Saturday, November 1, 2008

Censoring Sarah Palin

She's already proven that she has no idea what the job of the vice-president is, so why should we expect her to understand how the first amendment works?

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "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."

Really? Since Chris Plante is a right-wing talk radio host it's no surprise that he didn't call her on her shit but just in case any of you (besides Palin and Plante) have forgotten:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So according to Sarah Palin (and yes, I know how loaded a phrase that can be) the media and others exercising their free speech rights to refute and/or criticize what she says is the same thing as the United States government passing laws explicitly outlawing what she says. In other words, Palin's idea of free speech is the right to say anything critical about anybody or anything without anyone else criticizing what you've just said; in point of fact, that's the exact opposite of free speech.

Which brings me to the inevitable question that I have to ask so often in the face of people who make a practice of uttering inanities that completely contradict reality: is Sarah Palin just so ignorant/stupid that she completely misunderstands one of the most basic rights granted to us as Americans by our constitution or is she just an inveterate liar who thinks she can somehow play the victim card on a national stage and that we're all just so dumb that we'll believe her and let it slide?

I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt and hope that she's just another dishonest politician saying anything to try to win this thing (her history of blatant and easily refuted lies has been well documented) but the mountain of evidence that she's actually just an ignorant fool who slid into her place in history through McCain's monumentally irresponsible judgement is certainly piling up. What's your opinion?

(hat tip: Doug E)

No comments: