This morning, Sarah Palin told Matt Lauer that David Letterman needed to apologize to all women for a joke he made.
Fact: Sarah Palin is not the official mouthpiece for all women. Sarah Palin does not speak for all women. I can cite this as a fact, as I am a woman, and Sarah Palin most certainly does not speak for me.
No apology necessary, Dave.
A simple question:
Why do you feel that Letterman doesn’t owe women in general, and mothers of daughters more specifically, an apology for that particular ill-conceived attempt at humor?
Did you actually find it inoffensive, or is being on the same side as Palin on any issue that disgusting to you?
That’s a real question. I know how hard it can be to agree with an enemy.
Hey Jonolan!
Good to see you, as always.
I found the joke tasteless, and really more derogatory to Alex Rodreiguez and Elliot Spitzer.
What I did not like was Sarah Palin insisting that Letterman owe ALL women an apology.
If Obama had insisted that Letterman owe ALL woman an apology, I would be just as irritated.
No one is my mouth piece. I will decide if someone or something has offended me or made me feel victimized. Not somebody else.
To top it off, Palin has made a career lately out of being a victim – of the mean press, of the mean comedian, of the mean bloggers.
She was on a show chiding Hillary Clinton for suggesting that the press was hard on women.
Again, I will decide if someone is being hateful towards me personally, or my gender, and I will speak out if I am feeling shit upon. That is my job.
It is not the job of Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, or Mahatma Ghandi.
Oddly enough, I felt bad for Palin the other day – it is not that I like or dislike her, bottom line, I do not trust her. And I have a tendency to not like people whom I distrust.
Oh, and for the record, this is why I do not like Sarah Palin.
From Harry Frankfurt, a philosopher who wrote an essay entitled “On Bullshit.”
“While the liar deliberately makes false claims, the bullshitter is simply uninterested in the truth.
Bullshitters aim primarily to impress and persuade their audiences. While liars need to know the truth, the better to conceal it, the bullshitter, interested solely in advancing his own agenda, has no use for the truth.
Bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.
’nuff said.
A more than fair answer, Kel. It’s rare to find someone who doesn’t want an advocate.
To some extent – less than I would like though – we disagree about Palin, but I can see your problem with her.
I too tend to dislike – at the very least – those who I cannot trust.
My last thought on Palin – she was speaking in Evansville, Indiana on April 16th, 2009, at the ‘Right-to-Life- dinner and she was nakedly honest concerning finding out that she was pregnant with her 5th child. She admitted that “it went through her mind – no one knows I am out here, I can just quietly ‘change the circumstances, just make it all go away’, and no one will ever know.” She said it went through her mind more than once.
Mind you, I am paraphrasing. It was a few months ago. ‘Change the circumstances, make it all go away=have an abortion”. Obviously she cannot use the word at the “Right to Life” dinner.
It really killed me, to read about her speaking so honestly, and I had a serious woman-to-woman pang of understanding/empathy.
Then my logical brain kicked in, and reminded me that Palin was entertaining a thought that was a CHOICE. Her maternal streak, morals, beliefs, fear of the procedure, or fear of being found out – whatever it was, it won out and she choose to have the child. Good for her, and I mean it.
However, she had that time, be it one minute, five minutes, an hour, or a day, where she had the choice to make. She made her choice, good for her.
My anger stems from her allowing herself the time to make a decision, yet trying to pass laws depriving the rest of us from having that hour, that day, to also make a decision.
That is one of my core issues with her.
But then, to refute the bullshitter from the liar, there is this, from the Atlantic Monthly:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/the-odd-lies-of-sarah-palin-a-roundup.html
And just in case you do not feel like going to a link……
07 Jul 2009 01:54 pm
The Odd Lies Of Sarah Palin: A Round-Up
By Andrew Sullivan
Some readers have asked me to put all the various odd lies of Sarah Palin that the Dish has compiled in one helpful place. So that’s what we’ve done. A couple of months ago, I asked an intern to re-fact-check all of them to make sure new details hadn’t emerged that might debunk some. And I also asked to get any subsequent statements by Palin that acknowledged that she had erred in any of these statements that are easily rebuttable by facts in the public record and apologized and corrected. She has not. Since this was a vast project over the last ten months, it’s possible there are some nuances or errors that need fixing. Please tell us if you find one and we’ll acknowledge and fix. But it has been put through the ringer a few times.
