Sarah Palin, Constitutional Scholar
In case you haven’t seen this yet, it’s yet another example of a woman saying stuff that would be considered disqualifying in a state senate race:
“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,” Palin told host Chris Plante, “then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”
Needless to say, there is no first amendment right to be immune from criticism. Not to be immune from criticism from Sara Palin, not to be immune from criticism from bloggers, and not to be immune from criticism from the mainstream media. There’s nothing remotely like that in the first amendment, and rightly so.
47 Responses to “Sarah Palin, Constitutional Scholar”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 1st, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Palin is a dramatic exception from the Bill of Rights-embracing Republicans we’ve had in power the last 7.5 years.
November 1st, 2008 at 5:21 pm
The irony in this is that the first amendment guarantees the right of a free press, that nefarious borg that Sarah Palin thinks threatens…uh…the first amendment.
November 1st, 2008 at 5:25 pm
She also made some dumbass comment today about being at war with Iran. Although she might not have meant it. One problem in dealing with Palin is that she is so incoherent and foolish that it often becomes difficult to discern what she means. Nevertheless, im sure this was something that was no doubt pushed into her skull by Randy schunemwhatever. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/did_palin_suggest_were_at_war.php
I’m not sure how i will respond if she becomes our next Vice President on Tuesday.
November 1st, 2008 at 5:35 pm
But this will get 1/1,000th the coverage of “socialism,” as did her lies about the troopergate report.
November 1st, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Dear republicans:
Please nominate Sarah Palin in 2012. Please. Pretty please?
She is proof that the republican party isn’t just the party of white men – it’s the party of boorish, immature white men. Starbusts all around. My gut reading of her was that she was the type of woman women hate – flighty, winky, and ruthless. Polls have borne that out. If she is their best hope, my god, it’s going to be a wipeout.
November 1st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Sarah Palin: about as smart as an average Youtube commenter.
November 1st, 2008 at 5:57 pm
you are misreading the quote, assuming her to be a fool and not a fascist type power seeker! Gov. Palin is saying that she does not know the “what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media” because it keeps interfering with HER ability to slime Obama. She is stating that once in power (she assumes she will be at some point) she will change it (ie. redefine it) to reflect the rights of the “pro americans” in the USA, namely her and her allies. These are the kinds of comments Bush and Cheney made prior to ignoring and redefining the Bill of Rights during their stint in power.
November 1st, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I suppose this explains why she doesn’t scold people at her rallies who call Obama a terrorist or use racial slurs….
Nonetheless, let me call her an idiot.
November 1st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
“Fear of attacks by the mainstream media”?
You only have to be fearful if you’re a painfully ignorant hardcore right wight nutjob. Goddamn Katie Couric and her follow up questions
November 1st, 2008 at 6:19 pm
She has nothing to fear but herself.
November 1st, 2008 at 6:23 pm
This is a very old rhetorical favorite of the conservative movement. Use one of the liberals’ favorite principles … free speech … to hammer said liberals by accusing them of curbing conservatives’ free speech. The key is that anything counts as “curbing” … from disinviting a controversial speaker (arguably a troubling thing), to mere criticism or looking at them funny. The technique has the added benefit of gradually devaluing the whole concept of free speech itself.
November 1st, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Any chance someone could slip her a copy of the Constitution on the ropeline?
November 1st, 2008 at 6:42 pm
“I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.””
Um, Sarah, the whole point of the first amendment is that politicians should live in fear of attacks by the mainstream media. That’s what it’s there for.
November 1st, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Andrew has it right…. if you look at her funny, it might have a chilling effect on her rights…. hehe
November 1st, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Shut up Palin, before another house falls on you.
November 1st, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Actually, I think what she’s really saying is that she fears that media denunciations of anti-Obama speakers (and fiercer stuff like the demands that radio stations not book Stanley Kurtz and David Freddoso) is a prelude to, under an Obama administration, attempts to clamp down on free speech, ranging from the fairness doctrine to, in a worst-case scenario, an attempt to set up a Canadian-style Human Rights Commission.
As so often with Palin’s statements, it came out sort of wrong, and I personally don’t think her fears are likely to come true, certainly not in the first term, but her meaning is not what Matt imputes to it.
November 1st, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Assuming Sarah wasn’t thinking, and expressing herself herself
in her usual non sequiturs, and since Sarah was speaking of the future, perhaps she was expressing concern for her own first amendment rights, when the O administration would define her speech, as treasonous, and seditionist, punishable by death.
