Debunking the Palin Myths - redux

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: jonks
Main difference: the 'smears' being discreditted against Palin are almost entirely made by lefty bloggers, not the Obama campaign.

Yet fact checking cites debunking smears aimed at Obama are mostly originating from the McCain campaign, in heavily run ads, like the kindergarten sex ed ads and the fake offense lipstick comments.

McCain tries to impute these attacks as coming from Obama, and even used a factcheck.org article out of context so badly that factcheck felt the need to clarify what they said, lest people think the McCain ad actually had some credibility. From the article released 9/10: "We have yet to dispute any claim from the Obama campaign about Palin."

It's an election, there is mud slinging on both sides - deal with it. The left and right wing bloggers may not directly represent the official lines from either side but I don't see them being publicly condemned by their respective candidates either. It's just a part of the modern political landscape, both sides are pretty much doing the same thing like it or not.

There it is again, the old 'when your position is indefensible, slander the other side by saying 'both sides are guilty' line.

During the primary I remember polls taken about 'who's running the dirtier campaign, Hillary or Obama'. Wonder what the results would be here.

Before the "what does it matter" bs responses fly in, part of Obama's message was the end of 'distractions' about bs, and focusing on the issues. He has primarily run his campaign with that mantra, albeit the occassional diversion. But nothing below the belt like Hillary releasing images of him in Muslim garb and saying "hey, it's just a picture we thought we'd put out there to let people make up their minds" or any one of a number of McCain's outright lies designed to elicit visceral reactions.

"What change is he offering?" always gets yelled. How he ran, conducted the tone of, and financed his campaign is a huge change in the history of american presidential politics. And he hasn't even taken office yet.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
How did this drivel get unlocked?

Maybe because it's not "drivel" just because you disagree or don't like what you're hearing?

Locking the original on the basis that the very first post lacked opinion/analysis was splitting hairs, but technically justified. Locking this thread simply because it's sponsored by a conservative is... well, typical liberal tactics, I suppose. Never mind.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
How did this drivel get unlocked?

Maybe because it's not "drivel" just because you disagree or don't like what you're hearing?

Locking the original on the basis that the very first post lacked opinion/analysis was splitting hairs, but technically justified. Locking this thread simply because it's sponsored by a conservative is... well, typical liberal tactics, I suppose. Never mind.

Right, 'typical of liberal tactics', more right-wing lies. Which candidate is the one who wanted books banned and tried to get rid of a librarian who defended free speech?

 

[jonks]

nm.

Ugh, I just saw she pronounced it "nucular." That oughta be enough to disqualify anyone.

 

[yuppiejr]

I would go out on a limb and say that most voters are currently associating the media evisceration of Sarah Palin with the Obama campaign, right or wrong. Other than a statement that "her family is off limits" I haven't heart outright denouncement of these folks from Obama which in this day and age is as good as supporting them. Perhaps if Obama distanced himself from the leftist bloggers and media that are supposedly behind the hatchet job people would be less likely to associate the two?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
I would go out on a limb and say that most voters are currently associating the media evisceration of Sarah Palin with the Obama campaign, right or wrong. Other than a statement that "her family is off limits" I haven't heart outright denouncement of these folks from Obama which in this day and age is as good as supporting them. Perhaps if Obama distanced himself from the leftist bloggers and media that are supposedly behind the hatchet job people would be less likely to associate the two?

He's a little busy fighting off all the smears that are actually endorsed and coming from the McCain campaign to worry about people he isn't associated with doing the same thing to McCain/Palin.

If a person can't figure out that a blog on some site isn't the Obama campaign, then his telling them won't convince them anyway. You can't fix stupid.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
How did this drivel get unlocked?

Maybe because it's not "drivel" just because you disagree or don't like what you're hearing?

Locking the original on the basis that the very first post lacked opinion/analysis was splitting hairs, but technically justified. Locking this thread simply because it's sponsored by a conservative is... well, typical liberal tactics, I suppose. Never mind.

Right, 'typical of liberal tactics', more right-wing lies. Which candidate is the one who wanted books banned and tried to get rid of a librarian who defended free speech?

Book banning? Wow, someone's been drinking the Kool-Aid! Palin must really scare the shit out of you folks.

Snopes

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
How did this drivel get unlocked?

Maybe because it's not "drivel" just because you disagree or don't like what you're hearing?