After you have read these, ask yourself: what wouldn’t Sarah Palin lie about if she felt she had to?
Palin lied when she said the dismissal of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, had nothing to do with his refusal to fire state trooper Mike Wooten; in fact, the Branchflower Report concluded that she repeatedly abused her power when dealing with both men.
Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed to have said, “Thanks, but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere; in fact, she openly campaigned for the federal project when running for governor.
Palin lied when she denied that Wasilla’s police chief and librarian had been fired; in fact, both were given letters of termination the previous day.
Palin lied when she wrote in the NYT that a comprehensive review by Alaska wildlife officials showed that polar bears were not endangered; in fact, email correspondence between those scientists showed the opposite.
Palin lied when she claimed in her convention speech that an oil gas pipeline “began” under her guidance; in fact, the pipeline was years from breaking ground, if at all.
Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy.
Palin lied when she denied having said that humans do not contribute to climate change; in fact, she had previously proclaimed that human activity was not to blame.
Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska produces 20 percent of the country’s domestic energy supply; in fact, the actual figures, based on any interpretation of her words, are much, much lower.
Palin lied when she told voters she improvised her convention speech when her teleprompter stopped working properly; in fact, all reports showed that the machine had functioned perfectly and that her speech had closely followed the script.
Palin lied when she recalled asking her daughters to vote on whether she should accept the VP offer; in fact, her story contradicts details given by her husband, the McCain campaign, and even Palin herself. (She later added another version.)
Palin lied when she claimed to have taken a voluntary pay cut as mayor; in fact, as councilmember she had voted against a raise for the mayor, but subsequent raises had taken effect by the time she was mayor.
Palin lied when she insisted that Wooten’s divorce proceedings had caused his confidential records to become public; in fact, court officials confirmed they released no such records.
Palin lied when she suggested to Katie Couric that she was involved in trade missions with Russia; in fact, she has never even met with Russian officials.
Palin lied when she told Shimon Peres that the only flag in her office was the Israeli flag; in fact, she has several flags.
Palin lied when she claimed to have tried to divest government funds from Sudan; in fact, her administration openly opposed a bill that would have done just that.
Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed that troop levels in Iraq were back to pre-surge levels; in fact, even she acknowledged her “misstatements,” though she refused to retract or apologize.
Palin lied when she insisted that the Branchflower Report “showed there was no unlawful or unethical activity on my part”; in fact, that report prominently stated, “Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.”
Palin lied when she claimed to have voiced concerns over Wooten fearing he would harm her family; in fact, she actually decreased her security detail during that period.
Palin lied when asked about the $150,000 worth of clothes provided by the RNC; in fact, solid reporting contradicted several parts of her statement.
Palin lied when she suggested that she had offered the media proof of her pregnancy with Trig to “correct the record”; in fact, no reports of her medical records were ever published; and the letter from her doctor testifying to her good health only emerged hours before polling ended on election day, even though there was nothing in it that couldn’t have been released two months earlier.
Palin lied when she said that “reported” allegations of her banning Harry Potter as mayor was easily refutable because it had not even been written yet; in fact, the first book in that series was published in 1998 – two years into her first term – and such rumors were never reported by the media, only circulated as emails.
Palin lied when she denied having participated in a clothes audit with campaign laywers; in fact, the Washington Times later confirmed those details.
Palin lied when asked about Couric’s question regarding her reading habits; in fact, Couric’s words were not, “What do you read up there in Alaska?” or anything close to condescension.
Palin lied when she mischaracterized the “$1200 check” given to Alaskans as the permanent fund dividend check; in fact, that fund had yielded $2,069 per person, and she claimed otherwise to obscure the fact that Alaskans also received a $1200 rebate check from a windfall profits tax on oil companies – a tax widely criticized by Republicans.
Palin lied when she claimed to be unaware of a turkey being slaughtered behind her during a filmed interview; in fact, the cameraman said she had picked the spot herself, while the slaughter was underway.
Palin lied when she denied having rejected federal stimulus money; in fact, she continued to accept and reject the funds several times.
Palin lied when she claimed that legislative leaders had canceled a meeting with her to hold their own press conference; in fact, they only canceled it after being told she would not participate, and the purpose of the press conference was very different from the meeting’s.
Palin lied when she announced on the news that she never holds closed-door meetings; in fact, she had just attended a closed-door meeting with the legislature earlier that day.
