Sarah Palin ? (Part 2)

[Joffaboy]

Lol - Bible Spice rewrites the American Constitutions First Amendment in her own image

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/31/palin/index.html

oh dear....oh dear, oh dear, oh dear

Bible would be more dangerous and more ignorant than Bush 43. I dind't think it was possible for the GOP to present someone with even less clue than W, but they have managed to.

Oh Sweet Jesus......

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Yep, she couldn't have got it more bassackwards if she'd tried. (Thank god she and Old Man McCain are gonna lose.)

 

[GuruJane]

Actually it's quite an interesting debate about the role of media, its real or imagined influence on results and the implications for the First Amendment - as evidenced by Maureen Dowd's kicking off from the McCain campaign plane. While Maureen Dowd is an opinion writer, not a news reporter, so the situations are quite different, I still feel there is a principle at stake here.

Just out of interest, when Bill Clinton was far ahead in the polls as the successful presidential nominee in '92 and '96 did he kick off the news reporters who worked for newspapers who had just endorsed his opponent a week before the election as Obama has just done? Does anyone here know? Are there any other precedents from nominees in other campaigns?

 

[Joffaboy]

Just out of interest, when Bill Clinton was far ahead in the polls as the successful presidential nominee in '92 and '96 did he kick off the news reporters who worked for newspapers who had just endorsed his opponent a week before the election as Obama has just done? Does anyone here know? Are there any other precedents from nominees in other campaigns?

Who knows or cares - just another Faux News Republican talking point.

Obama hasn't tried to muzzle the media from writing what they want, just kicked them off of his plane. Haven't they got the right to have whomever they want on their plane?

A bit different to trying to complain about being critisised by the media and using the first Amendment as your defence when it is totally and completely wrong.

And whats the difference between a reporter and Dowd? Just because one is an opinion writer does that make a difference? I suppose so if you are reading from the Republican play book it does, after all Ayers is a domestic terrorist, but McCains best mate Gordon Liddy, is some sort of pillar of the community isn't he???

 

[usalion]

The Sarahcuda loses more points with a prank call set up from Canada....

srticle is here, with a link to the audio within the article

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...-prank-calls-palin-talk-politics-hunting.aspx

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Actually it's quite an interesting debate about the role of media, its real or imagined influence on results and the implications for the First Amendment - as evidenced by Maureen Dowd's kicking off from the McCain campaign plane. While Maureen Dowd is an opinion writer, not a news reporter, so the situations are quite different, I still feel there is a principle at stake here.

It may be an interesting discussion, but it's got nothing to do with the First Amendment. The First Amendment doesn't protect Palin from criticism and doesn't secure media organisations a seat on the Obama or McCain plane.

Just out of interest, when Bill Clinton was far ahead in the polls as the successful presidential nominee in '92 and '96 did he kick off the news reporters who worked for newspapers who had just endorsed his opponent a week before the election as Obama has just done? Does anyone here know? Are there any other precedents from nominees in other campaigns?

I'm sure that on a plane the size of Obama's there are still quite a few journos working for organisations that haven't endorsed him. (I mean, Fox News -- which hasn't officially endorsed anyone, for all that matters -- still gets a gig on his plane.)

If there's an element of retribution in McCain preventing Joe Klein from travelling on his plane or Obama kicking off the Washington Times reporter, well, that may be good political strategy or it may be bad political strategy. But a first amendment issue it ain't.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[GuruJane]

It may be an interesting discussion, but it's got nothing to do with the First Amendment. The First Amendment doesn't protect Palin from criticism and doesn't secure media organisations a seat on the Obama or McCain plane.

Sure. But Palin's comment was:

"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."

So she is not arguing that media criticism labelling her raising of certain issues as negative threatens her First Amendment rights in itself but that an electoral endorsement of same might prevent her and others feeling free to raise issues in the future?

Hardly an earth shattering comment, I would have thought. Being a journalist by training and vocation myself, I find the principle worth debate.

I'm sure that on a plane the size of Obama's there are still quite a few journos working for organisations that haven't endorsed him. (I mean, Fox News -- which hasn't officially endorsed anyone, for all that matters -- still gets a gig on his plane.)

I think the point was that they were kicked off within a week of their outlets officially endorsing McCain. I gather the Washington Times had had a reporter travelling with Obama from the beginning of his primary campaign.

If there's an element of retribution in McCain preventing Joe Klein from travelling on his plane or Obama kicking off the Washington Times reporter, well, that may be good political strategy or it may be bad political strategy. But a first amendment issue it ain't.

Well, I'm not so sure about that - at least in principle. On the face of it Obama's actions here are intimidatory, and a signal of what treatment might be handed out to media organisations if they exercise their rights to free speech after the election? As for Joe Klein - his banning from the plane was personal, not on his employer Time. Obama's actions were directed against the outlets themselves.

