home

Palin's Governance: Vindictive, Secretive, and Hypocritical

Fortunately, The New York Times is doing the vetting of Sarah Palin that John McCain didn't bother to do. The conclusion:

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials. ...

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Once she became governor, Palin hired at least five high school classmates for government positions. She installed one of them as the director of Alaska's Agriculture Department. The former classmate cited a "childhood love of cows" as a job qualification. [more ...]

Palin filled other jobs with friends who had uncertain qualifications.

The Wasilla High School yearbook archive now doubles as a veritable directory of state government. Ms. Palin appointed Mr. Bitney, her former junior high school band-mate, as her legislative director and chose another classmate, Joe Austerman, to manage the economic development office for $82,908 a year. Mr. Austerman had established an Alaska franchise for Mailboxes Etc. ...

Another confidante of Ms. Palin’s is Ms. Frye, 27. She worked as a receptionist for State Senator Lyda Green before she joined Ms. Palin’s campaign for governor. Now Ms. Frye earns $68,664 as a special assistant to the governor. Her frequent interactions with Ms. Palin’s children have prompted some lawmakers to refer to her as “the babysitter,” a title that Ms. Frye disavows.

Palin isn't all that interested in people who aren't her friends from Wasilla ... except maybe her new friend from Arizona.

Many lawmakers contend that Ms. Palin is overly reliant on a small inner circle that leaves her isolated.

Palin refused to be interviewed for the Times article. That's unsurprising. She probably didn't want to explain troubling decisions like this:

In Wasilla, a builder said he complained to Mayor Palin when the city attorney put a stop-work order on his housing project. She responded, he said, by engineering the attorney’s firing.

The builder was a Palin campaign contributor. Another contributor, Steven Stoll, had a longstanding feud with John Cooper, the town's museum director. Palin eliminated Cooper's job. According to the Times print edition (a portion of the quotation is omitted from the on-line article), Stoll told Cooper: "Gotcha, Cooper. And it only cost me a campaign contribution."

Palin boosted her reputation as a reformer by attacking Alaska's Republican leader, Randy Ruedrich, for conducting party business on state time. When a reporter discovered that Palin had been conducting campaign business from her mayor's office, Palin admitted her error to him, then prepared a press release accusing the reporter of "smearing" her.

Palin campaigned as a proponent of open government, but that's not the way she governed.

The administration’s e-mail correspondence reveals a siege-like atmosphere. Top aides keep score, demean enemies and gloat over successes. Even some who helped engineer her rise have felt her wrath.

Sounds a lot like our current presidential administration.

Sarah Palin is unfit for office. John McCain's impulsive decision to select her as his running mate without bothering to vet her demonstrates his own unfitness for the presidency.

< FL Slow to Restore Felon Voting Rights | Sunday Football Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Scarily similar to Bush (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by barryluda on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:55:52 AM EST
    You got it exactly right:

    Sounds a lot like our current presidential administration.

    While we need to keep our focus on McCain, and the fact that we can't afford another 4 years of a Republican administration, it does make sense to look at McCain's choice of Palin since this confirms what a vote for McCain means.

    Bush with a touch of Nixon's (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by byteb on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:58:27 AM EST
    paranoia and Agnew's gravitas. A true trifecta.

    Parent
    Y'know, I think Camp McSame did, in fact, (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by scribe on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:01:41 AM EST
    perform the vetting everyone thinks they didn't.

    And they (also spelled "R-O-V-E") were looking for exactly someone like Palin.  With all the same small, petty, vindictive, stupid and manipulable behaviors which have made Bush a wholesale disaster for the country and world.

    Because she - as someone called her "the distilled essence of wingnut" - and her characteristics are exactly that which will further facilitate the programs of the money and war people behind the Rethuglican party.

    Saying "McSame" does not help Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by prittfumes on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:05:13 PM EST
    Agreed (2.00 / 1) (#121)
    by pluege on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:15:04 PM EST
    Pork Barrel Palin is just what Big Liar John was looking for.

