By Brad Friedman on 8/19/2010, 4:35pm PT  

We usually don't like to take the wingnut bait, preferring instead to focus on issues that actually matter, but this one is just too gobsmackingly stupid for even us to look the other way.

Last night Ernie Canning noted Dr. Laura's cutting and running from her 30-year career in radio after an ill-advised rant in which she used the "n-word" repeatedly and made even far more offensive comments to boot. He didn't, however, flag the fact that her post-rant self-victimization included the absurd-on-a-billion levels notion that she claimed to be quitting in order to "regain [her] First Amendment rights."

We'd have otherwise left that alone, were it not for fellow-quitter Sarah Palin --- who some, incredibly, still believe to qualified to be President of the United States for Chrissakes --- who Tweeted this in response yesterday...

Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")

Yes. She agrees. Dr. Laura has somehow lost her First Amendment rights because some were critical of what she'd said to millions of listeners over the people's airwaves. Unclear on what the First Amendment is, ladies? It's fairly straightforward. Here's the pertinent part: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

Still unclear, ladies? Apparently so. But it's not the first time the celebrity community organizer has had trouble with that simple language. Here was Palin in October of 2008, as she was running for Vice-President(!), invoking the First Amendment in another moment of wildly inappropriate and mind-blowing stupidity (appx :42 seconds):

HOST: Is the news media doing a good job—are you getting a fair shake, are the Republicans getting a fair shake this year?

PALIN: I don't think they're doing their job when they suggest that calling a candidate out on their record, their plans for this country, and their associations is mean-spirited or negative campaigning. If they convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, 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.

Since we're on the road with limited time, and it'd take me hours to adequately describe just how inane and idiotic, on so many levels, Palin's comments above were --- and how extraordinary it is that even two years later she still seems to completely misunderstand one of the very simplest of Amendments, the first one, to the U.S Constitution --- we'll refer instead to Glenn Greenwald's coverage from '08, back when he originally flagged it and accurately described her comment as "so dumb that it hurts."

We might have mentioned all of this sooner, but we only heard about Palin's tweet today since she's blocked The BRAD BLOG from following her on Twitter, which is, of course, according to her own logic, an attack on our First Amendment rights...or something.

* * *

Update by Ernest A. Canning: Tonight's coverage by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's Countdown is a must see, not only for its slam on the absurd notion that the First Amendment somehow bars the public's right to complain to Dr. Laura's sponsors in the wake of her race rant, but because it underscores how inappropriate it was for Sarah Palin to use the word "shackles" in relation to this race-related controversy.

Tonight's segment of Countdown with Keith Olbermann follows...