Skip to comments.How Sarah Palin changed the game (barf alert)
Posted on 03/13/2012 7:14:38 AM PDT by lowbridge
The movie portrays Palin as an ignoramus. She did not know that Queen Elizabeth does not run the British government, and she did not know that North and South Korea are different countries. She seemed not to have heard of the Federal Reserve. She called Joe Biden OBiden, and she thought America went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein, not Al Qaeda, had attacked on Sept. 11, 2001.
At the same time, she was a liar. In the movie, she was called exactly that by McCains campaign chief, Steve Schmidt, who came to realize that one of Palins great talents was to deny the truth. When confronted, she simply shuts down and sulks off.
Palin objects to this characterization, but the movie has been endorsed by too many of Palins top campaign aides to put its veracity in doubt.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Consider why the Bible advises not to throw pearls before swine. Sarah is a pearl.
I’m pretty sure nobody has endorsed the movie — Some of them said positive things about the BOOK, but everybody I’ve seen comment has been to say the movie lied about things, and was not faithful to the book or to the truth.
And that includes the people from the McCain camp, who have gone so far as to issue press releases contradicting some of the things the movie added that weren’t in the book.
Remember folks, “The Undefeated” is on the Reelz channel for those of you with cable or Fios, and I believe I saw a link to a live datastream of it at some point so it might be made available on the internet. It is a much more accurate potrayal of events than this movie.
Which would be Schmidt, Wallace and Anonymous. Let the little misogynist believe this stuff if it helps him get through the day.
Amazing how the liberals continue to be scared to death over a woman that is not running for president. They never let up with their lies and character assassination against her. Liberalism is truly a mental disorder and the continued irrational attacks on Governor Sarah Palin prove it.
The 57+1 states of the Union...
Hawaii, here in Asia...
A Navy Corpseman....
The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries....
The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system.....
“Why can't I just eat my waffle?” —after being asked a foreign policy question by a reporter while visiting a diner in Pennsylvania.
No, of course such a dofus should not ever become POTUS... oops! - Barack Obama did win the Presidency and far from being an intellectual giant the quotes show him to be a mental midget.
(PS: Cannot register or post on the NYDailyNews site, but if anyone can, please feel free to use the above.)
Correct on all counts.
Joe Biden was 76th out of 85 in his class at Syracuse Law School. Case closed.
Don't call my bluff!!!
:-) :-) :-)
I had missed that one. I really would like to play poker with him.
Yeah, Schmidt and Wallace, who have profited handsomely for their backstabbing.
Good God! Man. You do realize that that means there are exactly 9 people who may be more stupid that Slo-Joe!
I didn't think that was possible!!
Why is this not slander against Sarah Palin? Can HBO portray anyone they want anyway they like against that persons wishes? Can this mistaken writer call someone a liar in print without evidence and just because he wants to?
Are slanderous attacks such as this one no longer actionable in court? Is there no such thing as slander or libel anymore? At what dividing point does the law distinguish between a public person and a private person?
Rubio is as unqualified as Barry Sorreto was. Absolutely not ready for prime time. Neither is Willard the liberal, who’s total experience in government was four failed years governing from the left in Mass. This crap about him being a job creator is BS. Of the three viable candidates in the race, by far the smartest, most experienced and most conservative is Newt Gingrich. He’s the one the liberals and the GOP establishment hate and that is the reason he was crucified in the media when he took the lead over Willard. You’ll notice the establishment boys and leftists on MSNBC never mention Newt anymore. That’s because they think he has been neutralized as a serious challenger to their favorite son Willard the liberal.
Also, claiming to be in Texas when he was reading his teleprompter in Kansas....
To win a libel lawsuit, a public official or public figure must not only prove that something published about them was documentably false but also that it was published with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth. Those are standards which are almost impossible to meet except in the most egregious cases.
There is nothing I've read about the movie that comes close to giving grounds for a successful libel lawsuit. Sarah Palin is clearly a “public figure” under the definitions of New York Times v Sullivan and subsequent libel case law, and furthermore, the movie involves actions she took while serving as governor of a state who was running for vice-president.
Basically that means she's fair game. I think Sarah Palin is a tough woman and is quite capable of handling it, though she probably wishes she could do serious harm to the filmmakers.
The First Amendment exists for a reason.
As conservatives, we want to be able to freely criticize not only elected officials like President Barack Obama and Sen. Harry Reid but also liberal public figures like George Soros, Ariana Huffington, and lots of others. Political disagreements should be settled in the court of public opinion, not in the court of law.
God forbid that we ever have to deal with liberals suing us for libel and forcing us to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend ourselves when we say bad things about people we don't like.