    Parent
    gee (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:10:52 AM EST
    Hey, I like cows too. I didnt realize that work work in a job interview.

    There is also further evidence of her sympathy for censorship there.  Like her creationism she seems to put these ideas forward and then quickly retreats.  Does that mean she no longer believes them or is just waiting for a better opportunity to push them?

    Mark Penn (of all people).... (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by EL seattle on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:24:44 AM EST
    .... made a good observation the other day (I think):

    I think here the media is on very dangerous ground. I think that when you see them going through every single expense report that Governor Palin ever filed, if they don't do that for all four of the candidates, they're on very dangerous ground. I think the media so far has been the biggest loser in this race. And they continue to have growing credibility problems.


    As much (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by chrisvee on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:01:48 PM EST
    as I hate to agree with Mark Penn, I think he has a point. My first reaction to this was, 'Hm. We have internal e-mails from the Clinton campaign and e-mails from the Palin administration. Where are the internal Obama campaign or senate staff e-mails? Are they are puppies and rainbows?'

    The media has (unfortunately) a huge credibility problem re: vetting of Palin because their initial response smacked of sexism and in some cases, misogyny.

    I also think using words like 'vindictive' isn't helpful. If we need to stay away from 'arrogant' as a code word, we need to stay away from 'vindictive' as well.

    Parent

    What does 'vindictive' have to do with gender? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by TChris on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:28:42 PM EST
    Vindictive (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Prabhata on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:27:30 PM EST
    Vindictive, let's see, who has demonstrated that characteristic. I think I remember that AA politicians were told that if they did not switch from supporting Hillary to Obama, they would encounter opposition in the primaries.  We also saw prominent Democrats being pushed aside during the convention because they were Hillary supporters.  Obama and his supporters live in glass houses.

    Parent
    So you Agree With TChris (none / 0) (#156)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:06:59 PM EST
    That the word 'vindictive' is not a gender coded word?

    Parent
    I agree that vindictive is not gender coded (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Prabhata on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:33:37 PM EST
    I've accused Obama of being vindictive (I used the more common word, petty), like Bush. Magnanimity, a trait that Hillary showed after the elected officials (superdelegates) of her own party decided to vote for the weaker candidate. I disagree that Palin is vindictive, I think she's political and chooses those people that support her and therefore serve her best.

    Parent
    Because (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by JAB on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:41:53 PM EST
    Where are the internal Obama campaign or senate staff e-mails? Are they are puppies and rainbows?

    Obama has not been able to produce any records from his time in the Illinois Senate - I think he said they were thrown away.

    Parent

    Which does absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by TChris on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:27:27 PM EST
    nothing to explain why "vindictive" is a code word.

    Parent
    Hmm well it's not a word I would use (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by Salt on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:26:28 PM EST
    in describing a woman who is a leader's performance or style.  It's a emotional charge, yes gender based (Vindictive-Scorned) etc.. seems to me, not a description of a particular leadership trait for surrounding yourself with people you know and trust to deliver.  But I also would not use the word divisive either that has been used as the civil word for B again I'm a women and that's how I view it.

    Parent
    OK (3.00 / 0) (#133)
    by TChris on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:31:03 PM EST
    I assume, then, that you are open to understanding why the African American community might see "arrogant" as a code word.

    Parent
    For accuracy, you need to say: (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by prittfumes on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:39:59 PM EST
    Some OR many "in the African American community might see "arrogant" as a code word."

    I probably know at least as many African Americans as you do and I do not know any who see "arrogant" as a code word.

    Parent

    I find the term vindictive a lot like (4.00 / 4) (#155)
    by Nike on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:05:50 PM EST
    hysteric, shrill, and even charming and vivacious.

    I did not object to it initially, but now that you mention it, I find it irritating and it mitigates against whatever substantive point your post may have been trying to make. (My subconscious mind just keeps thinking "oink, oink" here.)

    No one has used the term "arrogant" here today. How does interjecting an implied but absent racial attack justify your language? I do not like this when blogger boyz did this to Hillary, and it is not making me feel very friendly to see another version of it repeated here again. Why does any gender impropriety always seem to illicit as "racism is worse" statement?

