Caribou Barbie and the First Amendment: Not So Much

After eight years of the Idiot-in-Chief, do we need — no, wait, that's the wrong phrase — can we afford four to eight more years of White House occupation by morons who have never read the Constitution, and have no idea what it's about?

Here's a whopper from today, courtesy of Caribou Barbie, to Chris Plante on a right wing talk show in Washington, DC:

"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."

See, Barb — can I call you Barb? — the purpose of the Constitution is to protect the people from the government, not the other way around. See, you're running for office to work in the government, and the purpose of the Bill of Rights is not to protect government from the people, but to protect the people from YOU!

Got that, Barbie? The purpose of the Constitution is to limit government, and the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people from clowns like you. A major component of that protection is a free press. Now, I know the press has become a lapdog for the neocons in recent years, based on their inaccurate assumption that Fox News' cable ratings, and the ratings of several of the wingnut radio talkers represents a majority view of the American people, but the fact of the matter is, the press, or as they have come to be caled, "the media" are an essential tool for fighting government oppression.

As such, the fear you have, that as a leader of the government, you wouldn't get to speak out on things because the press might be mean to you is just stupid, childish and petty. See, Barbie; the "chilling effect" on free speech doesn't work for people in government, because you people have power and get to make the laws. But when you threaten, or even imply that you might, limit access by the press, you are effectively cutting off access to government by the people.That's what the First Amendment protects us from.

Look, it's bad enough that you somehow think the Vice President runs the Senate; can you at least try to read the Constitution and if necessary, get someone to explain the hard parts or something?

And let me clue you in on another thing, Caribou Barbie; talking about Obama's "associations" with William Ayers in a way that makes it seem as if he was handing Ayers the bomb-making materials back when Obama himself was far, far away and struggling through third grade, well, that does constitute "negative campaigning." See, Barb; if you can't point to the positives of having you and Gramps in the White House, and the best you can do is insinuate that the other guy, who has been far more thoroughly vetted than you have been, might encourage terrorism somehow, that fits the very definition of "negative campaigning."

See, it would be as if Obama were to start talking about the fact that you were investigated and found to have abused the power of your office, or had close ties to a secessionist group, or used $150,000 in campaign money to buy yourself nice clothes, or showed yourself to be dumber than a stump when it comes to constitutional issues. Such non-issues would be considered "negative campaigning, as well, but Obama has too much class to go after you on such things.

And good for him.

The choice is clear, dear reader; you can vote for a Constitutional scholar, whose running mate and potential replacement, should the unthinkable happen, is one of the most respected members of the Senate, or you can choose an erratic old man, who himself has said he's too old to be president, who chose as his running mate one of the most constitutionally ignorant people to ever run for high office in the history of this country.

Gee, that's a difficult one, eh?

Comments are closed.