Locking the original on the basis that the very first post lacked opinion/analysis was splitting hairs, but technically justified. Locking this thread simply because it's sponsored by a conservative is... well, typical liberal tactics, I suppose. Never mind.

Right, 'typical of liberal tactics', more right-wing lies. Which candidate is the one who wanted books banned and tried to get rid of a librarian who defended free speech?

Book banning? Wow, someone's been drinking the Kool-Aid! Palin must really scare the shit out of you folks.

Snopes

Keep reading friend.

http://www.factcheck.org/elect...008/sliming_palin.html

It?s true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla?s librarian, on at least two occasions, three in some versions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition each time. But, as the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman (Wasilla?s local paper) reported at the time, Palin asked general questions about what Emmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned. According to Emmons, Palin "was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons' position would change if residents were picketing the library. Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny, who was at the meeting, corroborates Emmons' story, telling the Chicago Tribune that "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' "

So she was just asking out of curiousity....what would ya do if I suggested we throw out some naughty books, eh? And if the librarian didn't strenuously object to the mere suggestion that Palin would have gladly gone about doing so?

If you believe that I have a bridge to nowhere I'd like to sell you.

 

[Blackjack200]

"Sarah Palin believes God told her to go to war with Iraq!"

I agree. On this one the media is just wrong, not even close.


"She has no experience!"

I disagree. This is true. Her experience is extremely limited. I believe this is a legitimate criticism because McCain made the same criticism about Obama. It was a fair and accurate point when Clinton and McCain brought it up; but now McCain becomes a hypocrite for putting a very inexperienced running mate on his ticket.

Where I'll agree with Beck is that sometimes the Democrats have done a poor job making this argument. Such as:

"But Obama is running a huge campaign -- Palin was just a small town mayor!"

Believe it or not, this one was actually trotted out by Obama himself.

No doubt this was a mistake by Obama, and he has not repeated it. His experience running a campaign is almost completely irrelevant. I think he was caught off guard when Palin's lack of experience generated more questions about his own.

"Palin only supports abstinence to be taught in sex-ed!"

This claim is usually followed by a super classy comment about her daughter and the use of contraception, but the premise is false. Palin hasn't said she doesn't want condoms discussed in sex-ed, calling their discussion "relatively benign."

I haven't really followed this too closely, but I think it was the other way around. After we found out about her daughter some tried to paint her as "abstinence only" to shame her. For the most part I don't really think the press ever really picked this up.

"If she cares about children with special needs, then why did she cut spending on them by 62 percent?"

This is where I think this witch hunt goes a bit too far. Someone looked at the budget and misread it. The mistake was almost immediately pointed out and the story died on the vine.

The Internet rumors that she harbors racism against Eskimos. If true, she sure has a strange way of expressing it -- her husband, Todd, is half Yupik Inuit Eskimo.

Since when are internet rumors the same as news?

For all the whining on right, most of these mistakes and mis-quotes are the result of McCain picking a running mate that nobody had ever heard of. Of course she was going to come under heavy scrutiny, and of course in the process of that scrutiny some are going to be over-zealous to get the scoop and print things that shouldn't be printed.

 

[Stuxnet]

The FACT is she never said "ban these books," unfortunately, which is the message you two are trying to push. Is it worth speculating over? Possibly... but a real talking point? Please... lame at best; closer to desperate.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
"Sarah Palin believes God told her to go to war with Iraq!"

I agree. On this one the media is just wrong, not even close.


"She has no experience!"

I disagree. This is true. Her experience is extremely limited. I believe this is a legitimate criticism because McCain made the same criticism about Obama. It was a fair and accurate point when Clinton and McCain brought it up; but now McCain becomes a hypocrite for putting a very inexperienced running mate on his ticket.

Where I'll agree with Beck is that sometimes the Democrats have done a poor job making this argument. Such as:

"But Obama is running a huge campaign -- Palin was just a small town mayor!"

Believe it or not, this one was actually trotted out by Obama himself.

No doubt this was a mistake by Obama, and he has not repeated it. His experience running a campaign is almost completely irrelevant. I think he was caught off guard when Palin's lack of experience generated more questions about his own.

"Palin only supports abstinence to be taught in sex-ed!"

This claim is usually followed by a super classy comment about her daughter and the use of contraception, but the premise is false. Palin hasn't said she doesn't want condoms discussed in sex-ed, calling their discussion "relatively benign."

