Sarah Palin Trashes American Justice

Think Progress reports that Sarah Palin has weighed in on her Facebook page decrying the Obama Administration's decision to try the 9/11 suspects in federal court. She laments that criminal defense attorneys will use "technicalities" to try to get them off.

Criminal defense attorneys will now enter into delaying tactics and other methods in the hope of securing some kind of win for their “clients.” The trial will afford Mohammed the opportunity to grandstand and make use of his time in front of the world media to rally his disgusting terrorist cohorts.

...It is crucially important that Americans be made aware that the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks may walk away from this trial without receiving just punishment because of a “hung jury” or from any variety of court room technicalities. If we are stuck with this terrible Obama Administration decision, I, like most Americans, hope that Mohammed and his co-conspirators are convicted. Hang ‘em high.

So lawyers who protect constitutional rights are engaging in "courtroom technicalities." And there's no need to wait for a verdict, in Palin's view, she's ready to "hang 'em high." [More...]

While I could care less about what Sarah Palin thinks, what's troubling are the comments to her Facebook entry-- filled with garbage like the following:

Why is this a surprise to anyone? We have a muslim in the White House who is a racist, and a racist as our Attorney General, so why is anyone shocked by this move? I'm not, I expected it and more!


We all know they are quilty, they are not american citzens they do not deserve a trial. They should have been shot when they were caught


Obama has now shown his true Muslim Colors, Military removal now in order for Treason to the American People and our Troops.

Some of the most ignorant comments I've seen anywhere are on Sarah Palin's Facebook page. Sarah Palin talks trash and trash follows her. Why am I not surprised?

< Napolitano Says Obama Ready to Work on Path to Legalization | Saturday Late Afternoon Open Thread : Snow >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Although... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 05:11:23 PM EST
    ...I highly doubt that $arah personally wrote this creed, it does do a fine job of pandering to the dregs of society who make up her "base".  

    It'll sure keep them lined up to buy the book.  After all, every good grifter knows how to keep their marks entranced while they're getting fleeced.      

    At Firedoglake (none / 0) (#27)
    by Natal on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 07:53:59 AM EST
    I believe it was Blue Texan who compared language and grammar usage on the Palin Facebook blog with her known usage from other sources and concluded that Sarah is not the author on her blog. Someone else is doing the entries.

    She is on a book tour, and you're right (none / 0) (#36)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 11:53:50 AM EST
    this will help sell her book.

    But, as Woodward said on This Week today, "I don't believe anyone has ever won the presidency based on a book."


    Oh, dear lord... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 06:08:25 PM EST
    This has to be about selling books, about ginning up interest in a presidential run, throwing red meat to her fans to keep them happy, because anyone who has been paying attention knows that the fact that these men are being tried in an American court means that the government believes it has enough evidence to convict them.

    In fact, whether the trials are held in American courts, or in military commissions, the goal is, and always has been, to convict.

    It would not surprise me to know that she rejects every precept of the American justice system when the person at the center is not an American.

    I guess we are doomed to seeing and hearing this drivel from Palin amd her fan club for at least the next two years, aren't we?

    God help us.

    HRC looks forward to having coffee with Palin (none / 0) (#33)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 10:58:41 AM EST
    There's video that tells the ENTIRE story (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 11:28:18 AM EST
    What if Nancy Grace is her V.P.? (none / 0) (#90)
    by 1980Ford on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 03:07:51 PM EST
    Wouldn't that be fun? The scary part is that in the current climate they could win.

    As a defense attorney (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by abdiel on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 06:15:31 PM EST
    isn't this attitude common for certain crimes?  I've noticed even your comments section can be difficult when it comes to defending crimes involving children, for instance (e.g. Polanski).  I'm just wondering if this is really a "conservative" thing or just a layperson thing.

    If KSM and the others plead guilty (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 06:38:45 PM EST
    and stand by their "confessions", will their be any "evidence" introduced? IOW, is this move a way of avoiding deeper inquiry into torture?

