October 31, 2008


After reading this post on the Daily Show's Indecision 2008 blog, I was literally speechless for about five minutes.

Sarah Palin, that great constitutional scholar, stated that criticism of her attacks on Barack Obama is a violation of her first amendment rights:

If [the media] 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.

Allow that to sink in for a moment. According to her, questioning her crazy claims about Obama violates her right to say them because she could be discouraged from saying them in the future.

Speechless yet? So was I.

Let me get this straight, Governor. You have a right to make outrageous accusations about Obama and his associations, and you are well within your right to do so (something I agree with). However, I do not have the right to criticize them because it would violate your right to freedom of speech. However, wouldn't you forbidding me from criticizing you violate MY right to freedom of speech?

The fact of the matter is that it all is protected speech. She has the right to say what she wants, and the evil mainstream media has the right to call her on her bullshit. Now that we have gotten this out of the way, I wish to exercise my right to free speech with the following rant directed at Mrs. Palin (forgive me if it starts to sound like one of Keith Olbermann's "Special Comments." I've been watching a lot of him lately, and you should too).

Governor, you are a fraud. You are nothing more than a beauty queen masquerading as a politician. Every time you open your mouth you show the world your true colors. I can think of no truer example of this than the fact that you have no idea what a vice president, the job you are applying for, does. You stated so yourself before you were selected. But you had time to find out after you were picked, right? Apparently not. During the VP debate, you stated "I'm thankful that the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice-president if that vice-president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate...." Then just a few weeks ago, you again got the job description wrong by telling a third grader that the vice president is "in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes." NO!!! The Constitution is very clear! There is no wiggle room! Your sole duties, as described by the Constitution, would be to preside over (not interact with) the Senate and break ties in voting on legislation. You are also first in line to be president should the president have to leave office. THAT'S IT!!! You have had three chances to get it right, and have failed miserably each time. Now, you have misinterpreted the first amendment. How do you honestly think that you are qualified enough to be vice president, and possibly president, when you have no knowledge of the document you are going to swear to uphold? You are perhaps the most unqualified person a major party has ever nominated for a position in the executive branch.

No comments:

Post a Comment