I haven't really followed this too closely, but I think it was the other way around. After we found out about her daughter some tried to paint her as "abstinence only" to shame her. For the most part I don't really think the press ever really picked this up.

"If she cares about children with special needs, then why did she cut spending on them by 62 percent?"

This is where I think this witch hunt goes a bit too far. Someone looked at the budget and misread it. The mistake was almost immediately pointed out and the story died on the vine.

The Internet rumors that she harbors racism against Eskimos. If true, she sure has a strange way of expressing it -- her husband, Todd, is half Yupik Inuit Eskimo.

Since when are internet rumors the same as news?

For all the whining on right, most of these mistakes and mis-quotes are the result of McCain picking a running mate that nobody had ever heard of. Of course she was going to come under heavy scrutiny, and of course in the process of that scrutiny some are going to be over-zealous to get the scoop and print things that shouldn't be printed.

I pretty much agree top to bottom, especially with the experience. Both campaigns needs to accept that either OBAMA AND PALIN are QUALIFIED ENOUGH TO RUN, or NOT. The two go hand-in-hand, and no rational man can make a distinction between the two without appearing horrifically biased.

This means the Republicans need to lay off Obama's experience, and the Democrats need to lay off Palin's. Either party attacking the other on these grounds just looks foolish and hypocritical.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Alaska is a government welfare petro-state. Running it does not qualify Palin to run this country in a very possible scenario of Grandpa McCain dying or going senile.

This whole qualification debate is growing stale. BHO lacks any kind of executive experience. Get over it.

If Obama lacks any of this so-called executive experience, then McCain does as well. Would you then argue that McCain is equally unqualified? Of course not, as being qualified is something that goes well beyond experience, otherwise we wouldn't even bother with elections and would just set up some kind of system where the most experienced person is the one who gets the job. And FYI: Obama is running against McCain, not Palin.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
I would go out on a limb and say that most voters are currently associating the media evisceration of Sarah Palin with the Obama campaign, right or wrong. Other than a statement that "her family is off limits" I haven't heart outright denouncement of these folks from Obama which in this day and age is as good as supporting them. Perhaps if Obama distanced himself from the leftist bloggers and media that are supposedly behind the hatchet job people would be less likely to associate the two?

Because why should any Presidential candidate try to reign in an out of control media? Thats empowering the media in ways that, quite frankly, would be pretty scary.

If the tables were turned I'd expect McCain to react the same way....OH WAIT HE DID. Just how many times did McCain get out in front of cameras and denounce the media's handling of 'Madrassa' and 'covert muslim' and the Rev Wright scandal huh?

sometimes it is obvious that many posters around here are only experiencing real politics for the first time. Outside of "Westwing" and "Commander in Chief" epsiodes that is...

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
How did this drivel get unlocked?

Maybe because it's not "drivel" just because you disagree or don't like what you're hearing?

Locking the original on the basis that the very first post lacked opinion/analysis was splitting hairs, but technically justified. Locking this thread simply because it's sponsored by a conservative is... well, typical liberal tactics, I suppose. Never mind.

Right, 'typical of liberal tactics', more right-wing lies. Which candidate is the one who wanted books banned and tried to get rid of a librarian who defended free speech?

Again, cite a source or don't bother posting...

http://news.bostonherald.com/n...=home&position=emailed

As I gather from this article we have a "she said - she said" situation between Palin and a librarian who happened to be a staff member and open supporter of Palin's opponent in her Mayoral run. Other than statements from the librarian who has an obvious axe to grind there is NO evidence that any books were banned or that Palin suggested doing so at any time.

"Like many Alaskans, Kilkenny calls the governor by her first name.

"Sarah said to Mary Ellen, ?What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?" Kilkenny said.

"I was shocked. Mary Ellen sat up straight and said something along the line of, ?The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books.?"

Palin didn?t mention specific books at that meeting, Kilkenny said.

Palin herself, questioned at the time, called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas," according to the Frontiersman article.

Were any books censored banned? June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association?s Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files Wednesday and came up empty-handed.

Pinell-Stephens also had no record of any phone conversations with Emmons about the issue back then. Emmons was president of the Alaska Library Association at the time. Books may not have been pulled from library shelves, but there were other repercussions for Emmons."

