Do you think her interpretation of the first amendment is one that she actually thought about and developed, or she just reads it that way because she is an idiot?

There’s no doubt about it. She reads it that way because she’s an idiot. I’m still struggling to understand how McCain is still holding on to more than 40% of the electorate. 2012 looks like it’s going to be fun.

In the sense of having a state government apparatus that rounds ethnic minorities up without warrants, imprisons them without trial, tortures them for confessions used in post-hoc proceedings, and surveils its citizens in cavalier violation of the law? And which dismisses the Constitution as a “scrap of paper”?

Because that would be pretty awful.

You seem to think it is something like the former. That she actually reads the first amendment as bestowing some sort of super-right on individuals (including politicians) to be protected from criticism because of the chilling effect it has on speech. I think this gives her way too much credit.

I don’t disagree. However, look what happened when Palin said obviously wrong and nonsensical things about, to pick one example, the “Bush Doctrine.” She was immediately backed up by well-informed and intelligent people who are also dishonest partisans. They created complicated explanations for why, in point of fact, Palin’s remarks reveal a deep appreciation of the nuances of foreign policy.

So this is yet another case study of what might happen if Palin becomes the future of the GOP. Get ready to watch in horror as court intellectuals attempt to refashion Palin’s ramblings into coherent policy positions.

“Of course all the usual suspects in the anti-American liberal media are concerned that Palin believes the First Amendment protects politicians from criticism. But go to any Main Street and ask a real American whether the press has any credibility when it comes to defending its sorry record. Maybe we should think more about the responsibility these powerful media elites have to the country, and less about how they can hide behind a Constitution that they clearly disdain.”

Etc., etc.

Is that explanation of Palin’s worldview going to far? I don’t know, I think it is as good an explanation as any. You don’t have to be a particularly thoughtful person to end up there either. It’s gut-level stuff.

I don’t doubt her seriousness and I do understand how dangerous it will be if she is elected VP, or ever becomes President. This comment really drove that point home today.

And to think she mocked Obama for his comments about negative liberties.

Also, BHO has several issues with the 1st; it would have been wiser for Palin to discuss those. And, the treatment of Joe the Plumber has a deep relationship to the 1st.

For the details on the last, see my list of nineteen non-partisan reasons to oppose Obama.

See #s 11, 13, and especially 14 at that link.

It’s fine for her to promote scurrilous rumors about Obama and his associations, but heaven forbid the press do its job and call her on it. I suppose she’d have no problem with the press if they all acted like the folks on Faux news, promoting only those “facts” and ideas that the Republican party thinks fit for the rest of us to hear. Sort of like Pravada.

I doubt she actually considered what she said before it popped out of her mouth–I simply don’t think she’s capable of any kind of deep thought or reflection. She just has an instinctive, gut-level appeal to the forces of stupidity.

You seem to think it is something like the former. That she actually reads the first amendment as bestowing some sort of super-right on individuals (including politicians) to be protected from criticism because of the chilling effect it has on speech. I think this gives her way too much credit.

Her complaints reminded me of trolls you see in various internet forums who complain about their right to free speech being restricted after they are threatened with a ban for saying something offensive. I think my little brother made a similar complaint after my dad told him to stop mouthing off to my mother. Her comments come from more or less the same place, intellectually.

If she did actually develop this view after considered reflection, then that is really frightening. It is also frightening if she is just dumb and doesn’t understand the first amendment, but a little less so.