Until this afternoon, I never allowed the thought of a Sarah Palin Presidency cross my mind. After all, I am a rational person who tends to worry more about things that might actually come to pass.
But this morning I read an article on the Huffington Post that gave me an incredible, and frankly frightening, insight into the mind of Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin has a George Bush-like was of absorbing information. Instead of reading the Constitution or one of the thousands of books about it and our founding fathers, she just kind of gets it in her gut. Must save a lot of effort, learning that way. It certainly provides entertaining analysis such as her definition of the job of the Vice President.
But today she appeared to completely redefine the First Amendment. Which is surprising since it is so clearly written:
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.
True, there are a couple of words with multiple syllables, but overall it is pretty simple. There are certain things the Congress won't do: establish or prohibit a religion, deprive anyone of free speech, or a free press, and allow people to get together peaceably and petition the government.
Except that in her worldview, the only real right in the first amendment, trumping all others, is her right to freely criticize Barack Obama's past associations without being questioned about the tactic.
Truly, from ABC news via the Huffington Post:
In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.
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."
Should someone tell her that the "mainstream media" is not the Congress or the government, but an institution promised its freedom in the very same amendment that she is using to defend her smear attacks? Does she think her slime trumps the press' obligation to report that she is in fact smearing her opponent?
This woman's understanding of the entire federal government is no greater than that of Joe the Plumber.
Or not. Perhaps she thinks that there is some special power of the Vice Presidency to create new definitions for old institutions. Gee, where would she have gotten that idea?
But even though it is Halloween, I don't think I really want to follow her line of logic on this as its end point is somewhere that I don't want to go to in the dark, all alone.