Palin lied when she said that former aide John Bitney’s “amicable” departure was for “personal” reasons; in fact, Bitney said he was fired because of his relationship with the wife of Palin’s friend, plus a Palin spokesperson later claimed “poor job performance” for his firing – without elaborating.
Palin lied when she said she kept her running injury a secret on the campaign trail; in fact, her bandaged hand was clearly visible in photographs and the story was widely talked about.
Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska has spent “millions of dollars” on litigation related to her ethics complaints; in fact, that figure is much, much lower, and she had initiated the most expensive inquiry.
Palin lied when she denied that the Alaska Independence Party supports secession and denied that her husband had been a member; in fact, even the McCain campaign noted that the party’s very existence is based on secession and that Todd was a member for seven years.
MY QUESTION: How does the person portrayed above hold up to the rigorous scrutiny of American values that so many on the far right are lamenting the sudden loss of?
The problem with the list above is that many of the items are themselves either outright lies or deliberately misleading statements.
Jonolan –
Again, your statements are broad and vague. If you are interested in correcting the items you perceive as lies or misleading statements, then call up your own facts to debunk and debate.
The author himself asks to be corrected if he has written something incorrect.
If you are unable to do this, it is going to become very hard to take anything you say seriously, and I believe, as I have said many times, that you are smart – however, smart does not equate informed.
Get specific.
To address each point would be a huge comment and one that is quite off-topic for your post. Are you OK with that?
If so, I’ll gladly address the points.
I have all of the space in the world, if you have the time.
Since the author of the above ‘Atlantic Monthly” column asks, in his first paragraph, to be corrected on any fact discrepancies, should you write it here, or go straight to him?
Either way – if you have time to address each point with undeniable back-up, that would be great. I will send it along to the original author myself.
At this point, I do not feel this thread to be off-topic, so no worries on that issue here – Palin is keeping herself in the news, therefore, she is now the topic, not just the Letterman issue.
I’ll do one or two at time, in order, so that the one post isn’t a novella.
“Palin lied when she said the dismissal of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, had nothing to do with his refusal to fire state trooper Mike Wooten; in fact, the Branchflower Report concluded that she repeatedly abused her power when dealing with both men.”
One cannot say that a difference of opinion on motivation is a lie, especially when Palin is the only one who can truly know her reasons.
Be that as it may, even the Branchflower report does not claim that his refusal to fire state trooper Mike Wooten was the reason for Walt Monegan’s termination. It only claims that it was likely to have been one of the reasons.
The Branchwater Report (PDF)
So, Walt Monegan’s refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten might have been one reason among many for Palin to want him fired – he wasn’t by the way; he resigned after not getting reassigned.
That doesn’t sound like grounds to call someone a liar to me.
Corrected link
http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/10/10/16/Branchflowerreport.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf
On this first rebuttable – I would like to highlight Andrew Sullivans words “odd” and “lies”.
“Odd” is the one I find myself in agreement with. I , and many others, cannot really ever figure out what Palin is saying, even when she is on a tele-prompter.
“Lies” – is a little more difficult. “Lie” is a tough word, and a rough accusation.
However, it has many variations. An omission is called a “lie by omission” – shifting a sentence where a noun comes before a verb is called a “misstatement” – contradicting oneself, as Palin often does, is called a “lie” , when in fact it is a contradiction, no matter how convenient.
Stating ones beliefs and morals on tape, only to refute them at a later date, is a lie.
One of the absolute beliefs and spoken morals of Sarah Palin is “No Politics as Usual” and ” “Absolute Transparency”
The whole Walt Monegan issue is shrouded in the words “might” – right there, the issue is murky, and does not adhere to Palins rallying cry of “transparency”.
I have the flu, so I can only manage this rebuttal today, but it is a start.
”Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed to have said, “Thanks, but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere; in fact, she openly campaigned for the federal project when running for governor.”
Quite misleading, but the truth is little, if any, better.
Palin did, when running for Governor, campaign in favor of the “Bridge to Nowhere.” But, after elected and before being the GOP’s VP Candidate, she halted the project and refused any further funding.
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901
Oh, and Alaska never returned any of the federal funds that they did receive.
Quick question – who would the ‘Alaska” be who did not return the funds? Would that be the Governor, or another branch of legislation?
I don’t know for sure, but it should have been the state legislature. That’s the way these things normally work.