    Parent

    This Is Getting Ridiculous (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:22:56 PM EST
    Any mention of lipstick by any politician becomes a code slur against Sarah Palin because she talked about it in her convention speech.

    And now the word vindictive which is freely used to describe men and women is suddenly sexist when it is applied to some of Palin's behavior in office?

    "Giuliani's vindictive crusades

    Vindictive Ken Starr

    Vindictive Eliot Spitzer

    To name just a few who possess a 'y' chromosome and have been labeled vindictive freely and often.


    Parent

    too funny (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:46:06 PM EST
    vindictive is a sexist word now? lol. The right wing trolls are taking the whole language away. lol

    Parent
    I understand that (2.00 / 0) (#170)
    by TChris on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:28:30 PM EST
    vindictive can be perceived as gender based code word just as I understand that arrogant can be perceived as a race based code word.  I am simply suggesting a commonality, a point upon which we can all agree:  certain words can cause offense, even if that offense is not intended.  If we can be sensitive about the word arrogant, as we should be, we can also be sensitive about the word vindictive. I will search for a different word to describe a person who "has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance." I am open to suggestions.  

    Parent
    I Never Heard That Vindictive (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:44:12 PM EST
    was gender specific until here today.

    I'm aware of how words like 'shrill' when applied to men (girly man) or women (harpy) can be dog whistles.

    But, well...myself, I have still seen the word vindictive applied to far more men than women to cede it as code. Especially when it seems so appropriate to the behavior that is being described.

    Vengeful?

    Parent

    yes indeed, uppity (none / 0) (#162)
    by Salt on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:11:54 PM EST
    Actually, if you put the accent on the second (none / 0) (#222)
    by steviez314 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:42:59 PM EST
    syllable, it's a pretty nasty anti-male word.

    Parent
    Whaaat? (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:50:39 PM EST
    Clinton campaign emails were released for publication by members of her staff for an Atlantic magazine article.

    Palin's emails are the subject of an "open records act' FOIA kind of request and are the focus of the Troopergate investigation.

    Why should any emails from Obama or his campaign or senate office be made public?

    Parent

    He said he had no staff for that (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by andrys on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:01:24 PM EST
    Convenient.  An important job but no staff that could keep records.

    Parent
    Link? (none / 0) (#187)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:45:19 PM EST
    You've piqued my curiosity.


    Parent
    Here you go: (5.00 / 2) (#229)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:58:01 PM EST
    Obama records requests prove fruitless.

    You can probably Google around for other articles and may even come across an often repeated line about not having records because there was only one staffer.

    Parent

    From Associated Press Nov. 15, 2007 (5.00 / 3) (#232)
    by BeeD on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 05:12:38 PM EST
    Excerpt below (sorry I don't know how to link)

    Obama says he has no Illinois records
    By Mike Baker and Christopher Wills
    Associated Press
    Advertisement

    RALEIGH, N.C. -- Barack Obama, who's been scolding Hillary Rodham Clinton for not hastening the release of records from her time as first lady, says he can't step up and produce his own records from his days in the Illinois state Senate. He says he hasn't got any.

    "I don't have - I don't maintain - a file of eight years of work in the state Senate because I didn't have the resources available to maintain those kinds of records," he said at a recent campaign stop in Iowa. He said he wasn't sure where any cache of records might have gone, adding, "It could have been thrown out. I haven't been in the state Senate now for quite some time."


    Parent

    Democrats who think choosing Palin will (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by esmense on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:26:05 AM EST
    lead to McCain's defeat are simply wrong. Democrats need to give up that foolish, and lazy, hope and start concentrating on matters of substance -- economic policy, energy policy, the current financial crisis, health care, etc. They not only need to effectively and unrelentingly criticize McCain, his policies and judgement, in all these areas, they need to make dramatic, convincing arguments for their own plans and policies.

