In the latest delusion perpetuated by the Republican Party's new savior, Sarah Palin is claiming that criticism from the media is infringing on her constitutional right to freedom of speech.
In an interview with an ABC affiliate:
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.
This is about as ridiculous as a politician can get. The right wing has always had some success in attacking the media as being biased, but to actually suggest that the media's exercise of its constitutional duty violates her first amendment rights rises to a new level of idiocy.
"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."
Luckily, however, The GOP's new star is not demoralized by these horrific left-wing attacks.
However she feels about the way her story has been told in the press, Palin told WMAL she is not discouraged.
"It's sort of perplexing to me, because I'm a practical person and plainspoken also, but just cutting to the chase and calling things like I see them, just like most Americans. But this has not left a bitter taste in my mouth, the bitter shots taken by the mainstream media and by some of the elitism there in Washington," Palin said.
Damn those reporters and their pesky facts. Why don't they just say what we tell them to say?
Glenn Greenwald tackles this issue, and nails the real issue perfectly.
This isn't only about profound ignorance regarding our basic liberties, though it is obviously that. Palin here is also giving voice to the standard right-wing grievance instinct: that it's inherently unfair when they're criticized. And now, apparently, it's even unconstitutional.
According to Palin, what the Founders intended with the First Amendment was that political candidates for the most powerful offices in the country and Governors of states would be free to say whatever they want without being criticized in the newspapers. In the Palin worldview, the First Amendment was meant to ensure that powerful political officials such as herself would not be "attacked" in the papers. Is it even possible to imagine more breathaking ignorance from someone holding high office and running for even higher office?
Those who have convinced themselves that Sarah Palin is the future have me incredibly confused. Either she really is this unintelligent, and her insights can be equated to a 7th grade civics student, or Palin's interpretation of the constitution is truly scary. Which is it? Selective application of individual freedoms, or a profound misunderstanding of what our country stands for. It's scary...