08
I hope that the the media and people like ClarusVisum continue their attacks on Palin. I believe it has helped to shore up the conservative base for McCain. I had pretty much given up on McCain's chances of winning and I have always looked at the VP selection as very low on the priority list in campaign issues. But the frothing at the mouth by liberals in their opposition to Palin has given me great joy. With the last few weeks totally focused on attacking Palin, McCain has gone through basically unscathed. His positives are moving up in the polls while Obama's are moving down. The only ones that I think are really concerned with Palin are the far right and the far left. The middle is now concerned with the two Presidential candidates. With the recent history of polling inaccuracy over the last few elections (usually Republicans are short changed a few points, which by the way I do not think is intentional), I believe that this race is now a toss up. So keep up the good work my liberal bulldogs. You worry about the #2 spot on the ticket and while we examine the top spots on the ticket.
1 person likes this
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
1 Nov 08
I don't know if you've noticed, but practically every time a Republican comes out and endorses Obama, they cite the Palin pick as a primary determinant of their decision. McCain's not going through unscathed. Want to know why? It's because HE is the one who NOMINATED her! The more absurd Palin makes herself, the worse McCain looks for having chosen her to be his second-in-command.
Sarah Palin wants the freedom to launch negative attacks, but she thinks it's an infringement of HER freedom if the press uses ITS freedom to say what they think of it. Everyone should be made aware of this stark double standard in Palin's idea of what the First Amendment truly means.
2 people like this