Jackson Free Press

I've about stopped posted absurd statements by Sarah Palin, but this one strikes at the very core of our American birthright. She actually thinks that being criticized for being too "negative" in her statements about Obama is, somehow, a violation of her First Amendment rights. One of the most dangerous things a politician (demagogue?) can promote is that Americans do not have the right to *respond* to speech they don't like. Speech, dear Palin heart, flows to directions, not only out of your mouth. ABC News:

ABC News' Steven Portnoy reports: In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. 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. "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."

Does she really not know that "real" Americans across the country are disgusted by her hateful tactics? What an awful, non-thinking, self-focused person she is turning out to be. Truly. Diva, indeed.

Previous Commentsshow

Meantime, many statements she makes are outright lies: After meeting with her own foreign advice team, Palin said that the "far left wing of the Democrat Party" wanted to cut a quarter of the Defense Department's budget. "They’re preparing right now to take over the entire federal government, folks," Palin said. Actually, Obama wants to increase federal spending.

DonnaLadd

Oct 31 2008

Palin proved in the long run to be just as I coined or described her the night of her speech. I see some of her type every trial and I can't wait to strike them, for stated and instinctive reasons. Inside her heart it's always raining. And it won't stop until she gets what she wants. Once Obama wins I hope he will then ask what's wrong with that pathetic woman.

Walt

Oct 31 2008

And this woman is a governor and vice-presidential (and even presidential) wannabe and doesn't even know what the First Amendment mean? Just in case Mrs. Whack Job (McCain campaign advisor's words, not mine) is reading this and doesn't understand what the First Amendment means, it means that you have the right to say what you want without the threat of arrest, as long as what you say doesn't incite violence or false panic (such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there isn't a fire). Mrs. Palin, you have freedom of speech and I will defend your right to have it, but you or no one else is above criticism for the things we say. Is that clear enough for you? Now, back to your regularly-scheduled bashing of Obama on falsehoods that come out of your piehole at your rallies.

golden eagle

Oct 31 2008

She lies and lies and lies ... remarkable:

DonnaLadd

Oct 31 2008

Part of Palin's problem and the problem of many republicans and citizens too is that republicans have gotten away with near murder the last 8 years, during the so-called revolution, because a large percentage of the population is so filled with hatred and indifference to Democrats. For several years the Democrats were blamed for the acts of republicans. I can't count the number of times I've heard it said that if the Democrats weren't weak, dumb or clueless the republicans wouldn't be like they are. The problem I have with this argument is that it's a lie and it's not the Democrats' job to force the citizens or the republicans to act with decency. Why don't we the citizens do it by calling their sorry pathetic asses what they are and voting them out of office. So often we can't do this because the no good republican doing the bad or evil deeds are our relatives, love ones, friends or people our parents, grandparents and close relatives support. Naw on this!

Walt

Oct 31 2008

If we show corrupt, irresponsible and behind the times politicans or people that we're not allowing them to act or represent us in an appalling manner through our voting strength it won't be long before they straighten up and fly right. I believe this is the bottom line. Palin thinks and knows there is an audience for what she speaks and represents so she acts accordingly. Hopefully, this election will teach her and some others a dear lesson. I must admit I'm slighty surprised by what seems to be the rejection of racism by a majority of white citizens and overwhelmed too in a good way that Donna and many others are doing such a wonderful job of pointing out the Palin problem or deficit. I'm also delighted that it appears most white citizens aren't going to let Palin or McCain play the straight up race card against Obama. Of course, the proof is still in the putting or pudding and we will see what happens on Tuesday Night.

Walt

Oct 31 2008

What's frightening to me how people simply take what she says at face value. I was in a very popular local restaurant for lunch yesterday and there was table full of people nearly screaming at the top of their lungs about how "Obama is going to take our guns away." They continued on by insisting that his supporters were not very bright. There was also some talk of a "new world order." These conversations are so frustrating because people aren't making any effort to investigate the issues for themselves.

msgrits

Oct 31 2008

If Obama alone, singulary, and unilaterally can take their guns from them then the president has more power than I ever realized, or Obama's supporters aren't the ones "not very bright." A new world order started as soon as free and unregulated capitalism took over the world. Survival of the fittest is tearing many countries and citizens a new behind. Corporations won't regulate or control themselves. Unfettered and unregualted greed is the new world order in my opinion. I don't know what to do with or say about these nuts running scared of Obama and thinking Obama and the n_____ are going to get them. I say again if you're so innocent and have never harmed any black folks why so much dumb and unjustified fears. However, even if you have harmed black folks, we have forgiven you and have moved on.

Walt

Oct 31 2008

It's the difference between people who operate out of fear and those who don't. Those who see everything through a fearful lens are very gullible when it comes to the tricks that Palin is trying to pull. The facts simply do not support her, or the fearmongering. I feel compassion for those people because it's impossible to achieve contentment from a place of fear.

DonnaLadd

Oct 31 2008

I know Donna and it would be so freeing and stress relieving to get over that unnecessay fear.

Walt

Oct 31 2008

I really like JFP...but when it comes to politics there is very little objectivity expressed here...I thought the purpose of such a publication was to be an alternate voice rather than a mouthpiece for the corrupt, liberal media machine that attempts to control this country.

Logan

Nov 3 2008

You must be new here. We've discussed the myth of "objectivity" many times on this site. The JFP does not lie to readers and claim to be "objective"—it is impossible for a journalist to be objective, and those who claim to be are dishonest or naive. We are a progressive publication that is willing to skewer any person or party if we have or obtain evidence that it is needed. Likewise, we will wholeheartedly support individuals and efforts that we believe are progressive and intelligent. Most importantly, we don't lie to readers by cutting every story down the middle as he-said-she-said journalists do, regardless of the evidence leaning one way or the other. We gather the information, and then we call it as we see it, letting the chips fall where they may. This strategy has led us to be anti-Clintons (in other publications, I supported his impeachment to the chagrin of my Democratic friends), highly critical of black Democratic Mayor Frank Melton (with work that led to his federal indictments) and highly, highly critical of the Bush administration and the Iraq War from day one. Now, other people have caught up with us on that. In this election, we are highly pro-Obama, and have no reason to pull any punches, especially toward the extremely disturbing Ms. Palin. She is the best example of why John McCain should not be president. So if you want fake objectivity, look elsewhere. We have too much work to do on the truth front to play that game.

DonnaLadd

Nov 3 2008

How does corruption among liberals compare to corruption among republicans and conservatives these days or the last 12 or so years? What control have liberals enjoyed the last 8-12 years? So-called conservatives and republicans are, by far, the worse thing to happen to the world the last decade for sure. No doubt about it. How can you stand when you have no legs or a props to hold you up? You can't stand under the circumstances, so you cry wolf. A crying wolf is still a wolf nontheless, but he doesn't like the fallback or blowback his wolf-actions have caused, so he cries. As soon as the sun comes up and dries the wolf-tears, due to no change or admission of fault on the part of the wolf, the wolf is back on his way to the woods kicking booty and taking names, for that is what wolves live to do. Chickens do come home to roost.

Walt

Nov 3 2008