Unheard Of: Obama Unleashes Attack Ad Aimed At Sarah Palin, A Civilian. Why?

[uscitizen]

Reid and Pelosi both need to go, along with drama queen Boehner, McConnel and at least 1/3 of congress.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Palin is a political professional. She has a PAC that raises money to use against Obama and other Democrats.
**********************************
NY! SarahPAC offers much more:


SarahPAC - Sarah Palin's Official PAC

Granted, but I am still pretty sure that Sarah Palin and the Koch brothers are not running for anything. Why would Obama feel a need to campaign against them?

Because whether or not they're running for anything, they're still campaigning against him.

Remember when Obama told Fluke he didn't like to see private citizens attacked?

I do, yet he still chooses to run ads that attack private citizens.

Notice how I am not the one defending the lying sack of shit here?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Granted, but I am still pretty sure that Sarah Palin and the Koch brothers are not running for anything. Why would Obama feel a need to campaign against them?

Because whether or not they're running for anything, they're still campaigning against him.

Remember when Obama told Fluke he didn't like to see private citizens attacked?

I do, yet he still chooses to run ads that attack private citizens.

Notice how I am not the one defending the lying sack of shit here?

I'm not "defending" Obama. I don't give two shits about Obama. Nor did I claim that Fluke was a "private citizen" and shouldn't be attacked.

When people make their politics known to the public at large, they're no longer "private citizens".

And when some "private citizens" pay billions of dollars for ads attacking the President, I see no reason that the President shouldn't be allowed to respond to them.

 

[uscitizen]

Granted, but I am still pretty sure that Sarah Palin and the Koch brothers are not running for anything. Why would Obama feel a need to campaign against them?

Because whether or not they're running for anything, they're still campaigning against him.

Remember when Obama told Fluke he didn't like to see private citizens attacked?

I do, yet he still chooses to run ads that attack private citizens.

Notice how I am not the one defending the lying sack of shit here?

You are not defending Palin?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because whether or not they're running for anything, they're still campaigning against him.

Remember when Obama told Fluke he didn't like to see private citizens attacked?

I do, yet he still chooses to run ads that attack private citizens.

Notice how I am not the one defending the lying sack of shit here?

I'm not "defending" Obama. I don't give two shits about Obama. Nor did I claim that Fluke was a "private citizen" and shouldn't be attacked.

When people make their politics known to the public at large, they're no longer "private citizens".

And when some "private citizens" pay billions of dollars for ads attacking the President, I see no reason that the President shouldn't be allowed to respond to them.

Respond how? Sending the police to knock on their doors? In my opinion, presidents are not supposed to attack anyone who is not an enemy of this country, even if they make it a point to attack his policies, like Palin and the Kochs are perfectly free to do under the US constitution.

Tell me something, do you remember Bush ever running adds or raising money based on the actions of people who did not like his policies? How about Clinton? Any president in your lifetime?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because whether or not they're running for anything, they're still campaigning against him.

Remember when Obama told Fluke he didn't like to see private citizens attacked?

I do, yet he still chooses to run ads that attack private citizens.

Notice how I am not the one defending the lying sack of shit here?

You are not defending Palin?

Objecting to the the most powerful man in the world running ads attacking people he is supposed to protect is not the same as defending the person who is being attacked.

Just something to think about, you might find the thought that presidents, who can send the FBI, IRS, or any of dozens of other agencies, after people, should not attack anyone just because they disagree with him. Chavez started out by attacking people who said things about him, then he started taking their businesses, and then he started locking them up. I do not want to see this country go down the same road.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Remember when Obama told Fluke he didn't like to see private citizens attacked?

I do, yet he still chooses to run ads that attack private citizens.

Notice how I am not the one defending the lying sack of shit here?

I'm not "defending" Obama. I don't give two shits about Obama. Nor did I claim that Fluke was a "private citizen" and shouldn't be attacked.

When people make their politics known to the public at large, they're no longer "private citizens".

And when some "private citizens" pay billions of dollars for ads attacking the President, I see no reason that the President shouldn't be allowed to respond to them.

Respond how? Sending the police to knock on their doors?

No, by releasing ads of his own. This whole Gestapo strawman is getting ridiculous.

If Obama had Sarah Palin locked up for speaking out against him, I'd agree with you completely.

This idea that the President loses his freedom of speech as soon as he gets elected makes no sense to me.

In my opinion, presidents are not supposed to attack anyone who is not an enemy of this country, even if they make it a point to attack his policies, like Palin and the Kochs are perfectly free to do under the US constitution.

And he's perfectly free to respond, under the US Constitution.

The President doesn't lose his rights by becoming President.

