The only reason the New York Times and CNN are pushing this is because they're really, really, really hoping it will happen. "Sarah Palin for President" would be like a beautiful dream for them, in which empty-headed fairies dance around with bibles while wearing signs reading "No Abortions for Rape Victims." It would also allow them to fulfill any interviewer's life goal -- to get a presidential candidate one on one and expose them as a complete and utter moron. Sarah Palin dodged most of those interviews this time around, but as a presidential candidate...there'd be no hidin' tha stupid.

God, I've got to think even Jon Stewart is hoping for this one.

(And, of course, to any who think the media is biased towards anything other than their own enjoyment and success, Sarah Palin for President carries with it the added advantage of not having a snowmobile's chance in Hawaii of winning -- so the media wouldn't have to worry about that.)

This is the same as the trashy people you see on COPS who cite the First Amendment as their permission to do or say anything at any time.

Talking in class? First Amendment.

Calling a police officer a bitch? First Amendment.

Walking around a CVS incoherently preaching about the martians controlling the government through radio waves? You can bet good money when the police come to extract him from the store, that wacko will yell about the First Amendment.

But it's not surprising. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Palin understands the constitution on a one-word level. (Hence her failure to understand that Roe v. Wade deals with privacy -- all she knows about the case is "Abortion!") The First Amendment she understands has to do with "Speech" -- but like the whack-job being pulled out of the CVS, "Speech" is ALL she knows about it -- that it has to do with "Speech." So when someone somewhere does something that prevents her from saying whatever she wants to whomever she wants...well, by God, that's preventing speech! Or, to put it another way:

Reporting a candidate's idiotic rants, and thereby preventing her from being elected? "First Amendment!"

Wow, that's the slipperiest slippery slope argument I've ever heard. But even if we assume your slippery slope, abortion has nothing to do with it.

Ok, granted, Obama could appoint justices who believe that the First Amendment has no meaning, and those justices could base that lunacy on Roe v. Wade if they wanted. But, truth be told, any president could appoint anybody (if there are open slots and he could get them confirmed). Five madmen, five marxists, five blind mice, (five Miers), etc. Roe v. Wade neither facilitates nor obstructs the appointment of constitutional dingbats.

So, once appointed, those mad marxist mice may well destroy the First Amendment. Heck, they may not even believe that the constitution exists. They might eat the constitution, thinking it a hunk of tasty cheese. To keep running full speed down your slippery slope, these things might happen.

But even if they did, they'd have nothing to do with Roe v. Wade.

His name isn't Joe. He's not a plumber. He would benefit from Obama's tax plan. And he doesn't pay his taxes anyways. These are the "smears" that Joe the Plumber faced -- investigations into facts.

He should complain to McCain for putting him in the national spotlight (though he seems to be enjoying it -- country music album, anyone?). But once the man is in the national spotlight, should America know whether what he is saying is true?

Absolutely. Free speech does not mean consequence-free speech. If I stand up and claim to be a Nobel Prize winner in support of Obama, can the McCain campaign check to see if I'm lying? And when they find out I'm not a Nobel Prize winner, can they say so? Of course they can. My free speech rights have not been violated by investigation.

Now, might that be painful for me? Maybe I've spent the past ten years claiming to have won the Nobel Prize, and telling all my friends. Maybe I told it to my wife when we met, and she believed me. Maybe now she leaves me. Maybe it's greatly embarassing. Maybe none of my friends will take my calls now, knowing that I'm a liar.

Knowing all that, I'm inclined not to go out there and claim to be a Nobel Prize winner in support of Obama. My speech to that effect is "suppressed."

But...so what? It's suppressed by the desire not to be exposed as a fraud, not by fear of state action. So no First Amendment problem.

Now, just to change it up a little, let's say that I HAD won the Nobel Prize, but that McCain responded by saying (truthfully) that it was the Nobel Prize for interpretive dance, and that I was therefore unqualified to know anything about politics. Let's say he then poked fun at my "Dance for Obama." Have my free speech rights been violated?

Of course not.

Now, I might be less likely to speak out, knowing that the counter-speech will be stinging. But that's politics -- free speech, not "consequence-free speech."

Here, McCain told people that Obama's plan would hurt average plumbers, and gave this guy as evidence. In doing so, he invited the question "is it true?" And, it turns out, McCain's claim was baloney for the dual reasons that (a) the guy's not a plumber and (b) if he were, he would be better off voting for Obama.

Free speech problem? Not on your life. ("False light" problem? Well, yes -- but that suit's against McCain, not Obama.)

So to answer your question -- why isn't Joe protected by the First Amendment? He is...or did I miss the part where the government arrested him for speaking?