    Playing "ain't she awful" with all things Palin doesn't do any of those things. It just distracts from them. At issue in this campaign isn't whether or not McCain demonstrated good judgement in selecting his VP -- it is whether or not he has demonstrated good judgement in terms of his proposals for dealing with issues that profoundly affect voters' lives.

    I wonder if they will ever catch on that perhaps (3.83 / 6) (#20)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:30:36 AM EST
    it might be more effective telling why obama would be the better choice instead of grasping at straws, i.e. every piece that has a sentence in it that could be used against Palin.  BTW, is she the one running for president?

    Parent
    what these stories say (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by sancho on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:52:29 PM EST
    to me is that "Governor Palin" is the only one of the prez and vice-prez candidates of whom one can say

    "XXXXX'sGovernment is"

    because she is the only one of the four with executive experience.

    and am i supposed to infer that because gov. palin is alleged to be "vindictive" and "secretive" that must mean that "obama's government," should that ever come to pass, won't be? i can certainly see by his gracious treatment of sen. hillary clinton that he does not have a vindictive bone in his body. and i can see by the full disclosure of his records as a college student that he cannot be accused of being secretive.

    we (the so-called dems) are losing b/c of our obsession with smearing women.

    who cares about the gov. of alaska? let's quit obsessing over her.

    Parent

    This race is clearly now Obama vs. Palin (3.00 / 0) (#106)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:56:54 PM EST
    We need to continue to refocus on McCain & Bush policies, but pretending that Palin's not the competition won't help us win.

    Maybe pointing out McCain's hiding behind her skirts would eventually draw him out, but probably not.  They've made their move.  We have to respond, even though we can't control the dialogue or the direction of the race.  

    Parent

    "hiding behind her skirts"? (none / 0) (#233)
    by Jane2009 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 05:14:24 PM EST
    The Dems are having a meltdown and losing all focus, playing right into the Republican hands. This is brilliant strategy, like it or not. To belittle this to a cliche'd arrangement of gender relation is to not only misunderstand the political point, but to reinforce tired and insulting metaphors to belittle the McCain/Palin dynamic.

    This election has driven me to complete distraction in how absolutely tone-deaf the Dems are to how these sort of characterizations insult women AND men. But mostly women.

    Parent

    Not effective (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Manuel on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:30:06 AM EST
    This is a weak line of attack.  Most politicians that get elected are attacked along these lines.  Most voters expect pols to behave in this way.  Remember this story?

    examining her governing style (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by byteb on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:57:39 AM EST
    warts and all, is not an 'attack'.

    Parent
    Of course it is an attack (2.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Manuel on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:28:31 PM EST
    ... pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance ...

    This is clearly a character attack as was the story in the link I included.

    Parent

    If those are the facts (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by TChris on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:31:29 PM EST
    it's not an attack, it's reporting.

    Parent
    Why are we not getting the facts (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by rennies on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:21:40 PM EST
    on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge? Why isn't the NYTimes digging into the records (formerly blocked, now open) to provide the facts of Obama's only executive experience? Who got the money? How much interaction did Obama have with Ayers etc?

    I would be much less inclined to see rabid bias if the fact finding were more balanced.

    This imbalance may very well have a boomerang effect.

    Parent

    It's selective reporting (4.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Manuel on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:43:39 PM EST
    Tue reporting would include some analysis about how she is better or worse than other politicians including Clinton, Bush, and Obama himself.  My sense is that she is no worse than most.  At least it sounds like she isn't throwing previous associates "under the bus".  Democrats should not want this election to turn on character but on who will do a better job addressing the problems we face.

    Parent
    True reporting involves (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by byteb on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:51:21 PM EST
    investigating and then presenting the facts. Attempting to compare her governing style to Obama, or Clinton or Bush would be a purely subjective exercise more suited to an opinion piece via Brooks or Dionne.


    Parent
    They need not be in the same story (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Manuel on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:58:12 PM EST
    Where are these hard hitting "ivestigative" stories on Obama or Biden?  Lord knows we have had plenty of them about the Clintons.  The media have lost their credibility.

    Parent
    You gotta be kidding (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by byteb on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:03:02 PM EST
    about Obama and hard hitting stories.