    True enough (none / 0) (#6)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 06:46:37 PM EST
    but there's a distinct difference of degree in that kind of layman's attitude between conservatives and the rest of us.

    She can see the Russian Gulag from her window. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by steviez314 on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 06:40:22 PM EST

    Steve, beat up on Palin all you like (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 04:27:29 PM EST
    but do be accurate. She said that you can see Russia from an island in Alaska. That happens to be factual.

    Yes in a SNL skit that (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 07:02:21 PM EST
    thousands of the great unwashed believed...



    Why should it be either? (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 08:11:45 PM EST

    Sick of though on crime mentality (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 08:19:24 PM EST
    Anyone that doesn't believe in the American justice system should never be elected or appointed to any government position. This is a basic foundation of our society.

    I'm really disgusted by the "tough on crime advocates" that are constantly berating our system of justice. And they call themselves patriotic Americans.

    This "entry" is so over the top (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Peter G on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 10:15:02 PM EST
    (or under the bottom) that it makes me wonder if the whole "Sarah Palin facebook page" thing is a spoof.  How reliable is the report, TL?

    it's her facebook page (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 02:26:11 AM EST
    beyond question.

    Amazing. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Peter G on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 12:19:37 PM EST
    First, if SP has acknowledged and embraced this "page" as authentic, as TL assures us, then the linguistic analysis of whether she wrote it herself or someone wrote it for her is immaterial.  Regan's speeches written by Peggy Noonan are still Reagan's speeches, as are JFK's even if written by Ted Sorenson or Arthur Schlesinger, or whomever.  The real "author" is speaking both as and for her.  But second, I just can't imagine that if any Democrat on the national stage (or any state senator, for that matter) publicly expressed equivalently ignorant and irresponsible views on any serious public issue, that he or she would have any future in politics at all.  

    An excellent point (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 04:36:34 PM EST
    but the intent was to attack Palin, not worry over such facts as you have presented.

    beats me. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by cpinva on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 05:37:30 AM EST
    Why am I not surprised?

    i'm afraid ms. palin, at least in public, functions on roughly an 8th grade level, intellectually. this puts her on par with the vast majority of her constituents, explaining why they relate to her so well.

    the woman is just not very bright, which also helps explain the 4 different schools, to finally get a degree in what, journalism? or was it underwater basketweaving? something hard core like that.

    she's a semi-pretty face, who's taken the whole "know-nothing" concept, and run with it.

    Please don't diss the working class (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 12:58:08 PM EST
    She went to four different colleges because she had to pay her own way.

    Not everyone can afford Harvard.

    Also, I am a journalist. It is a real profession.


    Now now (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 04:38:44 PM EST
    Don't get angry when your "betters" trash you. After call, the elites are different.



    To my shame (none / 0) (#47)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 04:50:08 PM EST
    I am part of the elite.  I went to a top university and daddy paid my way.

    Well, there are elites and (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 07:09:44 PM EST
    then there are elites.... And by just questioning and commenting on what the true elites are saying we can see that you aren't a true elite.

    Turn in your Starbucks mug and go to Walmart.



    Your experience, or lack thereof (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 08:18:00 PM EST
    is well established.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 12:34:27 PM EST
    those "haves and have mores" Bush talked about aren't elites, no siree; those people are the salt of the earth.

    An elite drives a Volvo (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 12:57:42 PM EST
    goes to Starbucks and votes Democrat.

    Thus spaketh those non-elites David Brooks and Ann Coulter.

    Only a REAL elite would have an interest in regurgitating that bullsh*t.


    sunning yourself (none / 0) (#57)
    by cpinva on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 06:44:04 PM EST
    on the beach, in oahu, hardly constitutes "working your way through college".

    i worked my way through one college, not four. constant transfers, like constant job changes, is usually indicative of issues other than finances.

    i stand by my original comments.