There’s also the fact that those funds might have already been spent, which would make returning them difficult.
”Palin lied when she denied that Wasilla’s police chief and librarian had been fired; in fact, both were given letters of termination the previous day.”
This is either an outright lie or honest mistake by Sullivan.
Neither the Librarian nor Police Chief were fired. Palin did send them memos requesting letters of resignation from them – along with several others from the previous Wasilla administration, but neither of them ever actually lost their jobs.
Palin told the Anchorage Daily News 1996 the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor’s job, which she’d won from three-term mayor John Stein in a hard-fought election. Stein had hired many of the department heads. Both Emmons and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin.
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html
”Palin lied when she wrote in the NYT that a comprehensive review by Alaska wildlife officials showed that polar bears were not endangered; in fact, email correspondence between those scientists showed the opposite.”
She lied?
The comprehensive – whatever that means – review in question was performed by the staff of the Alaskan Fish and Game Department, headed by veteran wildlife biologist, Ken Taylor.
There were apparently other supporters as well, but when they were discovered, a congressional committee called a hearing to decry “phony science” and Exxon Mobil-funded “climate deniers.”
So, which group of scientists are we talking about? Hmmm? It may be junk science, but it was a “comprehensive” review.
http://www.adn.com/polarbears/story/295420.html
”Palin lied when she claimed in her convention speech that an oil gas pipeline “began” under her guidance; in fact, the pipeline was years from breaking ground, if at all.”
Very misleading.
Palin managed to get the Alaskan Gas Pipeline Project, something the State has wanted for decades, started. She managed to attract developers and investors and started the federal approvals process.
Yet, not a mile of pipe has actually been laid as of yet.
In a project like this there’s years and years of work that needs to be before construction can begin, so it’s a matter of when you decide a project like this has begun that will determine if you think Palin lied or not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11pipeline.html?pagewanted=1
”Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy.”
This is one of those impossible to prove or disprove claims that work so well in politics.
Does Palin pass judgments on gays, or just upon the sin – from an Abrahamic viewpoint – of homosexuality? We’ll never truly know, but the conversion therapy implies the latter.
Strange how Sullivan says that she opposes “all rights between gay spouses” though when his own column points out that her 1st veto as Governor was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees.
She is, however, staunchly against same-sex marriage.
Link blew up. Please delete the post above Kel and replace it with this one.
”Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy.”
This is one of those impossible to prove or disprove claims that work so well in politics.
Does Palin pass judgments on gays, or just upon the sin – from an Abrahamic viewpoint – of homosexuality? We’ll never truly know, but the conversion therapy implies the latter.
Strange how Sullivan says that she opposes “all rights between gay spouses” though when his own column points out that her 1st veto as Governor was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees.
She is, however, staunchly against same-sex marriage.
Corrected link to Sullivan’s collumn / blog: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/palin-on-gay-ri.html
”Palin lied when she denied having said that humans do not contribute to climate change; in fact, she had previously proclaimed that human activity was not to blame.”
A misleading statement at best.
Palin’s actual statement was,
The supposedly conflicting statements are:
And,
So a lie by Palin? Hardly. She never did say that there’s absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/09/12/palin_denies_denying_global_wa_1.html
“Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska produces 20 percent of the country’s domestic energy supply; in fact, the actual figures, based on any interpretation of her words, are much, much lower.”
Palin’s full statement was,
I’m not sure if Palin was lying or merely “tunnel-visioned” on Oil & Gas.
Alaska produces – or produced at that time – 14% of all the oil from US wells. Is that nearly 20%; it depends on your definition of “nearly” I guess.
In any event, this is not a point that I would take Sullivan to task on due to the multi-tiered inaccuracies of Palin’s statement.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html
”Palin lied when she told voters she improvised her convention speech when her teleprompter stopped working properly; in fact, all reports showed that the machine had functioned perfectly and that her speech had closely followed the script.”
Misleading on the part of both sides.
According to eye-witness reports, Palin’s teleprompter did indeed malfunction; it was scrolling past where she was in her speech and she had to deal with that by some improvisation. It did not, however, malfunction to the point where she had to “wing” her speech, only adjust her delivery somewhat and add a few bits.
For most public speakers who use a teleprompter this is normal behavior; it’s supposed to be a tool not a crutch.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2008/09/04/the-sarah-palin-broken-teleprompter-myth.html
”Palin lied when she recalled asking her daughters to vote on whether she should accept the VP offer; in fact, her story contradicts details given by her husband, the McCain campaign, and even Palin herself. (She later added another version.).”
