Sarah Fuckin Palin.....

[onmyknees]

Change the argument as you go, eh? You said Cenk didn't get the memo to not chide Obama EVER. I correctly pointed out that they do it regularly, so now you say that they didn't do it during the campaign. Not the same thing, is it?

I don't remember every word of every MSNBC broadcast, but I'm pretty sure KO, Rachel and probably Ed had some misgivings about Obama prior to his election. I know Cenk did. Still, anyone who watched the Bush years closely would have given their right arm to get Obama elected. Even Purgatory would be a welcome relief after Hell. Rachel and Cenk's (I'm less familiar with the others) current 'mild scorn' for Barry O has been far from mild in many instances. Imo, despite his in some cases Liberal campaign rhetoric, the Pres has always been in the middle and is now moving frighteningly to the right - witness today's sucking up to the clowns at the Chamber of Commerce.

I guess it's a matter of degree. I conceed he's come under
criticism, but I categorize it as mild. Sorta like a mom scolds a child..with love ! I don't watch that Turk guy...my daily allotment of MSNBC is about 8 minutes, and it's not about the politics...it's the players. And again.....The reason they're criticizing him at all is because he's moving away from the left....I've said it before...He has a progressive problem. The 20-25% of those hard left supporters are not where the vast majority of the country is...That's just a political fact. If he has any hope of viability in 2012, he has to move to the center. Do I believe that's where he wants to be??? Not for a second. So my question to you is...since the progressives were by far his most ardent supporters, (As are the Tea Party is to the Right) and NO ONE was criticizing him on any network in the year leading up to the election....was the left duped..... or did you get what you thought you were getting? ?? Because as his most ardent supporters, they're the most vocal against him at the moment.

[Cuchulain]

The reason they're criticizing him at all is because he's moving away from the left....I've said it before...He has a progressive problem. The 20-25% of those hard left supporters are not where the vast majority of the country is...That's just a political fact. If he has any hope of viability in 2012, he has to move to the center. Do I believe that's where he wants to be??? Not for a second. So my question to you is...since the progressives were by far his most ardent supporters, (As are the Tea Party is to the Right) and NO ONE was criticizing him on any network in the year leading up to the election....was the left duped..... or did you get what you thought you were getting? ?? Because as his most ardent supporters, they're the most vocal against him at the moment.

First, I'll say that, without going Google-happy and digging through the net, I've seen numerous polls showing that if you ask people about Liberal/Progressive positions, without labeling them as such, the general public gives them broad support. FOX and the radio crazies have done a great job of demonizing the term Liberal.

Did we(the Left) get what we expected? I did. I always expected Obama to be another Clinton and we all remember Greenspan saying Clinton was a pretty good republican President. I guess a lot of old posts got lost when HA switched servers, but I said that here in the poli section many times. I also said that Obama gave me hope that he might be so much more.

But Hell yeah, I think many Liberals allowed their enthusiasm to get the better of them. They were so happy to hear a candidate speaking their language that they got carried away and Hell yeah, they're angry and disillusioned now. Will he lose Progressive support in 2012? If there is a good candidate that opposes him in the primary, he'll have a fight on his hands. Will Progressives return to him after he get's the nomination because he'll be the lesser of two evils? Probably.

Has the most recent MSNBC criticism of Obama been mild? I haven't been watching the network as much since KO left. I've seen Rachel hammer him several times. I don't always catch Cenk's tv show, but I try to listen to The Young Turks on the net every day and Cenk has been pounding Obama there.

[onmyknees]

First, I'll say that, without going Google-happy and digging through the net, I've seen numerous polls showing that if you ask people about Liberal/Progressive positions, without labeling them as such, the general public gives them broad support. FOX and the radio crazies have done a great job of demonizing the term Liberal.

Did we(the Left) get what we expected? I did. I always expected Obama to be another Clinton and we all remember Greenspan saying Clinton was a pretty good republican President. I guess a lot of old posts got lost when HA switched servers, but I said that here in the poli section many times. I also said that Obama gave me hope that he might be so much more.

But Hell yeah, I think many Liberals allowed their enthusiasm to get the better of them. They were so happy to hear a candidate speaking their language that they got carried away and Hell yeah, they're angry and disillusioned now. Will he lose Progressive support in 2012? If there is a good candidate that opposes him in the primary, he'll have a fight on his hands. Will Progressives return to him after he get's the nomination because he'll be the lesser of two evils? Probably.

Has the most recent MSNBC criticism of Obama been mild? I haven't been watching the network as much since KO left. I've seen Rachel hammer him several times. I don't always catch Cenk's tv show, but I try to listen to The Young Turks on the net every day and Cenk has been pounding Obama there.

Honest post. I enjoyed it. I never not once thought of him as Clinton like , but I'm not left of center either. I can't imagine someone saying he's a moderate with respect to social issues ( abortion, spreading the wealth around, health care, big over reaching centralized government, his de-emphysis on faith based groups etc).

[onmyknees]

More diligent fact checked reporting from out main stream media folks !


http://www.mediaite.com/online/lames...story-as-real/

[thombergeron]

Really? Us Weekly? You're getting bent our of shape because a trashy supermarket tabloid ran a thinly sourced gossip piece on Sarah Palin?

You spend a lot of time fact-checking gossip rags? Jennifer Aniston might need your help, too.

That's... just... really... kind of.... pathetic.