Tell me something, do you remember Bush ever running adds or raising money based on the actions of people who did not like his policies? How about Clinton? Any president in your lifetime?

My argument does not rely on precedence. We didn't live in the world of SuperPACs under Bush or Clinton.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not "defending" Obama. I don't give two shits about Obama. Nor did I claim that Fluke was a "private citizen" and shouldn't be attacked.

When people make their politics known to the public at large, they're no longer "private citizens".

And when some "private citizens" pay billions of dollars for ads attacking the President, I see no reason that the President shouldn't be allowed to respond to them.

Respond how? Sending the police to knock on their doors?

No, by releasing ads of his own. This whole Gestapo strawman is getting ridiculous.

I am not the one who said Gestapo, just saying. I was actually thinking of something that happened in Berkley recently.

Minutes after reading a late-night news story online about him that he perceived to be inaccurate, Berkeley Police Chief Michael Meehan ordered a sergeant to a reporter's home insisting on changes, a move First Amendment experts said reeked of intimidation and attempted censorship.

Daily Kos: Berkeley Police Chief Sends a Late Night Warning to Reporter

But thanks for jumping to conclusions.

If Obama had Sarah Palin locked up for speaking out against him, I'd agree with you completely.

I know, it is easier to ignore the first steps and wait until we are already slipping down the slope. Just remember, by the time he arrests Palin it sill be to late.

This idea that the President loses his freedom of speech as soon as he gets elected makes no sense to me.

People in the military loose theirs as soon as they sign up, why should the Commander in Chief be any different?

In my opinion, presidents are not supposed to attack anyone who is not an enemy of this country, even if they make it a point to attack his policies, like Palin and the Kochs are perfectly free to do under the US constitution.

And he's perfectly free to respond, under the US Constitution.

The President doesn't lose his rights by becoming President.

Still missing the point? He has more power than they do. If a local mayor suddenly took to the press to attack a local activist who was making life difficult for him the press would have a field day.

Tell me something, do you remember Bush ever running adds or raising money based on the actions of people who did not like his policies? How about Clinton? Any president in your lifetime?

My argument does not rely on precedence. We didn't live in the world of SuperPACs under Bush or Clinton.

Tell me again you aren't defending Obama.

 

[HUGGY]

Unheard Of: Obama Unleashes Attack Ad Aimed At Sarah Palin, A Civilian. Why?

Because he could? Was she injured?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Respond how? Sending the police to knock on their doors?

No, by releasing ads of his own. This whole Gestapo strawman is getting ridiculous.

I am not the one who said Gestapo, just saying. I was actually thinking of something that happened in Berkley recently.



Daily Kos: Berkeley Police Chief Sends a Late Night Warning to Reporter

But thanks for jumping to conclusions.

Since we were talking about Obama, not the Police Chief of Berkeley, the conclusion was pretty easy to get to.
For reference, I think that the police chief should be fired for that.

But I would have no problem with the Police Chief buying an ad on TV to refute the article.

I know, it is easier to ignore the first steps and wait until we are already slipping down the slope. Just remember, by the time he arrests Palin it sill be to late.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make.

Since when is releasing a political ad "the first steps" to Obama arresting Palin?

The "slippery slope" argument is nonsense in this case. Now, if you were making an argument that some of Obama's additions to Executive Powers, and continuations of the Patriot Act were a "slippery slope", that I'd agree with completely.

Running an ad? Not quite.

People in the military loose theirs as soon as they sign up, why should the Commander in Chief be any different?

Because they are different. The CoC isn't subject to the UCMJ. If you want to change the Constitution, feel free to lobby your local representative to write an amendment that strips the sitting President of his first amendment right.

Still missing the point? He has more power than they do. If a local mayor suddenly took to the press to attack a local activist who was making life difficult for him the press would have a field day.

I tend to avoid discussing meaningless "what ifs". But I will say that if I was the local activist, being called out by the sitting mayor would be the best day of my life.

Tell me something, do you remember Bush ever running adds or raising money based on the actions of people who did not like his policies? How about Clinton? Any president in your lifetime?

My argument does not rely on precedence. We didn't live in the world of SuperPACs under Bush or Clinton.

Tell me again you aren't defending Obama.

I'm not "defending" Obama any more than I would be "defending" Bush if the situation was flipped - and I had the same view of the situation when Bush was President.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since we were talking about Obama, not the Police Chief of Berkeley, the conclusion was pretty easy to get to.
For reference, I think that the police chief should be fired for that.

You ain't the only one, but, for the record, if I had actually been thinking of Obama I would have said FBI, not the police.

But I would have no problem with the Police Chief buying an ad on TV to refute the article.