    Sorry.... (none / 0) (#81)
    by DFLer on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 10:31:23 AM EST
    She went to four different colleges because she had to pay her own way.

    Many people attend one school and pay their own way...To say: "Because she..." just doesn't make the argument here.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Natal on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 08:15:38 AM EST
    we could say she is "character disordered"?  She seems to fit the classic medical profile --- charming, projects blame, manipulative, exhibits no anxiety, unethical.

    Ummmm ..... (none / 0) (#30)
    by prittfumes on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 09:08:18 AM EST
    Wonder who else that profile might fit?

    Good point! (none / 0) (#34)
    by Natal on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 11:15:54 AM EST
    It could be said there's an abundance of these types infesting DC already.

    Why does Sarah come up (3.50 / 2) (#9)
    by robert72 on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 08:15:36 PM EST
    so often? All the left wing slurs and slanders only make her more powerful. It just doesn't seem very smart to keep talking about her. Do you think she is that important that you have to talk about her all the time? Who cares what she says?
    Or are women in politics just natural targets? Huckabee is twice as right wing and stupid and dangerous in my opinion, and nobody mentions him.

    Um... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by phat on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 01:26:55 AM EST
    She was the Republican nominee for Vice-president last year.

    Millions of people voted for her, literally.

    I'm pretty sure that counts for something. And I can't quite figure out what in this post counts as a left-wing slur.

    Pray tell?


    Have you considered the fact (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 06:43:23 AM EST
    that Palin opens her mouth a lot more than Huckabee?

    So do a lot of people (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    Really, the best way to make her go away is to ignore her.

    The obsession on both the right and left is the only thing making her a public figure right now.

    It's justified by saying she's making a bid for 2012.  She has said nothing to that effect.  So that's just an excuse for everyone to prolong their monomania.

    Why is the leech Levi Johnston getting attention?  It's crazy.


    She has no power (none / 0) (#48)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 04:51:13 PM EST
    except the power you give her.

    Watch out (none / 0) (#53)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 05:39:36 PM EST
    You are using an awful lot of words to justify a preexisting ill will.

    To trash people just in case they might otherwise get power, someday, is a shaky ground for what's looking like malice.  

    You're right.  Some people pay their own way through Yale. Others don't.  I don't feel in a position to judge. I didn't have to do it.

    I hardly agree with the statements she is made on her Facebook page. On the other hand, why do I feel there wouldn't be a whole thread on the comments of a guy?  

    Right now, she's only another author in a world of authors.

    And the left is giving her power by the truckload -- in the form of publicity, buzz and magazine covers.  For one thing, she has the power to make a lot of otherwise reasonable people sound like frothing elitists and misogynists.


    Howard Dean (none / 0) (#54)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 05:54:13 PM EST
    is a guy. Republicans portrayed him as a raging maniac when nothing could be further from the truth. But you would not see that because he had XY chromosomes! Correct?
    Please do not look for discrimination when none exists. Palin is enjoying the publicity, she is doing a lot of things to become the face of the Republican Party, your protective attitude towards her is misplaced and amusing.

    Glad your amused (none / 0) (#56)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 06:24:32 PM EST
    But it's hard to mistake the obsession with her clothes, her womb, her figure, etc., with legitimate political comment.  Go read Andrew Sullivan's bizarre rants.  Or the male writers who have fantasized having sex with her.

    Few people need protection less than Palin. She'll make hay out of anything.  And yes, she'll turn it to her profit.

    It's what it's turning you into that I'm concerned about.

    If you don't like her, stop feeding the machine.  It will do you both good.