    I'm looking for some hard hitting stories on MCCain.

    Parent

    Reporters (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by TChris on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:20:27 PM EST
    have no obligation to write the story you want them to write.  Investigative journalism reports the results of an investigation.  The Times had no obligation to include anything in the story that wasn't relevant to its investigation of Sarah Palin.

    Parent
    You are correct. We need press accountability (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Manuel on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:52:55 PM EST
    Before this election cycle I clung to an idealized view of the meda and the left blogs with respect to fairness and values.  I clung to this view despite the 2000 election cycle and the Iraq war.  I attributed those failures to all too human errors.

    This election cycle plus asiduos reading of the Daily Howler have convinced me that the media has had a significant role in getting us to where we are.  We need to hold them accountable.

    I can't cheer for stories such as this one which have a clear bias.  They do more harm than good for three reasons.  They open the door to requests for balance.  They feed into the already existing meme of biased coverage.  They distract from the issues.

    We desperately need high quality reporting but this is not an example.  Stories like this one do more harm than good to progressive causes.

    Parent

    The point (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by TChris on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:02:10 PM EST
    of a New York Times article is not to advance progressive causes.  The point is to report facts.

    Parent
    Wish they would stick to the facts (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Manuel on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:16:43 PM EST
    Sexism, elitism, and their political bias drips from the MSM "fact" pieces.  Their language is carefully chosen to push a viewpoint.  I have gotten better at spotting it.

    Parent
    Why are we not getting the facts (1.00 / 1) (#127)
    by rennies on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:22:06 PM EST
    on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge? Why isn't the NYTimes digging into the records (formerly blocked, now open) to provide the facts of Obama's only executive experience? Who got the money? How much interaction did Obama have with Ayers etc?

    I would be much less inclined to see rabid bias if the fact finding were more balanced.

    This imbalance may very well have a boomerang effect.

    Parent

    Bush-Cheney Exhaustion (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:12:00 PM EST
    I think you underestimate the extent that voters have HAD IT with the politics of the current administration--their policies and their governing as if they are above the rule of law.

    Governor Palin might have got a pass on this before we suffered through 8 bad years of it already.

    Parent

    Majority of voters do not agree (2.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Prabhata on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:35:40 PM EST
    that a McCain presidency will be three more years of the same.

    Parent
    As a resident of Chicago (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Matt in Chicago on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:32:23 AM EST
    Trust me, there is NO interest in the national media to investigate anything about Obama's activities here in Chicago.  It is funny that both local papers continuously publish negative editorials that list all of his known associates here in corruption-central, but that this stuff rarely captures national attention.

    And the stuff that DOES capture attention is the fact that the people Palin fired don't like her much.

    Yeah, very shocking... on both sides.

    I got to go o ut, but honeslty (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by dailygrind on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:38:02 AM EST
    although its OT, the comments along your threaad at least anecdotally is why the American electorate is the problem and not the politicians. they turn everything into cynical versions of AMerican Idol competition in which they rationalize their behavior. If were had a better electorate we would obtain better politicians. That's why these stories don't obtain any traction. remember how long it took for the Bush stories to gain any? I mean from 2001 to 2004 everyone was saying "this is who bush is. this is who bush is. this is who bush is." His fervent supporters kept saying no, no that's not true. You are lying about bush or this is just the media attacking bush or liberals attacking bush.

    This mentality led to worst presidency in modern american history. You see that same mentality on display here. At the very least this article should be raising red flags to everyone,b ut instead we are engaged  in misdirection (well Obama is too- a lie, but it allows them to ignore the subject), well why didn't they cover obama like this (another lie which I don't have time to refute, but again doesn't change the fact this is who palin is), and any number of other rationalizations.

    The American electorate is the problem. Not our politicians. I can't  blame Palin, or Clinton, or Obama or McCain or even Bush for how they act given how we act. We never own our part is this.  Until we change, and say this is unacceptable, nothing will change. This is in part my pessimism about whether such a story will have any impact. I don't have the faith that the American electorate believes anymore in anything other than cynacism and mere opinion as fact.

