« Tips for Coping with Aches and Pains | Main | Radio Show In Canada Gets Sarah Palin To Believe She Is Talking to French Predisent Nicolas Sarkozy (video) »

November 01, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Pedestrian Observer GB

Whoever brought her into the ticket thinking she was an alternative candidate to get the Hillary Clinton votes are delusional at best, lol.

To think that many in the Republican Party thinks she is going places is like a death wish........ but then again maybe its a good thing that she stays in the limelight...... it will be much easier for the Democrats to strengthen and solidify their base.


I am just flabbergasted by someone running for Vice President to know less than a 13 year old about the Constitution. Sarah Palin is STUPID. She may be attractive. She may resonate with dumbasses of this country. But that's because she is DUMB. Let's hope the rumors are true and that she will be the candidate in 2012. By then her family should number in the 20's and she won't look quite as good as she does now.

John McCain DESERVES to lose this election. He has insulted this country to an extent that he will never recover from.


I think what I just read on this page is exactly what Sarah was talking about. People taking what one says and totally twisting it around and making what they want out of it. For this exact reason most Americans do not believe what they see on television and hear on the radio, let alone what they read on a sleazy website. I also think that the author of this blog has an understanding of the constitution equal to a third grader. I am not supporting John McCain I am nauseous because of posts like this. What political importance does this post have? What issues does it address? How does this make me a more educated voter?
Sarah has a valid point, If one (in public office or not) cannot ask questions about ones associations (who is running for public office) without fear of attack from bias media, what kind of country is this?


You miss the point entirely. The point is that Sarah Palin says she has rights under the First Amendment so the Media cannot do this. Not only is she wrong but she has it backwards.

You're point is that you don't like the way the media twists things - I understand that... but they are allowed to and they are protected under the constitution. Palin has NO such protection.

And by the way the owner of the blog is an Attorney so please don't get in an argument about the constitution with him.


she was fooled into thinking she was on the phone with the pres of france today. it was really a idiot from a morning radio show. it went on for over 6 minutes. she is STUPID.


A) In this capacity, she is not "the government", rather is trying to become (ie - a candidate). I know, the retort she is a Governor. Hence I say "In this capacity". The press does not need to be protected from her in this light.

B) You failed to also enlarge the line immediately prior to the one you referenced; The one that says "infringe the freedom of speech". I believe it is pretty obvious that is what she is referring to.

You should work a little harder to make your points. The funny part is the folks responding to this garbage by saying she is stupid. Probably the same folks who claim Bush is stupid, all the while never wondering how a stupid man could beat them "TWICE!!!".

Aaron Durst

I understand your point about this not being a first amendment issue, but this is factually inaccurate:

"You're point is that you don't like the way the media twists things - I understand that... but they are allowed to and they are protected under the constitution. Palin has NO such protection."

Sarah Palin is protected under the first amendment just like the press is. If you had said "Palin has NO such protection [from the press]", you would have been correct.

Second, you are wrong on this point "Sarah Palin says she has rights under the First Amendment so the Media cannot do this." You can not point to one instance where Sarah Palin said the media can not do what it is doing, and the government should be protecting her from what the press is doing.

Instead, she is bemoaning that the press is attempting to censor her through misrepresentation. In her eyes, she is losing her first amendment right to free speech. You are correct that she is not losing her first amendment right, but she (IMO) is correct to lament the loss of her right to speak her mind as she would like to without fear of having to get it past the censors in the press.


I can't believe I'm having this conversation. Are you sure you're not George Bush or Sarah Palin? I know John McCain knows the First Amendment.

Your amazing lack of reading comprehension is stunning considering I gave you the entire sentence. I didn't think I'd have to explain to the level you seem to need.

A) The issue is not and never was that she is the government taking away OUR freedom of speech.

B) I didn't need to highlight the second part "infringe on the freedom of speech" since she isn't complaining about that. She is complaining about the media.


Palin is saying the media is harming her free speech rights. Well any dope who has read the first amendment immediately should see that the media is NOT the government and therefore CANNOT harm her free speech under the Amendment.

Do you understand yet?