I would. He made his point in a public meeting, and then felt slighted. Tough shit.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make.

And the point I am trying to make is that public officials do not have the same latitude as private citizens. If they don't like that, they are free to remain private citizens and get bent out of shape, and even sue, people that slight them. The courts actually recognize the difference between a private citizen and a public figure, which is why the burden or proof for slander and libel is higher for public officials than private citizens.

Please, tell me again that no one gives up any rights simply because they take office, and explain why the courts actually disagree with you.

Since when is releasing a political ad "the first steps" to Obama arresting Palin?

Never said it was. I actually think his obsession with his version of truth is the first step along that path, which makes an attack specifically attacking a private citizen simply because she expresses an opinion about him that is unflattering more like the thousandth.

The "slippery slope" argument is nonsense in this case. Now, if you were making an argument that some of Obama's additions to Executive Powers, and continuations of the Patriot Act were a "slippery slope", that I'd agree with completely.

Yep, slippery slope arguments are always nonsense, until a few years later when you find out they aren't.

Running an ad? Not quite.

Even though they are both done by the same person?

Because they are different. The CoC isn't subject to the UCMJ. If you want to change the Constitution, feel free to lobby your local representative to write an amendment that strips the sitting President of his first amendment right.

Every other president in history has recognized the limitations and responsibility of the bully pulpit. Obama prefers to use it to attack people he doesn't like, even going so far as to say a beat cop acted stupidly for arresting his friend after saying up front he doesn't know all the facts.

Don't worry though, I am the crazy one.

I tend to avoid discussing meaningless "what ifs". But I will say that if I was the local activist, being called out by the sitting mayor would be the best day of my life.

If you actually believe that, you must really think Obama is handing Plain a ticket to the White House. If you think she is hapf as stupid as you pretend you do that should outrage you more than anything else.

I'm not "defending" Obama any more than I would be "defending" Bush if the situation was flipped - and I had the same view of the situation when Bush was President.

When did Bush ever attack anyone? You can't have the same view of something that didn't happen, unless you actually spend more time than you want to admit thinking about what ifs.

 

[nitroz]

Who the fuck cares about Palin?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Since we were talking about Obama, not the Police Chief of Berkeley, the conclusion was pretty easy to get to.
For reference, I think that the police chief should be fired for that.

You ain't the only one, but, for the record, if I had actually been thinking of Obama I would have said FBI, not the police.

Conceded.

But I would have no problem with the Police Chief buying an ad on TV to refute the article.

I would. He made his point in a public meeting, and then felt slighted. Tough shit.

I think the root of all of this is simply a difference in political philosophy, which is something that neither of us is going to convince the other of.

I believe that people don't lose the right to speak their minds just because they become a public figure. It's as simple as that. I accept the point that you disagree - and that's fine. Neither of us is going to convince the other.

As long as we're considering paid TV advertisments "free speech" (which is a whole different matter), I see no reason that the President's re-election campaign can't go after the people that are going after him.

It would be a different story if Obama was attacking Palin or the Kochs from the White House Press Room - but why should the President's campaign be subject to rules that the opposing campaign isn't subject to?

And the point I am trying to make is that public officials do not have the same latitude as private citizens. If they don't like that, they are free to remain private citizens and get bent out of shape, and even sue, people that slight them. The courts actually recognize the difference between a private citizen and a public figure, which is why the burden or proof for slander and libel is higher for public officials than private citizens.

The difference between "public" and "private" citizens in the case of slander/libel law doesn't have a separate consideration for elected officials - are you claiming that Jennifer Lopez lost her right to freedom of speech after she signed a movie contract?

Please, tell me again that no one gives up any rights simply because they take office, and explain why the courts actually disagree with you.

I didn't say that "no one gives up any rights" - I said that no one gives up their first amendment rights. I'd love to see a court decision that disagreed with that.

Never said it was. I actually think his obsession with his version of truth is the first step along that path, which makes an attack specifically attacking a private citizen simply because she expresses an opinion about him that is unflattering more like the thousandth.

It's his political campaign. I see no reason that his campaign should be crippled simply because he's the incumbent.

Yep, slippery slope arguments are always nonsense, until a few years later when you find out they aren't.

Some slippery slopes hold credence. Some do not.

Smoking weed isn't a "slippery slope" to meth addiction.

Even though they are both done by the same person?

Yes.

Every other president in history has recognized the limitations and responsibility of the bully pulpit. Obama prefers to use it to attack people he doesn't like, even going so far as to say a beat cop acted stupidly for arresting his friend after saying up front he doesn't know all the facts.

