Saying ‘Constitution’ while meaning ‘Lawlessness’: Palin attacks Obama

Sarah Palin’s turn before the teabaggers was an exercise in emptying the US Constitution of meaning while seeming to exalt it.

She praised US military personnel for defending the constitution.

But she complained that constitutional protections were offered to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the underpants bomber. She said it is ‘our’ constitution, reducing it from a universal document (the Declaration of Independence says ‘all men’ are endowed with inalienable rights) to a tribal one.

She said Abdulmutallab could otherwise have been questioned. But why should he have answered, rights or no? Holder’s methods got him talking. (Nor is it likely constitutional to arrest a lawbreaker on US soil and whisk him off to military detention.)

Then she said we need a commander in chief, not a professor of constitutional law.

But Obama is designated by the constitution as commander in chief. Is she denying that status to him?

And if the constitution is so great and worth dying for, why is it bad to study it systematically?

So at every turn she invoked the constitution to undermine the constitution.

She is not about law, but is about power. We’ve had enough narcissistic sociopaths in politics.

And note that Jerry Brown, e.g. Would not be put on CNN addressing 600 leftwing democrats in prime time. I’m afraid of Time Warner now.

– Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Posted in Uncategorized | 18 Responses | Print |

18 Responses

  1. The woman is a simpleton, just like W or Reagan. Her puppeteers want her in power because she is dead easy to manipulate. Just give her few phrases about liberty and free-market and she would parrot them endlessly.

    She is there for the dumb masses whose votes and contributions can put freaks like her at the very top, and not for the likes of you.

    Taking her seriously gives her credit and adds to her appeal.

  2. I haven't watched CNN for over four years now. CNN is the second most right wing news outlet, with only FOX News more right wing than CNN. I got tired of wanting to reach through the TV screen to strangle the likes of Wolf Blitzer or John King.

  3. The 600 attendees is what blew my mind. My own research association met in Opryland back in 2005, and we had over 2,000 people. I'm shocked that CNN didn't show more of the EMPTY seats in that venue.

    Palin is a weird mixed of Aime Semple McPherson and Joe McCarthy, without the intelligence of the former or humor of the latter.

    That the media continues to treat her as a credible politician after she QUIT being Alaska Gov, speaks volumes to the pathologies of our media companies. Since when are QUITTERS venerated in this country?

    As one wag observed last night: Sarah Palin is the Queen of the Tea-Grifters.

  4. Sarah Palin is not somebody who enjoys rational discussions. Her goal is to humiliate Obama and make GOP-Dem discussion impossible.

    But Obama's goal is to talk to the GOP and govern together. So, he is the loser, not Palin.

  5. Another embarrassing note: she took notes on her palm of topics she wanted to discuss. Here's someone who wants to be president of the United States and has to take notes on her hand as if she's cheating on a high school test. And she has the temerity to mock Obama's use of a teleprompter! To the Huff Post story with clear photos: link to

  6. Time-Warner is different from Fox – they're a bit more subtle in pushing all right-wing Republican causes, and they're sort of pro-diversity which tends to fool a lot of people. But like all established media (with the possible exception of McClatchy), they're wholly owned by – and work for – the Republican Party.

    Yes, it's really that simple.

  7. The arguments over Abdulmutallab's rights or methods of his questioning are a bit of a red herring in light of the story featured last week in The Detroit News (and few other places). Covering a January 27 House Committee Hearing on Homeland Security, it reports that a State Department official, Patrick Kennedy, testified that the State Department was prepared to revoke Abdulmutallab's visa, but were overruled by an unnamed intelligence agency. This was not a failure to connect the dots – the guy was on the plane because a US intelligence agency wanted him there. No one seems prepared to follow up on that, instead just side issues which seem to always lead to further curtailments of civil rights.

