Just when I was starting to think the McCain campaign had Palin’s ignorance under control, she comes out with this doozy. From ABC:
“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.”
Palin’s bizarre interpretation of the First Amendment is so convoluted that I am having trouble finding the right words to explain what I think she thinks it means. She should read it again:
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.
According to Palin, the First Amendment guarantees a politician’s right to say whatever he or she wants without being called on it by the press? Is that what she’s saying?
The more I mull this over, the more confused I get, but I’m pretty sure the fact that the First Amendment guarantees THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what Palin thinks it does takes her lack of intelligence to a whole new level (emphasis mine):
Without the First Amendment, religious minorities could be persecuted, the government might well establish a national religion, protesters could be silenced, the press could not criticize government, and citizens could not mobilize for social change.