I have no data with which to confirm or deny the accuracy of Sullivan’s claims of Palin’s mendacity in this matter.
I guess we will have to ask Sullivan.
”Palin lied when she claimed to have taken a voluntary pay cut as mayor; in fact, as council member she had voted against a raise for the mayor, but subsequent raises had taken effect by the time she was mayor.”
This one is murky and hard to figure out one way or the other.
Not only Palin vote against the raises before election, upon election she did get a measure through the Wasilla City Council cutting her salary by 10%. It’s unclear though whether it was ever allowed by the Wasilla City Council to go into effect.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/did_palin_really_take_a_pay_cu.php
Since nobody seems to know whether her post-election pay cut measure actually took effect, it seems inappropriate to call her a liar on the issue – unless Sullivan has the hard data, which even the 2008 election campaigns couldn’t find.
”Palin lied when she insisted that Wooten’s divorce proceedings had caused his confidential records to become public; in fact, court officials confirmed they released no such records.”
I’d pretty much have to agree with Sullivan on this one.
”Palin lied when she suggested to Katie Couric that she was involved in trade missions with Russia; in fact, she has never even met with Russian officials.”
I’d pretty much have to agree with Sullivan on this one.
”Palin lied when she told Shimon Peres that the only flag in her office was the Israeli flag; in fact, she has several flags.”
Here’s an interesting thing: They’re both lying.
Palin actually told Shimon Peres, that the only flag in her office, aside from the American flag, is the Israeli flag – so Sullivan’s assertion is false from the get-go.
On the other hand, Gov. Palin’s office also has the Alaskan State Flag flying in it as well – or it better have at least.
Oh and the link to her statement: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3602375,00.html
This one is ridiculous on both sides – who gives a crap what flag an elected official has in their office. Not keen on Sullivan with this one when there are so many more obvious “misstatements” that bear greater weight that what flag is in the office of the governor.
An example? Back to the original post. Palin twisted Lettermans words to the point where a joke in bad taste became, after it was digested and regurgitated by Palin to the press, that David Letterman was a “Pedophile” and a “Rapist”.
What kind of lie do you call that?
I call it slander.
If Letterman was talking about the 14 year-old who was at the game as opposed to the 18 year-old, it could be called slander- slander by Letterman vs. A-Roid(?).
But then, I’m comfortable with Palin’s response. If it’d been my daughter spoken about that way by Letterman, I’d have whipped the fool until he could walk.
I’m like that.
I must agree on one thing here – if someone I loved and felt protective towards was the butt of a late night comedians extremely poor taste joke, I would be angry.
However, you, as a man, possibly father of a daughter, said you would be the one to kick his ass.
Letterman did not name the daughter, he assumed it was Bristol, which is still no excuse. Willow is the one who was relatively unknown by name, until Sarah came out saying “Willow, Willow, WIllow”
SARAH put Willow in the spotlight, and she fanned a flame that would have otherwise sputtered out like a wet match.
And, as I said before, twisted Letterman’s words to the point that people believe he is a pedophile and a rapist.
My question is, as a father, why didn’t Todd come out and talk to the press? Why Sarah? Sarah, the one who paraded her children all over the campaign trail, even poor pregnant Bristol.
Sarah, who said to Matt Lauer, “take it how you want to take it” when he asked her about calling a joke in extremely poor taste, a rape joke? A pedophile joke?
Todd, as the child’s father, should have come out and made a statement. Not Sarah.
Sarah Palin is guilty of using her children on the campaign trail, and then being outraged when jokes are made.
And she seems to still be on the campaign trail, when she said to Matt Lauer, “the candidate who must be obeyed said children were off limits’.
President Obama was getting angry at the beating Palin’s children were taking, and the rest of his admonishment to the press concerning leaving her children out of it, she conveniently left out. That is ON TAPE.
And to Letterman’s credit, he apologized not once, but twice, and in his second apology, he specifically apologized to both Bristol and Willow.
”Palin lied when she claimed to have tried to divest government funds from Sudan; in fact, her administration openly opposed a bill that would have done just that.”
The jury is still out on this one. Some in the AK government say that she was against divestiture of assets in Sudan, other say that she was for it, including the co-sponsor of the legislation to do just that.