That's why I was interested if anyone could remember any other nominees doing the same thing. Or indeed any other Presidents?

Or is it unprecedented?

 

[DaveW]

"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."

A non-sequitur of breathtaking stupidity.

Since you apparently agree with this comment Jane - or at the very least consider it a worthy argument - perhaps you can explain to us how the media calling a big, dirty spade a big, dirty spade constitutes an infringement of free speech.

Winston Churchill could well have been describing Sarah Palin when he said: "Some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage."

 

[bit_pattern]

Being a journalist by training and vocation myself, I find the principle worth debate.

So it´s true. You really ARE Janet Albrechtson! I picked it from the hare brained idiocy of you arguments

 

[GuruJane]

So it´s true. You really ARE Janet Albrechtson! I picked it from the hare brained idiocy of you arguments

Except that Janet Albrechtson is not journalist.

She is a lawyer, her career was commerical law, and she is a commentator and an opinion writer for the Australian - not a journalist.

 

[GuruJane]

A non-sequitur of breathtaking stupidity.

Since you apparently agree with this comment Jane - or at the very least consider it a worthy argument - perhaps you can explain to us how the media calling a big, dirty spade a big, dirty spade constitutes an infringement of free speech.

Not what she was saying Dave.

 

[DaveW]

It's exactly what she was saying Jane.

Palin didn't want her negative campaiging being labeled being negative campaigning!

 

[Z_K]

A non-sequitur of breathtaking stupidity.



Not what she was saying Dave.

That's exactly what she is saying.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

So she is not arguing that media criticism labelling her raising of certain issues as negative threatens her First Amendment rights in itself but that an electoral endorsement of same might prevent her and others feeling free to raise issues in the future?

You're not drawing a pertinent distinction. Despite how garbled and tortured Palin's logic is, what she's saying is that criticism directed at her could have dampening effect on the effectiveness of her argument and/or her willingness to make an argument, ie it would discourage her from exercising her First Amendment right.

That is a complete misunderstanding of the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects her freedom of speech; it doesn't offer freedom from criticism by abridging the media's freedom of speech. As you ought to know, one of the primary intentions of the First Amendment is to protect the media from precisely this kind of muzzling. And anyway, no one, least of all the media, is impeding her freedom of speech, legislatively or otherwise. In fact, the media would leap at the chance to talk to and publicise Palin -- short of Obama himself, she's the biggest story of this campaign.

The constitution doesn't mandate that the media must give an equally enthusiastic reception to all sides and all arguments. If Palin's getting a hammering in the media, the sensible response would be not to invent a First Amendment right out of thin air, but to lie less, know more, and maybe refrain from accusing your opponent of 'palling around with terrorists'. Just a thought.

Hardly an earth shattering comment, I would have thought. Being a journalist by training and vocation myself, I find the principle worth debate.

Dunno about earthshattering, but it was definitely ignorant and self-serving. And what principle are you talking about, anyway? Do you want to consitutionally mandate a positive media reception to conservative lies and fearmongering?

I think the point was that they were kicked off within a week of their outlets officially endorsing McCain. I gather the Washington Times had had a reporter travelling with Obama from the beginning of his primary campaign.

Spots on planes are at a greater premium now than ever. Somebody was gonna get booted. If faced with the choice, why wouldn't you boot your critics as opposed to your supporters?

Well, I'm not so sure about that - at least in principle. On the face of it Obama's actions here are intimidatory, and a signal of what treatment might be handed out to media organisations if they exercise their rights to free speech after the election? As for Joe Klein - his banning from the plane was personal, not on his employer Time. Obama's actions were directed against the outlets themselves.

Of course there's a retributive element to Obama's actions. Just as there has been to McCain's campaign for months now. I mean, you're awfully late to jump on this bandwagon. McCain has been outspoken in his criticism of the New York Times all year. McCain cancelled an interview on CNN because he wasn't happy with Campbell Brown's (entirely fair) treatment of one of his campaign flaks, Tucker Bounds. Biden cancelled a second interview on a Florida TV channel because he was unhappy with the wingnut quotient of his interviewer the first time round.

For a former media professional you're being a bit naive, aren't you? This kinda thing is par for the course. It would be politically remiss of Obama to not take an occasional swipe at media organisations if he thinks they haven't given him a fair shake. There have to be consequences, or there's no incentive for them to change. 'Working the refs' has always been standard political practice. The media carrot and stick didn't suddenly appear a few days ago when Obama turfed two or three media reps from his overcrowded plane, you know.

