City Paper is not for tourists
At all. From a radio interview this morning:
“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.”
What’s wrong with this statement? Let me count the ways.
Let’s start with a review of the First Amendment. It reads as follows: “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.”
1.) The First Amendment doesn’t protect politicians from media criticism, not even biased, mainstream criticism. It’s purpose is to protect the media and the citizenry and politicians and weirdos and Bible thumpers and idiots (like Palin) from any government action that would prohibit such criticisms.
2.) “Bitter shots,” like the kind that the press has taken at Palin, aren’t censorship, and in this case they’re not even unreasonable.
3.) If Sarah Palin’s in need of a primer on censorship, she need look no further than her running mate, John McCain, whose McCain-Feingold Act placed restrictions on free political speech.
4.) Sarah Palin is a demagoging idiot. The Republicans deserve to get their asses handed to them on Tuesday, especially the ones who have stayed by Palin’s side for the last two months.