It’s obvious though that her Deputy Revenue Commissioner, Brian Andrews, was against such divesting. He was later overturned by his boss, also a member of Palin’s administration, Patrick Galvin.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5948944
So, where does that leave this one? I have no clue. Anything I said would be as subjective as Sullivan’s efforts.
”Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed that troop levels in Iraq were back to pre-surge levels; in fact, even she acknowledged her “misstatements,” though she refused to retract or apologize.”
Given that it is likely that she was parroting McCain’s earlier statement to the same effect and that she should have known it was inaccurate by that point, I’d have to agree with Sullivan on this one.
”Palin lied when she insisted that the Branchflower Report “showed there was no unlawful or unethical activity on my part”; in fact, that report prominently stated, “Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.”
A bit misleading, but from both parties equally.
The Branchflower report did, in fact, say that she undertook no unlawful action.
OK, I totally screwed the formatting up on that one. LOL I must be getting tired.
”Palin lied when she claimed to have voiced concerns over Wooten fearing he would harm her family; in fact, she actually decreased her security detail during that period.”
Misleading or overly cynical of motive.
It is reasonable, given the ongoing and obviously viscious custody battle between Palin’s sister and Wooten, that it would be the sister, Todd Palin, or the sister children who would be in danger, not Gov. Palin.
Gov. Palin’s security detail could not be used for protecting these individuals – sometime exception of Todd as her husband – without violating the ethics laws that Branchflower was so fond of using. LOL
No source material, just logic.
”Palin lied when asked about the $150,000 worth of clothes provided by the RNC; in fact, solid reporting contradicted several parts of her statement.”
It’s been too long. I do not know what question Sullivan is referring to anymore.
The clothing issue is tired. There are sources in the McCain Camp that know the truth, but sadly, have to remain anonymous due to their loyalty to their boss.
There will never be a “fact and check” issue on the clothes, and frankly, in light of some of Palin’s more egregious moves, I find the clothes issue petty.
What I find telling about the clothing issue is that the Feminists (note capital F) supported the harassment. Strange after they denounced comments about Hillary’s pantsuits.
”Palin lied when she suggested that she had offered the media proof of her pregnancy with Trig to “correct the record”; in fact, no reports of her medical records were ever published; and the letter from her doctor testifying to her good health only emerged hours before polling ended on election day, even though there was nothing in it that couldn’t have been released two months earlier.”
We actually have no idea whether Palin lied or not. She may suggested that she’d provide some medical records and later have been overruled by the campaign. She may have made the offer and nobody bothered to follow-up on it, presuming it would be quashed by the campaign. The possibilities go on.
Palin was pressed, as was VIce President Joe Biden, President Obama, and Palin’s Republican nominee for President John McCain to procure their medical records. Every citizen who was against Obama insisted on full disclosure on his records – he provided them.
John McCain provided his medical records – otherwise, how would we have known he had cancer?
Joe Biden provided his full medical history, and the man is sixty-six years old.
Sarah Palin, forty-five years old, stalled and stalled and stalled – why? – finally, a few days before the election, coughed up a “doctor’s note”.
A Doctors note? What, she has to stay home from school today because of a sore throat?
NO! We never got Sarah Palin’s medical records, and yet, people calling themselves “The Birthers” keep insisting that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen.
So as far as the “lie” cited here – this one is a huge lie of omission.
I don’t think refusal to comply with someone’s demand is a lie by omission. It may be stubborn and foolish, but not deceitful.
BTW: I’m somewhat allied with those “birthers” even though they’re largely nuts. Obama’s refusal to produce his birth certificate (the real one as opposed to a COLB) is bothersome as his claim that The People didn’t have the legal standing to ask for it.
”Palin lied when she said that “reported” allegations of her banning Harry Potter as mayor was easily refutable because it had not even been written yet; in fact, the first book in that series was published in 1998 – two years into her first term – and such rumors were never reported by the media, only circulated as emails.”
I don’t know that it’s fair to say that she lied. She probably, given her religious views, doesn’t read this material and might be confused as to its publication date.
Given that the entire matter is false, it is not surprising that she would make an off-the-cuff remark like that and get the dates wrong.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp
”Palin lied when she denied having participated in a clothes audit with campaign lawyers; in fact, the Washington Times later confirmed those details.”
I can find no reports or evidence stating that, at the time of Palin’s statement there was any word of the RNC sending attorneys to account for the clothing the RNC purchased for her use.
