By this logic, Republicans should STFU about Jeremiah Wright

Last night a group ran an anti-Obama ad featuring Rev. Jeremiah Wright during the program running before John McCain appeared on Saturday Night Live. I don't know why Republicans feel that attacking Rev. Wright is justified, especially after their #2 standard bearer has decided that questioning the legitimacy of someone's words interferes with the original speaker's First Amendment rights:

ABC News' Steven Portnoy reports: 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."

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.

In other words, what Palin is saying is that if you call things as you yourself see them, you shouldn't be subject to attacks.

The speeches by Rev. Wright call things as he sees 'em. Why isn't he entitled to the same free pass on having his views questioned as Sarah Palin believes she is? Or is that another corollary to the IOKIYAR rule? Or is there now a Sarah Palin Rule, which is "Because I'm Hot No One Dare Question Me"?

If (God forbid) this woman becomes Vice President, she's going to have to vow to uphold the Constitution of the United States. We already know that she holds the state Constitution of Alaska above the U.S. Constitution. But it's clear that she has no idea what the U.S. Constitution means. Should she be allowed to vow to uphold something she clearly does not understand?