Not that any such thing would ever happen, but she was preaching in Repug code to her choir members, who do worry mightily about such things.
otoh, Sarah doesn’t make much sense on her best days;
who knows what she was trying to say, really?
November 1st, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Wouldn’t it be embarassing if someone with a degree in journalism said something so clueless about the first amendment?
Let me stop you right there. What she is saying is, the media shouldn’t call her negative campaigning “negative campaigning”. Which is stupid. But maybe you were winking at the quote while reading it.
November 1st, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I’m not going to defend Palin’s interpretation of the 1st. However, the fact that almost all of the media is so heavily biased towards BHO should be extremely worrisome. Having a media that’s little more than an extension of one party and one candidate is verging on totalitarianism.
Also, BHO has several issues with the 1st; it would have been wiser for Palin to discuss those. And, for yet another thing MattY won’t be able to figure out, the treatment of JoeThePlumber has a deep relationship to the 1st.
For the details on the last, see my list of nineteen non-partisan reasons to oppose Obama.
See #s 11, 13, and especially 14 at that link.
November 1st, 2008 at 10:36 pm
24IQDingbat writes: “And, for yet another thing MattY won’t be able to figure out, the treatment of JoeThePlumber has a deep relationship to the 1st.”
You’re a Palin-level fool as far as your understanding of the 1st goes. Nothing in the “treatment of Joe the Plumber’s Helper” has any connection whatsoever to any aspect of the 1st.
And the media is “biased” towards Obama simply because he’s run a better campaign and he isn’t fucking up every 12 minutes like McCain is. It’s hard to keep the relative competency out of the public eye, unless you’re Faux News.
November 1st, 2008 at 11:16 pm
If Obama was going around calling former media darling McCain a brainwashed Manchurian candidate, I expect that would get unfavorable coverage for Obama. Meanwhile, in the real world, McCain is accusing Obama of being a socialist terrorist sympathizer. That’s stupid enough to get negative coverage. You don’t see wackjobs who decide to blow their cars onto crowded sidewalks complaining that the media is too pro-pedestrian.
November 2nd, 2008 at 1:19 am
In order to understand the deep link between JTP and the 1st Amendment, you have to actually know what the 1st Amendment says and what it provides for as interpreted. If you don’t understand, just read #14 on my list of reasons.
November 2nd, 2008 at 2:16 am
From the link:
“However, the “hate” part was a reference to Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh, both of whom he’s also smeared.”
Oh noes, Obama has said that Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh spew hate on the airwaves. To quote the Original Dennis the Peasant “Now we see the violence inherent in the system!”
November 2nd, 2008 at 2:59 am
24, it is simply un-American to criticize the incoming president of the United States in a time of war. Attacks on Obama threaten our troops and hurt our chances of success. Shame on you.
November 2nd, 2008 at 3:00 am
Come to think of it, 24, it’s pretty disturbing in itself that you’re trying to curb Obama’s freedom of speech by arguing that he shouldn’t be elected because of the things he’s said. You disgust me.
November 2nd, 2008 at 5:13 am
Well the reasoning behind Bush v. Gore was that Bush would suffer irreparable harm if Florida were allowed to count the votes. Once again, Palin is the picure perfect representative of the Republican Party.
November 2nd, 2008 at 6:00 am
LEARN TO PROOFREAD, for God’s sake.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:24 am
Marc,
FIND ANOTHER BLOG TO BITCH ON, for God’s sake.
It’s getting old.
November 2nd, 2008 at 3:06 pm
It would probably be in MattY’s best interest to try to reduce the number of ThinkProgressers coming over here, because they’re making him look even worse.
Regarding #23, the issue isn’t so much that BHO falsely accused Dobbs/Rush of spreading “hate”. The issue is that he said that “hate” has no place on the airwaves. Presumably that means that he’d use government action to curb what he calls “hate” from being broadcast.
The issue is also that he lied about both persons. Even JoeKlein called him on one of those, so you know how bad a lie it was.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Nice good blog!
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:40 am
levitraI want to say – thank you for this!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:23 am
Great site. Good info
March 17th, 2009 at 2:21 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:59 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:22 am
buy viagra online
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:03 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Palin is so lame I hope she runs, but I must admit there is a cynical part of me that worries of the right wing back lash.
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Gee whiz – You would all please leave Sarah Alone. hehe. She has had a terrible week.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:06 am
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!! viagra