    Please do not be worried about me (none / 0) (#74)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 10:27:34 PM EST
    I have never (emphasis on never) criticized Palin about anything other than her divisive politics.
    I do not read Andrew Sullivan, I will therefore assume that he has made some tasteless juvenile remarks about S.P. Even as I will support you in calling him out on it, I will also mention something that you seem to be unaware of. Tasteless remarks are also made about male politicians. I have heard women fantasizing about the anatomy of Bill Clinton, Obama, John Edwards and many local politicians. Didn't the media go on and on about Edward's hair during the primaries? Some are done in appreciation of their attractive looks, some out of loathing and some more out of a mix of envy and loathing. Now you tell me whether I should be concerned or not (I dismissed them as frat type posturing all along).

    So what? (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:45:52 AM EST
    PALIN: Boasts that she ran her campaign for governor on small donations, mostly from first-time givers, and turned back large checks from big donors if her campaign perceived a conflict of interest.

    THE FACTS: Of the roughly $1.3 million she raised for her primary and general election campaigns for governor, more than half came from people and political action committees giving at least $500, according to an AP analysis of her campaign finance reports. The maximum that individual donors could give was $1,000; $2,000 for a PAC.

    The exact same thing could be said of the Obama campaign - how many times did we hear from the media or Obama himself about how it was "small donors" who helped him win? Everyone knows that was a bunch of malarkey - it was big donations and bundles from Wall Street.  Look, I don't care for Palin's politics, but if it's bad for her to say this stuff, then Obama must also be absolutely be held to the same standard.


    Some fun info (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 08:06:57 AM EST
    From that AP article you listed.

    Besides the writer with the by-line, there's a little tag line at the bottom:

    AP writers Matt Apuzzo, Sharon Theimer, Tom Raum, Rita Beamish, Beth Fouhy, H. Josef Hebert, Justin D. Pritchard, Garance Burke, Dan Joling and Lewis Shaine contributed to this report.

    They had 10 (11, if you include the writer) fact checkers to fact check her book.  Wonder if the AP has that many fact checkers to check up on the people who are actually in power (and actually can do things, you know, like pass and sign bad legislation) - I doubt it.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 12:13:30 PM EST
    That you read the whole thing is a credit to you, but your attempt to discredit it other than with facts and reasoning tell us how important the issue is for you.

    Sarah Palin, her book, and the supposed 'disputed facts" are NOT important to me.  Only to some in the liberal blogosphere whose heads explode every time the woman's name is mentioned.


    George Bush (none / 0) (#55)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 06:04:11 PM EST
    was pilloried by the left, Hannity, Beck, Lou Dobbs, O'Reilly and other guys get skewered every day by people in the left for the stupid things they say. Why should the roolz be different for Sarah Palin?

    she's the train wreck (none / 0) (#58)
    by cpinva on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 06:45:45 PM EST
    Why does Sarah come up so often?

    that keeps on giving.


    No, this is not the issue. (2.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 09:00:35 PM EST
    So lawyers who protect constitutional rights are engaging in "courtroom technicalities."

    The issue is that these terrorists do not deserve the protection of our Constitution as if they were US citizens. They should have, long ago, been tried in a military tribunal and hanged by the neck until dead.

    The rights in question (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Peter G on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 10:25:33 PM EST
    are not limited to citizens, and citizenship has nothing to do with whether someone enjoys the rights guaranteed to every "person" and to "the accused" by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.  And if you understand and support our Constitution, you will realize that under no circumstances at all are your rights dependent on whether you "deserve" them.  The issue is whether the United States may lawfully treat these particular folks as unlawful combatants in a war, and try them in a military tribunal, or as accused criminals, and try them in a civilian court.  In this instance, I think our government has made the right decision, although rather late and perhaps too late.

    As Lincoln proved..... (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 04:32:07 PM EST
    during war time some rights may be lost by criminals.

    And there is no doubt that these 5 are criminals.

    Plus, they did not commit exclusively criminal acts, but acts of warfare against the US.