--

So here we have a woman who openly supported Palin's political opponent and was released from her position. Palin is now a VP candidate and in the public spotlight with a media feeding frenzy digging up any dirt it can find in Alaska. Seems to me there's an axe to grind here for the librarian coupled with the incentives of fame and money to tell a tale to a very eager media. Problem is, there is nothing here but the librarian's word against Palin's and no evidence that any books were banned... There's nothing here but a wishful media looking for a story that doesn't exist.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

So here we have a woman who openly supported Palin's political opponent and was released from her position. Palin is now a VP candidate and in the public spotlight with a media feeding frenzy digging up any dirt it can find in Alaska. Seems to me there's an axe to grind here for the librarian coupled with the incentives of fame and money to tell a tale to a very eager media. Problem is, there is nothing here but the librarian's word against Palin's and no evidence that any books were banned... There's nothing here but a wishful media looking for a story that doesn't exist.

It's not the librarian's word against Palin's, both parties admit the conversations happened. Palin would just like you to believe it was a 'rhetorical exercise' that she did 2 or 3 times. Of course that explanation truly strains credulity.

There were no banned books, just the mayor asking if she could ban books... repeatedly. That's way more than bad enough.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
The FACT is she never said "ban these books," unfortunately, which is the message you two are trying to push. Is it worth speculating over? Possibly... but a real talking point? Please... lame at best; closer to desperate.

You're defending her trying to get books banned by pointing out that she asked about the librarian's response to such a request instead of just making the request first?

An d oh by the way when the librarian said she would not agree to ban the books, that Palin tried to get rid of her for it, until the public rallied around the ibrarian?

How sleazy and pro-censorship.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Alaska is a government welfare petro-state. Running it does not qualify Palin to run this country in a very possible scenario of Grandpa McCain dying or going senile.

This whole qualification debate is growing stale. BHO lacks any kind of executive experience. Get over it.

If Obama lacks any of this so-called executive experience, then McCain does as well. Would you then argue that McCain is equally unqualified?

Knee-jerk response. He wasn't attacking Obama; he was saying stick a fork in the entire damn topic of experience already.

Originally posted by: Vic
And FYI: Obama is running against McCain, not Palin.

I'm not sure it's the conservatives that need to be reminded of that. I hear more about Palin from the Democrats than I do about McCain. Of course, when confronted with this, they say McCain is going to be dead in 3 months, so we need to talk about Palin. Okay. Fine. Wait... who's Obama running against again? So hard to keep this all straight...

 

[OrByte]

Actually with all other bullshit put aside I don't really care that she MIGHT have wanted to ban books.

The fact that she went to the librarian more than once to discuss the topic implies that she was searching and maybe fishing for something...but we will never know exactly what.

However, with that said. Is this considered part of her "executive experience" that she is touting? that she meets regularly with Wasilla Librarians?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

So here we have a woman who openly supported Palin's political opponent and was released from her position. Palin is now a VP candidate and in the public spotlight with a media feeding frenzy digging up any dirt it can find in Alaska. Seems to me there's an axe to grind here for the librarian coupled with the incentives of fame and money to tell a tale to a very eager media. Problem is, there is nothing here but the librarian's word against Palin's and no evidence that any books were banned... There's nothing here but a wishful media looking for a story that doesn't exist.

It's not the librarian's word against Palin's, both parties admit the conversations happened. Palin would just like you to believe it was a 'rhetorical exercise' that she did 2 or 3 times. Of course that explanation truly strains credulity.

There were no banned books, just the mayor asking if she could ban books... repeatedly. That's way more than bad enough.

With link: http://www.factcheck.org/elect...008/sliming_palin.html

Palin characterized the exchange differently, initially volunteering the episode as an example of discussions with city employees about following her administration's agenda. Palin described her questions to Emmons as ?rhetorical,? noting that her questions "were asked in the context of professionalism regarding the library policy that is in place in our city." Actually, true rhetorical questions have implied answers (e.g., ?Who do you think you are??), so Palin probably meant to describe her questions as hypothetical or theoretical. We can't read minds, so it is impossible for us to know whether or not Palin may actually have wanted to ban books from the library or whether she simply wanted to know how her new employees would respond to an instruction from their boss.

So she doesn't know what 'rhetorical' means. But she clearly raised the issue. You can choose to believe this is a non-story, but for a woman we don't know I find this to be an insight into her ideology. No books were banned because of vehement opposition. If the librarian had responded "Ok, I have no problem with it. Whatever you want to do" maybe Palin would have pulled books, maybe she wouldn't. But to IGNORE the incident is burying your head in the sand.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jbourne77
The FACT is she never said "ban these books," unfortunately, which is the message you two are trying to push. Is it worth speculating over? Possibly... but a real talking point? Please... lame at best; closer to desperate.