  8. Yes it is not Ted Turner company .. look at the board of directors .. you will see several old Bushite friends.

  9. I could not of said it any better Professor Cole >> "So at every turn she invoked the constitution to undermine the constitution"

  10. Sure, for a Nigirian kid with bomb material in his underpants, let us change our constitution. Include John Yoo "torture memo" in it, why don't we?
     Does anyone know how's what Tom Tancredo said is not a message of hate? 
    "We have saved western civilisation and let me tell you it is at stake again……. It's at stake because this cult of multiculturalism has eroded the entire fabric of western civilisation. You look at Western Europe today,…. Islamification has occurred and it's because people won't stand up for their society."
    Well, aren't Jewish people part of our "multiculturalism"? Yet, They are not excluded! Or are they? But not the AIPAC?
    Well, you can't hate them all, can you congressman Tancredo? Leila.

  11. Which would one rather lose? A war or the constitution? Is Palin Hitleresque just waiting for the economic collapse. Is it Munich 1923 and no one is listening? Or is she a passing Ross Perotist phenomenon? Her peeps manifest the same demographic.

  12. What? Are you saying her comments didn't make sense? Wow, that's a shocker!

  13. C-SPAN showed the empty seats in the room where Palin spoke. She could not even fill a banquet room.

  14. In this article the following statement appears:

    "The mobile units are limited to interrogation strategies contained in the Army Field Manual, which explicitly repudiates waterboarding and other methods employed in the early years of President George W. Bush's administration that critics have likened to torture." (bold mine)

    Now its long article about some new degrees of cooperation among terror-fighting activities, but my point here is just with the sentence quoted above. The article and the sentence were written by Walter Pincus, a well known reporter, in the WP, a well read newspaper.

    Mr. Pincus is telling his readers that that waterboarding is not torture, but something critics liken to torture. Per Mr Pincus even those critics are not calling waterboarding torture, they are likening it torture.

    If the main stream media can be so equivocal about whether or not waterboarding is torture, depends-who-you-ask, how far can Sarah Palin's gibberish be from main stream thought.

  15. And if you are repudiating your system of justice, have you not conceded victory to the terrorists?

    Is the GOP unwittingly playing Al Qaeda's game? Any attack, however small and unsuccessful, will be used for frenzied attacks on the Chief Executive and system of justice. Big dividends for Al Qaeda.

  16. you get 15+ responses to a simple posting about something silly that Sarah Palin said. kinda says it all, right there, in my opinion. on the other hand, Arianna Huffington really nails the essence of 'Sarah Palin', the brand. and for what it's worth, her "brand" is achieved and sustained every time she pisses off some professor and his readers to such an extent that they feel compelled to respond to her. that is to say, like any other salesman, or socio-path, she hasn't got the foggiest idea who or where she is until she provokes a response from you. you define her, in this sense, by responding to her, even when you do so in a negative way. because all the viewer sees or hears is the dynamic of the narrative: She is "someone I identify with" versus someone (a professor or an intellectual, etc.) who I do not or cannot identify with. the only way to defeat such a persona is to become a black hole, deny feedback. then as they become more and more desperate to find themselves their blather becomes a torrent until, ultimately they just expend themselves into nothingness, become meaningless if not altogether silenced. but that's hard to do when they say such irritating, provocative things, isn't it? and it's even more difficult for corporate or self interest-driven media or bloggers, who, in the words of Roger Ailes, president of the Fox News Channel: "I'm not in the news business. I'm in the ratings business. And I'm winning." thank god for "content" like the bandwidth-filling product brand that is 'Sarah Palin'.

  17. With Palin, the question seems to be whether we will continue to value education and intelligence as a virtue of good politicians. Her tact, as a cash cow with lipstick, seems to be monumental. Her brain, as an analyst, commentator, and former politician, seems to be sub-par to say the least. She appears to have attended six colleges in six years (link to, none of which are reputable by the standards of national rankings or compared to other nationally elected politicians. This is not to say that where one graduates should determine her success or electability, but combined with her inability to present any rational or cohesive arguments, six bad schools doesn't add any positives to her resume at all.

    If we are willing to abandon intelligence in our politicians, like we abandoned morality and transparency long ago, then I'm for it. Palin/Beck 2012. If not, though, the revolution should be against her, not with her at the helm.

    Side note: Why isn't proclaiming a revolutionary takeover over of the government by a group of radicals illegal? I mean, they do threaten. They are scary. They can't fill up a Palin rally, but I bet they'd all tea bag each other all the way to the White House green, shotguns and NRA badges in tow, if someone told them to.

Comments are closed.