    That moves me to say that they should be tried in a military tribunal. And a lot of voters agree with me.


    jim, please cite (none / 0) (#59)
    by cpinva on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 06:47:20 PM EST
    As Lincoln proved
    during war time some rights may be lost by criminals.

    the current congressional declaration of war you refer to.


    in lieu of the above, (none / 0) (#60)
    by cpinva on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 06:48:49 PM EST
    i'll accept the areas of domestic insurrection.

    The Congressional "Authorization (none / 0) (#61)
    by Peter G on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 06:59:44 PM EST
    ... for the Use of Force" against al Qaeda and the nations aiding and harboring it -- which is the closest thing to a declaration of war that could conceivably apply here -- was issued some days after 9/11.  The criminal acts against U.S. targets of which KSM is accused necessarily preceded that declaration.  

    You are correct but the fact is that those (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 07:05:51 PM EST
    were acts of war that we had been too stupid to see.

    again, (none / 0) (#80)
    by cpinva on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 09:18:46 AM EST
    i ask for the congressional declaration of war, or the domestic areas in insurrection.

    Voters elect men (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 11:15:35 AM EST
    who make laws and appoint judges......

    I thought you understood the concept of a Constitutional Republic...


    I understand that you do not understand. (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 08:16:19 PM EST
    My point had nothing to do with who was the greater threat, but various acts by the Executive during war time.

    that may be your issue but (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 02:28:56 AM EST
    her's were as I quoted them.

    Meaning? (none / 0) (#7)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 07:46:47 PM EST
    "I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheik Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice..."

    What does this sentence mean?

    If you say the defendant is "subject to" the demands of justice, does it imply that every effort will be made to provide the defendant with a fair trail - or does it infer the "hang 'em high" ethic.

    The sentence is from Obama.

    As a general rule (4.50 / 2) (#12)
    by Watermark on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 08:38:33 PM EST
    Obama tries to say as little in as many words as possible.

    It's a generic statement that people can interpret to mean whatever they want.


    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 09:24:10 PM EST
    Saying that the defendant would be "subject to the exacting demands of American justice" has an old fashioned Yee Hah ring to it - to me anyway.

    It is true that it has the usual "what did he say?" feel to it as most of Obama's comments on controversial subjects, but I did feel that it is slanted to appeal more to the Palin 'hang 'em high" partisans  than those who would identify with Jeralyn's view of defendants' rights.


    I don't know the law, (none / 0) (#8)
    by robert72 on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 08:08:31 PM EST
    but what does extreme torture over a period of time matter in a trial? Could he really get off on a 'technicality'? (If torture can be called that.) Or is there a chance that he might be truly innocent? Or be released when guilty? Isn't it all rather a chancy thing?
    Politically speaking, to be tried in NY seems a gamble. They can't use evidence obtained under torture, I wouldn't think, but you can be sure the defence will use torture to make a huge noise.

    Evidently, (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Natal on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 10:15:32 PM EST
    Holder will not be using any torture evidence. The Justice Department has framed their case with incontrovertible e-mail and non-torture confession evidence.  If perchance the terrorists get off in this case there are other multiple charges not submitted for this trial that will be brought up for another trail. It seems there's virtually no chance any of them will escape conviction.



    Just wondering... (none / 0) (#16)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 09:32:07 PM EST
    If Khalid Sheik Mohammed is the "mastermind" of the attacks on the Trade Center, then, from the point of view of the government, who the hell is Osama Bin Laden?

    Although (none / 0) (#23)
    by JamesTX on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 04:41:20 AM EST
    the jury system is based in absolute ignorance of statistical facts, and in no way constitutes any form of what most people believe it does (giving the best estimate of the community's opinion), I can't quite call a verdict a "technicality".

    Trashing the American justice system (none / 0) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 08:43:20 AM EST
    is currently in vogue. Some like Palin do it verbally and others do it by their actions.

    Custom designing trials to fit the type of evidence available (court trials vs military tribunals), holding people indefinitely without trials, employing state secrets or legislating immunity for telecoms so that wrongdoings will never reach trial, trashes our justice system every bit as much as the  words sprouted by the right wing.