They did have to sort through them at some point though for tax purposes if nothing else. Did that involve sending attorneys to Palin’s wardrobe? I doubt it, but I can’t prove it.
”Palin lied when asked about Couric’s question regarding her reading habits; in fact, Couric’s words were not, “What do you read up there in Alaska?” or anything close to condescension.”
I don’t think misremembering exact verbiage or ascribing general tone to a conversion that you experienced or perceived should be called lying.
Subjectively, I found most of Couric’s behavior towards Palin as quite condescending. So, even if that particular question wasn’t, it’s lack of condescension would likely get lost in the noise.
”Palin lied when she mischaracterized the “$1200 check” given to Alaskans as the permanent fund dividend check; in fact, that fund had yielded $2,069 per person, and she claimed otherwise to obscure the fact that Alaskans also received a $1200 rebate check from a windfall profits tax on oil companies – a tax widely criticized by Republicans.”
Both are disingenuous in this matter, though Sullivan is more so.
There was no separate check given to Alaskans. The Permanent Fund Dividend was amended to include an additional $1200 for energy costs relief.
This amended dividend was funded through the Alaskan General Fund, not specifically from the wind-fall profits tax on oil production in Alaska. Such taxes did make it easier to get the resolution passed though.
http://alaskapride.blogspot.com/2008/07/governor-sarah-palins-proposed-1200.html
”Palin lied when she claimed to be unaware of a turkey being slaughtered behind her during a filmed interview; in fact, the cameraman said she had picked the spot herself, while the slaughter was underway.”
I’d pretty much have to agree with Sullivan on this one.
”Palin lied when she denied having rejected federal stimulus money; in fact, she continued to accept and reject the funds several times.”
Very misleading.
Palin never completely rejected federal stimulus money. She only rejected certain types of funding, approximately 50% of the offered funding based on what it was for and what restrictions were attached to it.
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/139409
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/19/palin-to-reject-almost-half-of-stimulus-money/
”Palin lied when she claimed that legislative leaders had canceled a meeting with her to hold their own press conference; in fact, they only canceled it after being told she would not participate, and the purpose of the press conference was very different from the meeting’s.”
I have no data to confirm or deny the accuracy of Sullivan’s claims of Palin’s mendacity in this matter.
”Palin lied when she announced on the news that she never holds closed-door meetings; in fact, she had just attended a closed-door meeting with the legislature earlier that day.”
Palin said,
Mrs. Green, then the president of the state senate – who is Sullivan’s point of refutation – is not a member of Gov. Palin’s staff.
It’s going to come down to what Palin meant and who “held” the meeting to determine whether Palin lied or Sullivan chose to say that she did.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/the-odd-lies-of-sarah-palin-xxviii.html His own post.
”Palin lied when she said that former aide John Bitney’s “amicable” departure was for “personal” reasons; in fact, Bitney said he was fired because of his relationship with the wife of Palin’s friend, plus a Palin spokesperson later claimed “poor job performance” for his firing – without elaborating.”
Hmmmm…It sure sounded “amicable” – in the sense that it was worked out quietly – when Bitney talked to the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122092043531812813.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_topbox
Face it, nobody – especially a Governor – needs that sort of fiasco in the office, and “personal reasons” is hardly a lie in this case.
”Palin lied when she said she kept her running injury a secret on the campaign trail; in fact, her bandaged hand was clearly visible in photographs and the story was widely talked about.”
And Sullivan’s point is what exactly? That she was lying by not bothering people with her injury or playing for sympathy? WTF!?!
This says a LOT more – and none of it good, speaking as a man – about Sullivan than it does about Palin.
”Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska has spent “millions of dollars” on litigation related to her ethics complaints; in fact, that figure is much, much lower, and she had initiated the most expensive inquiry.”
Disingenuous on Sullivan’s part.
Gov. Palin’s office reported approx. $1.9 million in expenditures arising from the ethics complaints. These numbers DO seem to be garbled up and often erroneous and inflated though.
The thing is the supposedly – 3rd-party – correct numbers still look like they’d exceed $1.5 million.
http://www.henkimaa.com/pdf/palin/countmetwice.pdf Crazy man has actually been dissecting the spreadsheet; it’s impressive forensic accounting.
Is a $300K-$400K at the top end – if I’m reading the source right – “much, much less” when the original estimate was $1.9 million?