You're defending her trying to get books banned by pointing out that she asked about the librarian's response to such a request instead of just making the request first?

An d oh by the way when the librarian said she would not agree to ban the books, that Palin tried to get rid of her for it, until the public rallied around the ibrarian?

How sleazy and pro-censorship.

yuppiejr's analysis above pretty much sums it up. Librarian with an axe to grind, a conversation that took place 12 years ago, and no banned books.

Yeah, it's a non-issue and kind of wreaks of desperation. It's also pretty boring to talk about.

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jbourne77
The FACT is she never said "ban these books," unfortunately, which is the message you two are trying to push. Is it worth speculating over? Possibly... but a real talking point? Please... lame at best; closer to desperate.

You're defending her trying to get books banned by pointing out that she asked about the librarian's response to such a request instead of just making the request first?

An d oh by the way when the librarian said she would not agree to ban the books, that Palin tried to get rid of her for it, until the public rallied around the ibrarian?

How sleazy and pro-censorship.

yuppiejr's analysis above pretty much sums it up. Librarian with an axe to grind, a conversation that took place 12 years ago, and no banned books.

Yeah, it's a non-issue and kind of wreaks of desperation. It's also pretty boring to talk about.

It actually sounds like Palin was vetting a member of her staff who had known loyalties to a political opponent. With all the talk about vetting Palin I'm surprised at the response to her doing the same thing to a member of the prior administration's staff that she chose to terminate...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jbourne77
The FACT is she never said "ban these books," unfortunately, which is the message you two are trying to push. Is it worth speculating over? Possibly... but a real talking point? Please... lame at best; closer to desperate.

You're defending her trying to get books banned by pointing out that she asked about the librarian's response to such a request instead of just making the request first?

An d oh by the way when the librarian said she would not agree to ban the books, that Palin tried to get rid of her for it, until the public rallied around the ibrarian?

How sleazy and pro-censorship.

yuppiejr's analysis above pretty much sums it up. Librarian with an axe to grind, a conversation that took place 12 years ago, and no banned books.

Yeah, it's a non-issue and kind of wreaks of desperation. It's also pretty boring to talk about.

I'd say your blind partisan defense and avoidance of the issue doesn't address it too well, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

What does th elibrarian having an axe to grind, *if* that's the case after Palin tried to get rid of her for defending free speech, change the acuracy of what happened?

The Goldman family has an axe to grind with OJ for killing Ron Goldman. Does that invalidate their point of view?

Let's not forget that this whole topic on censorship was triggered by your absurd attack on liberals as the ones who are 'typically' anti-free speech.

Ya, I tell you, all those liberals and their ACLU constantly fighting for censorship, while the Nixon and Reagan create commissions on obscenity to protect Americans' free speech.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
Knee-jerk response. He wasn't attacking Obama; he was saying stick a fork in the entire damn topic of experience already.

Of course, he was, or else he wouldn't have brought up the empty talking point of 'executive experience' in the first place.

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Vic
And FYI: Obama is running against McCain, not Palin.

I'm not sure it's the conservatives that need to be reminded of that. I hear more about Palin from the Democrats than I do about McCain. Of course, when confronted with this, they say McCain is going to be dead in 3 months, so we need to talk about Palin. Okay. Fine. Wait... who's Obama running against again? So hard to keep this all straight...

Yes, they do, because they want to keep the spotlight on St. Sarah and off McCain and his weaknesses as much as possible. This will backfire though because America would not vote for Palin is she was at the top the ticket. Would you? Seriously?

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
It actually sounds like Palin was vetting a member of her staff who had known loyalties to a political opponent. With all the talk about vetting Palin I'm surprised at the response to her doing the same thing to a member of the prior administration's staff that she chose to terminate...

we're still talking about a librarian right?

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'd say your blind partisan defense and avoidance of the issue doesn't address it too well, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'd say the same to you, so fine... let's move on.

Originally posted by: Craig234
What does th elibrarian having an axe to grind, *if* that's the case after Palin tried to get rid of her for defending free speech, change the acuracy of what happened?

Becaused there IS nothing that happened. The story is non-existent. There's no cream filling. You need a target before you start discussing accuracy, don't you think?