[Ben]

Sarah Palin's bizarre view of the First Amendment

She blasts the Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church

By Justin Elliott


AP/Spencer Weiner
Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin, who has more than once invoked the First Amendment when she or her allies faced criticism, today denounced the Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling allowing the Westboro Baptist Church to protest outside soldiers' funerals with signs reading "“God Hates Fags" and the like.
Tweeted Palin in response to the ruling:

Common sense & decency absent as wacko "church" allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers' funerals but we can't invoke God's name in public square

The second part of Palin's tweet -- the bit about invoking God -- centers on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and is really a separate issue. The ruling today on Westboro was in a classic free speech case.
Chief Justice (and conservative hero) John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, a stirring defense of free speech, even speech that is widely considered to be hurtful. From the Times:

But under the First Amendment, he went on, "we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker." Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, requires protection of "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
...
Chief Justice Roberts used sweeping language culled from the First Amendment canon of foundational decisions in setting out the central place free speech plays in the constitutional structure. "Debate on public issues should be robust, uninhibited and wide-open," he wrote, because "speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values."

So Palin's counter-argument here is that "common sense" requires that offensive protests be banned.
The former Alaska governor has a history of invoking the principle of "free speech" at odd times. Here she is in October 2008 during a radio interview:

If they convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, 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.

In response, Glenn Greenwald noted at the time: "The First Amendment is actually not that complicated. It can be read from start to finish in about 10 seconds. It bars the Government from abridging free speech rights. It doesn't have anything to do with whether you're free to say things without being criticized, or whether you can comment on blogs without being edited, or whether people can bar you from their private planes because they don't like what you've said."
Palin made a similar remark last year when defending Dr. Laura, who retired after she faced intense criticism for using the N-word on her radio show. Palin tweeted then:

Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")

And then:

Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!

Again, Palin seemed to be equating what was (in her opinion) unfair criticism as somehow an infringement on First Amendment rights. The government, of course, had no role in forcing Dr. Laura to retire following her controversial remarks.
So to review: Under Palin's interpretation of the First Amendment, criticism of public figures threatens free speech, but peaceful protests she doesn't like should be banned.

[onmyknees]

Sarah Palin's bizarre view of the First Amendment

She blasts the Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church

By Justin Elliott


AP/Spencer Weiner
Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin, who has more than once invoked the First Amendment when she or her allies faced criticism, today denounced the Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling allowing the Westboro Baptist Church to protest outside soldiers' funerals with signs reading "“God Hates Fags" and the like.
Tweeted Palin in response to the ruling:

Common sense & decency absent as wacko "church" allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers' funerals but we can't invoke God's name in public square

The second part of Palin's tweet -- the bit about invoking God -- centers on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and is really a separate issue. The ruling today on Westboro was in a classic free speech case.
Chief Justice (and conservative hero) John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, a stirring defense of free speech, even speech that is widely considered to be hurtful. From the Times:

But under the First Amendment, he went on, "we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker." Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, requires protection of "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
...
Chief Justice Roberts used sweeping language culled from the First Amendment canon of foundational decisions in setting out the central place free speech plays in the constitutional structure. "Debate on public issues should be robust, uninhibited and wide-open," he wrote, because "speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values."

So Palin's counter-argument here is that "common sense" requires that offensive protests be banned.
The former Alaska governor has a history of invoking the principle of "free speech" at odd times. Here she is in October 2008 during a radio interview:

If they convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, 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.

In response, Glenn Greenwald noted at the time: "The First Amendment is actually not that complicated. It can be read from start to finish in about 10 seconds. It bars the Government from abridging free speech rights. It doesn't have anything to do with whether you're free to say things without being criticized, or whether you can comment on blogs without being edited, or whether people can bar you from their private planes because they don't like what you've said."
Palin made a similar remark last year when defending Dr. Laura, who retired after she faced intense criticism for using the N-word on her radio show. Palin tweeted then:

Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")

And then:

Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!

Again, Palin seemed to be equating what was (in her opinion) unfair criticism as somehow an infringement on First Amendment rights. The government, of course, had no role in forcing Dr. Laura to retire following her controversial remarks.
So to review: Under Palin's interpretation of the First Amendment, criticism of public figures threatens free speech, but peaceful protests she doesn't like should be banned.

Ben...you should have linked to Palin's tweet so I could read it myself, and not have it interpreted by someone else. Having said that, the first part of her tweet does raise some interesting inconsistencies regarding freedom of speech and expression as it relates to the Court's ruling and the use of the word god or prayer in let's say public schools. It's at least a discussion worth having and perhaps she should have made that point more discernable.

And she's not totally out in left field my friend. You should read Judge Alito's dissent. I think she was trying to relate the revoltion most of us have for the Westboro church and the respect she has as a mother of a serviceman, ( you did know that...right?) but she could have done it better....but again I did not see her full comments. I mean a first amendment argument seems a little benign to a parent trying to lay to rest a young son cut down in the prime of his life . No greater honor can a family give then a son or daughter to the cause of freedom. You do understand the emotions surrounding the argument...don't you? We all live with court decisions that we think are just flat wrong. I'm not making that argument here, but I can understand her emotion. It's a classic case of the heart versus the head.

[hippifried]

Sarah Palin's irrelevance is growing daily.

[onmyknees]

Sarah Palin's irrelevance is growing daily.

LOL..wishing it so doesn't make it factual, but then again facts are not you strong point, so I take your statement as an opinion, to which I say.....

[hippifried]

Kinda like your blather about MSNBC folding up... But that's another thread.

Let's see:
She's not running for office.
She was about 50/50 in her picks last november, & there's no evidence that she had any real influence.
She's not mentioned by anybody other than FOX or the flapping gums on AM radio, as anything but the brunt of a joke.
She'd be faded off this board altogether if not for you & your alter-ego Ben.
So... How's she relevant?