2008.10.31
Astounding
What does it say about her understanding of the First Amendment, when Sarah Palin, a candidate for vice president, says that tough questions asked of her by the press threaten her First Amendment rights?
Does she really believe the First Amendment protects public officials and candidates from the press, rather than the other way around?
Wow.
RSS feed 
To be fair to the good governor of Alaska, not very many Americans understand the Constitution or the Bill of Rights very well either. The Bill of Rights specifies what Congress cannot infringe upon, so the media asking her tough questions is not a threat to any 1st ammendment right to begin with. However, if anyone in the government were to attempt to shut down any media sources they saw fit, that would constitute an attack on free speech rights. That's why i oppose the Fairness Doctrine, because it has an implied restriction on certain media, and i don't think that any media format should be restricted, even though I have large amounts of disdain for nearly all form of broadcast media for the slants and biases put forth.
Comment by Other John — October 31, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
OMG, did she really say that?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 31, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
Good to know the RT thinks that the First Amendment applies only to the press. Gosh, what would that lunatic soldier's mom that disrupts funerals think if she knew the RT believes the amendment only protects the press??
Comment by Marked Man — October 31, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
Marked,
I think you're putting words in my mouth. Where did I say the First Amendment applies only to the press?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 31, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
I was about to ask that Dan, I don't see where MM pulled that thought from...but you beat me to it.
Comment by Other John — October 31, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Ironic you should mention that on the day that Obama tossed unfriendly reporters off of his press plane.
Ignore the man behind the curtain.
Comment by Henry — October 31, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
You betcha, Other John. Many Americans shamefully don't understand the protections afforded by the First Amendment. But shouldn't a vice presidential candidate have at least the same level of knowledge as a naturalized citizen?
Also, I, for one, am glad she's free to speak whatever she wishes. This member of the media wouldn't want to suppress her right to let us know just how much she doesn't know.
Comment by Luanne T. — October 31, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
Actually, Henry, the Dallas Morning News says not.
And, really, does anyone think the Obama campaign would be surprised that The Washington Times would endorse McCain?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 31, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
"But shouldn't a vice presidential candidate have at least the same level of knowledge as a naturalized citizen?"
What about a Presidential Candidate?
Comment by Henry — October 31, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
Dan said "Does she really believe the First Amendment protects public officials and candidates from the press, rather than the other way around?"
If we went the other way around as Dan mentions above, Dan would have written... The First Amendment protects the press from public officials and candidates.
From the article above: "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."
I believe the First Amendment protects our freedom of speech. I also believe that it protects the press, but its not entirely about the press.
Comment by Marked Man — October 31, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
Marked,
I'm sorry if you misunderstood. I never meant to suggest it was only about the press. In any case, it certainly is NOT about protecting public officials and candidates FROM the press.
Which is the point I was attempting to make.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 31, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
It's funny this comes up today...according to a discussion in this thread: http://blogs.roanoke.com/rtblogs/roundtable/2008/10/31/friday-open-thread-36/
I don't think Bud or Josh would allow Sarah Palin to vote since she probably wouldn't pass a civics/political test.
Comment by HCS — October 31, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
She'd be exempt since she is their "Chosen One"
Comment by Other John — October 31, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
Yes, Henry (#9) he should! But quit bashing John McCain this instant!!!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 31, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
Ms. Palin doesn't seem to know what negative campaigning really is since just about all of her campaigning is negative. It is simply campaigning by pointing out negative things about your opponent instead of pointing out positive aspects of your own. McCain/Palin are particularly sleazy since they make insinuations ("pal around with terrorists") and not pointing out specific effects or influences. They hope people will draw fearful inferences whether there is any substance or not.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that there aren't consequences. We may be free to speak but that doesn't mean everyone has to like it - witness the discussions in these blogs. She is free to say anything she wants; she is free to continue negative campaigning. But she shouldn't be surprised if people think the lesser of her because of it.
Comment by Joe (not the plumber) — October 31, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
Sarah Palin and John McCain like to pretend they are 'above the fray mavericks', not at all like those old Washington politicians. She may not be OF Washington, but she is a politician to the marrow. She did not get to be Gov. of Alaska with bake sales and car pools. This woman is adept at all the bad parts of politicking but she is simply not what America needs right now. The political environment in this country is so toxic and the McCain campaign and his choices are as much to blame as the constant shenanigans of the Bush administration. They chose this path for themselves and it is just irrational to expect the Independents much less the decided Liberals and Progressives to accept such an ugly choice when Obama and his campaign (even when they had to fire back against attacks, clarify charges leveled, tell the truth to lies and explain crap for issues raised) from day one have offered us not only his plans, but hope for the future if we are willing to work with him. Contrary to the opinion I keep seeing, we do not want a hand out, we are still willing to work and work hard for what we believe in. Small lies might have worked in all honesty, but totally outragous charges "Celebrity" "Pals around with terrorists" "Barack Hussein Obama" "Socialist" "Marxist" "Welfare State" "Take your paycheck" "Appeasement" "the most liberal Senator" (when Dennis K is still there!)etc. were just too much for us to handle. If you bleed out on Tuesday, you shot yourself in the foot. If you manage to win this election, you will have to govern with the distrust and lack of support from your constituents. Either way one of us is crying.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 31, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
OMG!!! Sarah dared to call the media out on hypocritical double standard. Not only was the Messiah criticized, but it was by a social conservative! Y'all in the MSM ought to be thanking Sarah. She's doing your job for you.