14 posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:34:34 AM by Resettozero: “Why is this not slander against Sarah Palin? Can HBO portray anyone they want anyway they like against that persons wishes? Can this mistaken writer call someone a liar in print without evidence and just because he wants to? Are slanderous attacks such as this one no longer actionable in court? Is there no such thing as slander or libel anymore? At what dividing point does the law distinguish between a public person and a private person?Sincerely.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had harsh words for the HBO film “Game Change” as well the book it was based on, saying Sunday that he had no plans to watch a movie that he believes disparages his former running mate Sarah Palin.
“Of course I’m not going to watch it,” McCain told host Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. “Why there continues to be such an assault on a fine and decent person, Sarah Palin ... They continue to disparage and attack her person. I admire and respect her, I’m proud of our campaign and I’m humbled by the fact that I was able to give her [the Republican vice-presidential nomination].”
Although the book “Game Change” covered all aspects of the 2008 presidential race, the film version focuses on the inner workings of the McCain-Palin campaign. McCain accused authors John Heilemann and Mark Halperin of painting an unfair portrait of the campaign, and he said that the movie would inevitably do the same.
McCain flatly denied that one scene in “Game Change” ever happened. In the film, when adviser Steve Schmidt tells McCain that a boring white male won’t adequately spice up the GOP ticket, McCain responds, “So find me a woman.”
Asked whether that happened, McCain said, “Of course not.”
Schmidt himself has defended “Game Change” and been critical of his own decisions on the McCain-Palin campaign. “I regret playing a part in a process that yielded someone on the ticket who was not prepared to be president,” Schmidt recently told the Washington Post, speaking of former Alaska Gov. Palin. Schmidt said that the film is “the true story” of what happened over the course of ten weeks.
In response to Schmidt, McCain simply said, “I regret that he would make such a comment.”
“I’m not going to watch it,” McCain said on “Fox News Sunday.” “It’s based on a book thats completely biased and with unattributed quotes,” he added,, referring to the “Game Change” book by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann.
Conservative radio host Mark Levin weighed in on Game Change the far left HBO hit piece on Sarah Palin. Levin described former staffers Nicolle Wallace and Steve Schmidt as evil two-faced cowards.
There is nothing worse than having a couple of two-faced cowards working for you No sense of duty, no sense of loyalty, no sense at all Theyre a-holes. Make sure you tell your children you dont ever want to grow up like these two.
McCain vet Charlie Black: Nicolle Wallace’s Palin claim ‘bizarre’
Former Bush White House official Nicolle Wallace drew a swift rebuke from one of her former McCain campaign colleagues Wednesday, for claiming in an interview that the 2008 McCain team discussed whether or not it was appropriate for Sarah Palin to be sworn in as vice president.
Wallace, who worked with the McCain-Palin ticket in the general election, was promoting a novel she wrote an interview with Time when she said: There certainly were discussions not for long because of the arc the campaign took but certainly there were discussions about whether, if they were to win, it would be appropriate to be sworn in.
That assertion is not true and bizarre, said Charlie Black, a veteran of Republican presidential politics who was one of McCains closest advisers in the 2008 race.
No such discussions ever happened and I have confirmed that with Sen. McCain, Black told POLITICO. In fact, Sen. McCain and most of his senior staff from the campaign admire Sarah Palin and appreciate her contribution to the ticket. The McCains and the Palins are close friends.
Of Wallace, Black said: She wrote a book of fiction and her comment to Time magazine is fiction.
Its bizarre that Nicolle would say that when, constitutionally, you couldnt prevent the woman from being sworn in if she was elected vice president, he continued. Its a bizarre way to sell books.
Thanks for your reasoned response which is also my understanding of the way slander and libel laws are being intrepreted.
Accordingly, “under the definitions of New York Times v Sullivan and subsequent libel case law,” no slander or libel laws can be applied against anyone who speaks lies against any “public figure”, whoever that may be.
Please don’t miss my point that I am referring to out-and-out lies and not just a criticism or joke about a public person; lies that are provably wrong and are harmful, especially to a public person The way things are, I believe, is not the way the First Amendment was intended to be upheld.
Also, you mention the flip side of the coin: What about the left suing the right for libel. Well, I always tell the provable truth about anyone and everyone and expect to have legal recourse when I (my name) am libeled or slandered. I post on FR; what keeps me from being called a “public person”? A case could be made for it. Thus, there’s no real legal protection for most Americans against libel or slander, unless it involves a corporation with a buzillion dollars and retained lawyers to push it.
Liberals already sue anyone anytime they like. This must be evened out somehow.