FYI - George Bush IS stupid and so is Sarah Palin. That's an example of my free speech. The government cannot do anything to me for saying it. I am protected by the first Amendment.

R.M. James

Sorry, but I have to wonder about the IQ of anyone who would use Wikipedia as a reference for anything. Can't we be a little more academic than that?


Quote, "Sorry, but I have to wonder about the IQ of anyone who would use Wikipedia as a reference for anything. Can't we be a little more academic than that?"

Wikipedia is a very good source of information, just because you have a problem with it doesn’t make it invalid or an un-useful resource. It just makes you a biased observer.

Also "Scot", STUPID People re-elected the current Stupid President. Being President has nothing to do with being smart. There is no job requirement that a president needs to be Smart or G.W. never would have passed that requirement the first time he was put in office. You notice I didn't say elected. He was put there by the intervention of the Right leaning Supreme Court, who had no business doing it in the first place. They over reached their power given them by the people of the US and no one was smart enough to call them on it. He did not win the first time and his party used fear to get him back in for the second term. Thank the heavens above that he can't run again. Now all we have to do is Defeat McBush on Tuesday to get this country on a better path and maybe reverse all the damage Bush did in the last 8 years.

Back to the subject. Ms Palin should only be afraid of opening her own mouth. Every time she dose, the American Voters can hear how truly STUPID she really is, and how much we can't afford to have a moron, a heart beat away from being President. No this is not sexist. If she was a male she would still be too stupid to be president in any sane person’s book.


D.K. I couldn't agree with you more. What we are going to have on Tuesday is the first truly intelligent president elected in a very very long time. Clinton was terrific - but he was not a genius. I believe Obama is one of the most intelligent presidents we will have in the history of our country. He was #1 at Harvard among many other incredible accomplishments.

As far as Bush stealing BOTH elections - he did. Well not Bush - but as you said the far right store the elections for Bush.

If the Republicans even want to get back the House, Senate, or Presidency they will have to get rid of the religious right that has been dominating their party. From what I read there already is a battle forming between the moderate republicans and the right that should reshape that party (hopefully).

McCain would be in this race if he had not picked Palin. That one decision cost him the presidency. Also, the McCain of 4-8 years ago was one who indeed was as he says a maverick - he was a middle of the road republican. But he saw the only way to become president being a republican was to play up to the religious right and that turned too many people off. And then to appease them he picked Palin who was as right as you get.

Had he picked someone moderate and stayed off the message of the religious right he might have won this election. As it is I see this as one of the biggest landslides we will ever see. Obama is going to win huge.

Honestly, after eight years of Bush even Palin couldn't do more damage... The only difference between them is that Bush doesn't say anything that isn't put there by his handlers (and he fumbles that plenty often).

I know I'm going off here but cmon, Bush has been running this country with the religious right for eight years and this country has not been this bad off since the last depression. He has ruined our economy, ruined our relations with our allies, went into a war that wasn't necessary or even advisable, etc...

I am a moderate. But I will NEVER vote republican until the religious right is GONE. I will vote straight democrat until that happens.


@ icantseeyou, First off, thank you sweet zombie Jesus that Obama won but you do know that the dems are just as likely to take their mandate and fskc things just as bad as the republicans did, right? Political affiliation is in no way tied to intelligence or integrity. That said, what I would rather see is a reformed republican party that loses the religious social conservative whack-jobs and for once a strong, or at least viable, third party spring up. A duopoly leads to polarization and party leaders playing games of one-upmanship over whos the biggest conservative/liberal. Overall, nothing gets done between the intra-party pissing contests and inter-party rigging the next election so that the party in power stays there. A third party, preferably, in my opinion, a centrist party with slightly conservative fiscal policy (smaller government, strong military) and a slightly liberal social policy (greater personal freedoms, e.g. drop the war on drugs, and social equality for minorities such as illegal immigrants and the gay community) would more truly represent the will of the American populace. But thats just the wishes of a 20-something college brat, what do I know, right?


is this one of those gotcha media blogs?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Find the best blogs at Blogs.com.

Become a Fan