“Palin lied when she denied that the Alaska Independence Party supports secession and denied that her husband had been a member; in fact, even the McCain campaign noted that the party’s very existence is based on secession and that Todd was a member for seven years.”
Somewhat disingenuous on both parties parts.
The Alaska Independence Party does NOT necessarily want to secede from the US. They merely want to be given the vote to determine their status that they were – apparently illegally in fact – denied in 1958 when Alaska was forced to become a State.
On the other hand, they so support secession as one of the viable options and one that must be on the ballot for the vote that they desire.
As for Sullivan’s claim that Palin denied that Todd was member – that is also somewhat disingenuous. Palin didn’t deny his membership; she said – I believe falsely – that he was only a member by accident due to vagaries of the voter registration form.
Todd’s Membership:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/01/politics/main5128672.shtml
The Alaskan Independence Party:
http://www.akip.org/index.html
There you, Kel. Point-by-point rebuttal, agreement, or passing on the issue due to lack of data.
Enjoy
Jonolan -
I am so pleased that you took the time to dissect this – we can take it from here in a day or two – I am over worked right now, and do not have the time to rebut your rebuttal – although you were fair and not playing “spin games”.
This is why I like to converse with you.
However, one more question, as I will be away from my computer for about 48 hours from tonight –
How DID you feel about my empathetic sense towards Palin when she was considering an abortion, and my subsequent disheartened end-of-the-day, feeling that she was allowed to have a choice, yet is the champion for not giving anyone else the choice?
If you can tell me that this is okay, we will talk more. On a wildly off-the-subject…subject.
Oh, and my last issue – Pat Buchannen says it is okay – to laughter – for Todd Palin to Murder Levi Johnston, his grandsons father – - where is the Letterman-esque outrage?
I know you will say we are way off subject here, and as I mentioned, we are, but Palin is front and center again, so, we will do our best to find a middle ground.
Dammit, I know we will –
We will meet here again here in 48 hours – in the meantime, where is MY post that you were going to put up answering MY questions?
I hate to put you to so much work , my man, but you are asking for it. And dammit, I love debating with you.
Kel
“How DID you feel about my empathetic sense towards Palin when she was considering an abortion, and my subsequent disheartened end-of-the-day, feeling that she was allowed to have a choice, yet is the champion for not giving anyone else the choice?”
I DIDN’T really feel anything. All actions are choices, irrespective of the laws involved.
– Palin chose not to do something that was legal to do – and desires to take that choice away from everyone.
– Abolitionists chose not to own slaves, which was legal legal to do – and later took that choice away from everyone.
In both cases the laws said that the actions were OK because the victims weren’t human.
I have about two seconds before I have to shower and drive an hour and a half north, but I really liked your comparison there. Gives me something to ponder on the long drive. Thanks!
(I am the passenger, so my dissecting this wont cause an accident, lol).
Any thoughts on the ‘Todd Palin should Drown Levi?” one?
I have been reading and digesting each of your rebuttals, and as I mentioned, we will wrangle on the few that we disagree on, but overall, there seems to be a lot of breathing room here.
Talk to you in a few days, and have a good weekend if I do not get to you until then.
Cheers,
Kel
I never heard of that statement by Pat Buchanan, so couldn’t rally comment.
I don’t particularly listen to Buchanan, O’Reilly, or Limbaugh, so some of their comments sort of ghost right by me unnoticed.
Jonolan –
I will catch you tomorrow with the rest of the rebuttals.
You have a manic energy, my friend. Since I have not seen a post on ‘Murky’ defending the dislike you have of this administration, I am going to write one last political post, just for you.
Speak soon,
Phlegm-y Kel
P.s.
I will also delete the posts you asked me too.
And I wrote an answer to your above comment, but it did not come through, for some odd reason. I am so glad you do not listen to that nonsense, that is probably why I like conversing with you –
I only happened to catch the clip of Crazy Pat by accident, as I do not watch MSNBC, THE VIEW, or THE PERILS OF PENELOPE PITSTOP .
Get rest. Get well. That’s more important than debating with me on stuff we can’t directly do anything about.
Jonolan –
Thank you –
Although, I think our debating may not directly have an effect on Palin, Politics, you name it, it has it’s place – in the ability to be polar opposites, and still see , ponder, and communicate to each other our perspectives without getting nasty, and apologize when we get cranky (me).
That, to me, is the hope of the future.