If you're saying that Obama's had some PR issues with his use of the bully pulpit, I won't disagree with you.

The difference is that I'm not "connecting the dots" Beck-style. I don't see it as a larger manifestation of some deep psychological disorder, I just chalk it up to a new President not completely comfortable with making statements. Every President has had their issues with that.

Don't worry though, I am the crazy one.

I wouldn't go that far.

I tend to avoid discussing meaningless "what ifs". But I will say that if I was the local activist, being called out by the sitting mayor would be the best day of my life.

If you actually believe that, you must really think Obama is handing Plain a ticket to the White House. If you think she is hapf as stupid as you pretend you do that should outrage you more than anything else.

I've never said that Sarah Palin was stupid. She's far from stupid. And it's not that Obama is handing her the White House - he's keeping her relevant.

Sarah Palin doesn't want the White House, she wants a talk show on Fox. She wants people to keep caring about her opinions, and paying her to tell them. It's a lot easier and more lucrative to get paid to talk about politics than it is to do them.

And in that sense, Obama is absolutely helping her.

I'm not "defending" Obama any more than I would be "defending" Bush if the situation was flipped - and I had the same view of the situation when Bush was President.

When did Bush ever attack anyone? You can't have the same view of something that didn't happen, unless you actually spend more time than you want to admit thinking about what ifs.

Touche.

But my point stands. This isn't a Republican/Democrat thing. This is a basic rights thing.

 

[daveman]

Who's that supposed to be?

I'd say it applies to several people in this thread.

 

[daveman]

PDS was started by the left describing Palintologists.

You sure do lie a lot.

 

[daveman]

Who's that supposed to be?

A monkeys master for CavemanDave, I say

Too bad you're completely incapable of originality. But that's about all that can be expected from extremely stupid kids.

 

[daveman]

Palin is a political professional. She has a PAC that raises money to use against Obama and other Democrats.
**********************************
NY! SarahPAC offers much more:


SarahPAC - Sarah Palin's Official PAC

Granted, but I am still pretty sure that Sarah Palin and the Koch brothers are not running for anything. Why would Obama feel a need to campaign against them?

Because whether or not they're running for anything, they're still campaigning against him.

And that, of course, is the real crime here, isn't it? Not worshiping the little tin god?

 

[mudwhistle]

Because whether or not they're running for anything, they're still campaigning against him.

Remember when Obama told Fluke he didn't like to see private citizens attacked?

I do, yet he still chooses to run ads that attack private citizens.

Notice how I am not the one defending the lying sack of shit here?

I'm not "defending" Obama. I don't give two shits about Obama. Nor did I claim that Fluke was a "private citizen" and shouldn't be attacked.

When people make their politics known to the public at large, they're no longer "private citizens".

And when some "private citizens" pay billions of dollars for ads attacking the President, I see no reason that the President shouldn't be allowed to respond to them.

Oh.....now Sarah Palin spent billions of dollars for attack ads?

You're fucken high.

 

[mudwhistle]

Palin is a political professional. She has a PAC that raises money to use against Obama and other Democrats.
**********************************
NY! SarahPAC offers much more:


SarahPAC - Sarah Palin's Official PAC

Granted, but I am still pretty sure that Sarah Palin and the Koch brothers are not running for anything. Why would Obama feel a need to campaign against them?

Because whether or not they're running for anything, they're still campaigning against him.

So it's okay to call anyone who campaigns against Obama racists???

Obama says he doesn't want anyone trashing his kids. He says we need to tone all of this angry speech down.........then the prick turns around and pays for an ad calling Sarah Palin a racist. What does Palin have to do with anything? Why release that HBO movie now?


This is all about silencing critics. Obama is no different than Rush Limbaugh. He's decided to trash Sarah Palin, a woman, and made a point of trashing her even after he called his political prop, Sandra Flucke, and apologized for Rush trashing her. The whole process has been a setup for these attacks against Palin.


What a piece of shit.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Remember when Obama told Fluke he didn't like to see private citizens attacked?

I do, yet he still chooses to run ads that attack private citizens.

Notice how I am not the one defending the lying sack of shit here?

I'm not "defending" Obama. I don't give two shits about Obama. Nor did I claim that Fluke was a "private citizen" and shouldn't be attacked.

When people make their politics known to the public at large, they're no longer "private citizens".

And when some "private citizens" pay billions of dollars for ads attacking the President, I see no reason that the President shouldn't be allowed to respond to them.

Oh.....now Sarah Palin spent billions of dollars for attack ads?

You're fucken high.

SarahPAC - Sarah Palin's Official PAC

She's doing the same thing as Obama.

Attacking him to fundraise for her PAC.