Palin Commits a Gaffe on the First Amendement: Left Goes Whoopee!

Sarah Palin committed a clear gaffe in speaking about the First Amendment. However, judging by the reaction of the left-wing blogosphere, and other commentators, you would think she issued a full-blown policy prescription calling for the First Amendment to be repealed.

Just in case some did not see the manifest incoherence of the statement, law professor Jonathan Turley felt compelled to rebut Palin's "Palinprudence" (a paragraph) with four very impressive citations of jurisprudential giants.

Elsewhere, on the harder left, a stream of obscenities and ad feminem attacks have ensued. Clearly the gaffe had reinforced some already hardened positions against Palin and her intellectual abilities. (Never mind that Joe Biden has uttered a host of gaffes and has had more than one charge of plagiarism in his schooling and political career.)

Considering that McCain-Feingold specifically gave the Federal Election Commission the ability to restrict (a.k.a. suppress) "negative attacks" (a.k.a. "free speech") to so-called "media organizations", and Palin's statement about her fear for the future of free speech, it seems far more likely that her statement was a "rogue" one gone bad, about political incumbents (with help from their government-approved "media organization" friends) attempting to suppress any non-sanctioned "negativity."

In any case, Palin should clarify the meaning of her clearly incoherent remarks immediately, and Palin haters should throttle back on the obscenity-laced misogyny.

One More Obama October Surprise This Week?

We got our October surprise for Barack Obama in the form of radio excerpts on YouTube. These were reportedly uncovered by "Naked Emperor News" a relatively unknown web site.

In the interview, Obama speaks rather candidly about his belief in the redistribution of income, possibly through the courts, but more likely through legislation. He cites the paradigm of "negative rights" as a failing in the American Republic.

I had expected this October surprise. But not from the Republicans. The news media are giving them too much credit by suggesting these are Republican tactics.

In fact, I would say that because the Republicans are too incompetent to mount true political attacks, expect a second October surprise later this week, but before Sunday. The true sources of the current surprise are waiting to see if the radio interview can carry a second or third news cycle.

But whenever this story loses momentum, a second arrow will fly. And it will come, as did the first, from the Clintons.

Who is more likely to know Boston and Chicago progressive radio, the GOP, or, say, someone in the circle of a Clintonista like Rahm Emmanuel (D., Illinois)?

If Hillary is going to be president, Obama must lose, so that she can face off against Sarah Palin on '12. That is the Clinton objective. Not a mere seat on the Supreme Court, which Hillary won't get. The Clintons do not leave things to the good will of their rivals.

When Sarah Palin was selected, the Clintons had an epiphany, which caused them to lick their chops all the more. Let Palin take the rest of the hits to break the glass ceiling. The environment will be much more conducive to a "tough woman" in '12. Especially after an aging president decides he can no longer continue and leaves it to his VP (Palin).

Note well: If you see the second arrow fly, you will know where it came from.