    Well, Glenn's been looking at the (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 09:34:54 AM EST
    Obama administration's approach to "justice" in this area, and concluded that:

    (I)nstead, what we have is a multi-tiered justice system, where only certain individuals are entitled to real trials:  namely, those whom the Government is convinced ahead of time it can convict.  Others for whom conviction is less certain will be accorded lesser due process:  put in military commissions, to which most leading Democrats vehemently objected when created under Bush.  Presumably, others still -- those who the Government believes cannot be convicted in either forum, will simply be held indefinitely with no charges, a power the administration recently announced it intends to preserve based on the same theories used by Bush/Cheney to claim that power.

    A system of justice which accords you varying levels of due process based on the certainty that you'll get just enough to be convicted isn't a justice system at all.  It's a rigged game of show trials.  

    So, by all rights, Palin should be thrilled, shouldn't she?  Obama and the DOJ and the DOD have figured out a selective system of "justice" that is almost guaranteed to result in conviction after conviction.

    But, golly, she can't exactly praise the president who came up with this brilliant plan, can she?  So, what to do, what to do?

    Well, it's clear - find the fear again.  And what could make people more fearful than the idea of KSM and his terrorist buddies possibly loose on the streets of America!

    Call me crazy, but I am think what is being done to the system of justice is a whole lot more alarming, especially when it gets packaged with all the Bush-era policies on surveillance and state secrets that Obama has found appealing.

    Sarah Palin is a distraction, a not-so-bright one that will be used by this administration to prove its anti-terror cred and commitment to "justice," even as it further damages that system.

    Why there is more attention on Palin is beyond me.


    Fundamentally the terrorist trail will (none / 0) (#32)
    by joze46 on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 10:23:07 AM EST
    flush out much of the social laws and contradictions that are tossed around by the Republicans. Or the Democrats will flush out those well connected Republican judicials that are connected with friendship rather than serving law. America we have Republicans parading as Democrats one especially surfaced currently Joe Lieberman, or those fifty seven blue dog so called Democrats that are really Republicans. The whole thing is hard to corner and widely know to the journalist crowd for a long, long time. That is the kicker; the media has been playing the electorate sucker for several decades.  

    For me Sarah Palin is so unqualified for any serious high level position in politics such as the Vice President or even President it stymies the sense to listen to this week with George Stephanopoulos as he asks questions to former mayor Gullinani. Gullinani is on a rant that Palin is something special and Obama is totally wrong to have the terrorist trial in federal court.

    Any trail will be media driven. But, now that America knows what we do know now the mainstream media it self is on trial. Here and in other blogs in the Internet much transparency to the truth will be hard to oppress. The media will be called out; Obama has already done some of this such as singling out FOX NEWS. Possibly for FOX in its educational programming using Glen Beck with the traditional black board staged questions and lunacy. It reminds me of some the College classes one has gone through years ago. Wildly thinking one is in a liberal class driven by a conservative wacko. LOL.

    Now we know...The Republicans will do anything to win and that includes using comedy to enhance hatred. Jon Snow and the Colbert report is a terrific example along with Rush Limbaugh when pressed they will always say this is entertaining and telling jokes to slip out of speculative speech treachery. Everyone remembers Colbert in the torch and pitch fork video, perfect hate based comedy. It is an oxy moron but perfect for an electorate that can not think on their feet.

    The problem is (3.50 / 2) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 04:41:56 PM EST
    that Beck didn't invent Van Jones, et al and bring them into the government at the highest levels.

    Obama did that. Whatever else Beck is, he is pointing out some inconvenient facts.


    Inconvenient facts (none / 0) (#84)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 12:13:25 PM EST
    that he just started sniffing around for sometime after the inauguration of Obama.

    Beck is little better than a Nixonion smear-punk masquerading as someone (as he repeats ad nauseum)outside "the media".

    Dont imitate him.