Comment by Josh — November 1, 2008 @ 7:50 am
Obama puts the smackdown on the media:
Barack Obama had taken a break from the campaign trail for a few hours of Halloween fun at home with his family four days before the election, but ended up visibly annoyed when news crews dogged their footsteps in their Chicago neighborhood.
"That's enough. You've got a shot. Leave us alone," Obama told reporters as he walked down the block with his 7-year-old daughter Sasha in her costume on the way to a party at a neighbor's home.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081101/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_obama_halloween;_ylt=AoH4B9AwFLezzFhdRCdD9nqs0NUE
Heh..heh...heh....delicious
"You done my bidding, now begone"
Comment by Henry — November 1, 2008 @ 9:46 am
Speaking of Obama and the media, we saw his campaign kick reporters off his campaign plane from three newspapers who had the gall to endorse McCain. Obama cracks down hard on dissenters. Joe the Plumber was tarred and feathered, the Orlando anchor who asked Biden tough questions had her family attacked. That's what authoritarian socialists do. It's SO important for countries in temporary downturns not to give in to this type of rule. All you have to do is look at history to see what can happen. Russia-1917; The U.S.-1932 Germany-1933 Cuba-1959 Each one of these countries wishes it could go back and undo its irrational decision.
The RT would be safe, though. It wouldn't take a lot of transition to become a state-run newspaper.
Comment by Josh — November 1, 2008 @ 10:13 am
Actually, Josh, the whole kicking folks off the plane because their paper endorsed McCain thing doesn't wash. The Dallas Morning News says that wasn't the reason. And does anyone really believe the Obama campaign EVER thought The Washington Times would endorse anyone other than McCain? Please.
The Orlando reporter is a partisan hack who asked ludicrous, not tough, questions. Her "family was attacked" only by pointing out that her husband is a big GOP donor.
Joe the Plumber wasn't tarred and feathered. People only pointed out that he didn't have a plumber's license, that he would actually do better under Obama's tax plan than McCain's - even if he did manage to pay off his back taxes and buy the plumbing business - and even Fox News can't stomach the notion of Joe as a foreign policy expert.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 1, 2008 @ 10:25 am
There's a great strategy. If you are going to silence critics, accuse them of asking "ludicrous, not tough, questions". Bush could have tossed Helen Thomas from the White House press corps a long time ago.
The Dear Leader does not tolerate unfriendly reporters.
They weren't kicked for the endorsement. They were kicked because they wouldn't play by The Dear Leader's rules.
Comment by Henry — November 1, 2008 @ 10:47 am
Dan,
I wonder what records of Joe's divorce, child payment, and past residences had to anything? Why were relatives of his ex-wife interviewed? Why did union thugs look into his plumbing course and announce it to the public in an area which was irrelevant to his expertise? Why was his privacy illegally invaded on state computers?
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/24/joe.html?sid=101
Fact: Obama's goons are sent to attack whoever disgraces their leader.
Comment by Josh — November 1, 2008 @ 11:08 am
RE: Post #22
Are you serious Josh?
You and your cohorts have been trying to make an issue of Obama's relationship with William Ayer's acts of civil disobedience when Obama was eight years old. Yet you have the unmitigated gall to wonder what the relevance of the past record of McCain's choice for the average Joe is. Get real Josh, McCain's pick of a tax cheat who is not even a licensed plumber is just another example of his failure to be a competent decision maker.
Comment by Blue John — November 1, 2008 @ 11:56 am
There you go again Dan. Putting a slight spin on the facts to favor your opinion. The Dallas paper didn't say the endorsement wasn't the reason the reporter was kicked. The paper said their is no proof the endorsement was the reason. There is a difference. It's kind of like actually being innocent versus the state not being able to prove you are guilty. In the second case, you may have actually committed the offense, they just can't prove it. So from your perspective, we should believe that, for space reasons, reporters from fairly sizable papers were booted (in favor of Ebony and Essence magazines) and its just coincidence that the papers booted endorsed the other guy.
Stop kidding yourself. That doesn't even pass the laugh test. Obama's sending the message early. And it's the same message for which you frequently and repeatedly criticized the Bush admnistration, play along or you don't get White House access. It's actually not that uncommon. The interesting thing is watching the brainwashed media types deny or rationalize the practice now that their guy is the one doing it.
Comment by C Ramsey — November 1, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Re #17 I am starting to come around to think that a civics test before being allowed to vote is a good idea. Some of the McCain crowd probably wouldn't pass. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you won't be criticized. Palin is free to run a negative campaign, people are free to criticize her and she is free to criticize her critics, but her critics are not encroaching on her freedom of speech. In addition, you or I or newspapers cannot violate someone's freedom of speech. The U.S. Constitution only states that Congress will make no laws that interfere with that right.
Comment by Joe (not the plumber) — November 1, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
#25: Lord love you for trying Joe (ntp)!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 1, 2008 @ 3:43 pm