The First Amendment isn't a travel agent who gets you a seat on a private plane. It isn't an access-all-areas pass into the Obama Administration. And it doesn't force Obama -- or anyone -- to talk you, or be nice to you, if he doesn't want to. If the media in question want, they can publish reams of material on how very, very mean to them Obama was. If Obama tried to pass a law preventing them from doing so, then you'd have a First Amendment problem.

As for Joe Klein, who cares if McCain's action was directed at one hostile journalist or a hostile media organisation? It's the same principle.

 

[GuruJane]

It's exactly what she was saying Jane.

Palin didn't want her negative campaiging being labeled being negative campaigning!

Not what she was saying Dave.

 

[Z_K]

Yeah, what he said.

Especially...

If Palin's getting a hammering in the media, the sensible response would be not to invent a First Amendment right out of thin air, but to lie less, know more, and maybe refrain from accusing your opponent of 'palling around with terrorists'. Just a thought.

I wish this thing would finish so she can take up her spot on Fox News and I never have to see her again...well....maybe a Penthouse shoot, too.....but after that, I definately want her to vanish.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Yeah, what he said.

Especially...




I wish this thing would finish so she can take up her spot on Fox News and I never have to see her again...well....maybe a Penthouse shoot, too.....but after that, I definately want her to vanish.

She'll be going back to Alaska first, I expect.

But on the subject of Fox, just last night I was watching Mike Huckabee's new show. He interviewed two SNL writers, did a perfectly sensible monologue about freedom of speech (perhaps inspired by Palin, who knows), and closed out the show by playing guitar in his band.

He's definitely the GOP frontrunner for 2012. He doesn't have the GILF factor working for him, but in all other respects he's a far more gifted performer than Palin.

 

[Joffaboy]

She'll be going back to Alaska first, I expect.

But on the subject of Fox, just last night I was watching Mike Huckabee's new show. He interviewed two SNL writers, did a perfectly sensible monologue about freedom of speech (perhaps inspired by Palin, who knows), and closed out the show by playing guitar in his band.

He's definitely the GOP frontrunner for 2012. He doesn't have the GILF factor working for him, but in all other respects he's a far more gifted performer than Palin.

Also had Richard Dreyfass (sic) not the bastion of conservatism on and actually let him have the floor without trying to shout him down.

then had Bill Maher on and even though Huckabee is a christian, had a civil and robust discussion on the good and not so good aspects of religion.

I had to check the channel to make sure I was watching Fox News. It was refreshing to see a Fox presenter who was not some bully boy neo con GOp cheerleader being obnoxious and rude by shouting down anything that their right wing talking point didn't agree with.

Even though i dont like his politics, Huckabee is too good to be on that channel.

 

[Z_K]

She'll be going back to Alaska first, I expect.

For the Penthouse photoshoot? I could work with that. Maybe an 'Ice Queen' theme?

But on the subject of Fox, just last night I was watching Mike Huckabee's new show. He interviewed two SNL writers, did a perfectly sensible monologue about freedom of speech (perhaps inspired by Palin, who knows), and closed out the show by playing guitar in his band.

He's definitely the GOP frontrunner for 2012. He doesn't have the GILF factor working for him, but in all other respects he's a far more gifted performer than Palin.

Personable, pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, creationist and ordained minister with a new TV and book deal. There really aren't many boxes he doesn't tick.

I think I oppose him on every single issue of relevance, but there is something about him I find engaging.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Personable, pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, creationist and ordained minister with a new TV and book deal. There really aren't many boxes he doesn't tick.

I think I oppose him on every single issue of relevance, but there is something about him I find engaging.

Yep, he's got some pretty way-out-there views (at one point he supported quarantining people with AIDS, I seem to recall), and I'd never support him in a million years, but he manages to put a genial face on some pretty extreme positions.

 

[Z_K]

Yep, he's got some pretty way-out-there views (at one point he supported quarantining people with AIDS, I seem to recall),

He did, but I am fairly sure he changed his views on that a while ago.

 

[gandaal]

I think I oppose him on every single issue of relevance, but there is something about him I find engaging.

He has the folksy charm of Palin but doesn't share her ignorance and stupidity. He's a storyteller with plenty of charisma. I don't agree with his policies either but you can't help but like the guy. Like the Democrats in the last election the Republicans really chose the wrong candidate this time around.

 

[whelan=legend]

[YOUTUBE]m38kNLSEras[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Messenger]

Yep, he's got some pretty way-out-there views (at one point he supported quarantining people with AIDS, I seem to recall), and I'd never support him in a million years, but he manages to put a genial face on some pretty extreme positions.

A triumph of presentation over content?

But you are North Bhoy are spot on - all boxes are ticked. What he hasn't had to date is the backing of conservative movers and shakers in the media. With that backing he will cover the other base, which is money.