    Leftie blogs on Palin: (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:42:02 AM EST
    Vindictive and Hypocritical.

    Rightie blogs on Palin: (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by byteb on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:06:16 PM EST
    Hero, Perfect but Persecuted.

    Parent
    And, you know what? (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Brookhaven on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:29:55 PM EST
    A pox on both houses.

    Chilish and dumb and not productive.


    Parent

    Correction (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Brookhaven on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:31:00 PM EST
    Childish.

    Parent
    A little patronage is normal and expected (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by Steve M on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:47:58 AM EST
    but I really feel like you shouldn't be appointing cronies to positions that actually matter.

    For Jim McGreevey to give a state job to his boyfriend was a minor sin.  Making him the director of homeland security for the entire state, a much bigger problem.

    I don't care that Palin made one of her campaign staffers into a "special assistant to the governor."  That's standard stuff in politics and doesn't even raise an eyebrow for me.  That's what you ought to do, invent a job for them that doesn't really involve government responsibilities, as opposed to Bush who made his campaign manager the head of FEMA.

    Making an unqualified high school classmate the director of agriculture for the entire state, or the head of economic development, those are examples of what I'd consider "bad cronyism."  It does disturb me.

    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:59:07 AM EST
    THe cronyism bothers me a bit too.  The big problem for me is the further interest in censorship on her part.  

    Parent
    Please stop with the censorship (2.66 / 3) (#72)
    by JAB on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:57:27 PM EST
    She did no such thing, she asked rhetorical questions, and it has been proven countless times throughout this blog.  

    Parent
    she asked (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by byteb on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:15:21 PM EST
    those 'rhetorical questions' to the town librarian who was soon employed elsewhere...certainly a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by JAB on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:20:29 PM EST
    The town librarian kept her job and just recently retired from that post.

    Google is your friend.

    Parent

    Librarian Emmons left long ago (5.00 / 0) (#169)
    by andrys on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:27:51 PM EST
    She left, for another librarian job in another city,  before the end of Palin's first term.

    Emmons is now Taylor and is interviewed on tv news.
    Anne Kilkenny (of the infamous letter) has an audio interview with NPR.

      The librarian who took her place, for the 2nd term,
    which Palin won by twice the amount of votes of other vote-winners there, has not been interviewed that I can see.
    But they've found no indication of any banning of books during that period either.

     For further details on any of this, I do daily updates on anything new about Palin's history.  Pro and Con.

     My interest is to get at whatever truth there might be (a lot of grey in some areas).

    Parent

    CORRECTION: Emmons is now BAKER (none / 0) (#171)
    by andrys on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:28:59 PM EST
    Not Taylor...

    Parent
    you may want to check the librarian's (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by nycstray on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:29:50 PM EST
    resume.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Steve M on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:18:38 PM EST
    Her own campaign admits that she asked the librarian about it on three separate occasions.  Rhetorical, heh.

    Every campaign spins, and you can believe the spin or not as you choose, but demanding that other people accept the spin as gospel is pretty tiresome.  The evidence that it was rhetorical is this: the McCain campaign says it was rhetorical.

    Parent

    Yes PURELY rhetorical. (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:25:42 PM EST
    The new mayor also tended carefully to her evangelical base. She appointed a pastor to the town planning board. And she began to eye the library. For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral.

    "People would bring books back censored," recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin's predecessor. "Pages would get marked up or torn out."

    Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.

    But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book "Daddy's Roommate" on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

    "Sarah said she didn't need to read that stuff," Ms. Chase said. "It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn't even read it."

    "I'm still proud of Sarah," she added, "but she scares the bejeebers out of me."

    1. Didn't think Daddy's Roommate belonged in library, but wouldn't actually read to know what it actually said. (Prior to becoming mayor)

    2. Subsequent to becoming mayor asked the librarian banning on three separate occasions

    3. She tended carefully to her evangelical base.

    4. For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral. "People would bring books back censored," recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin's predecessor. "Pages would get marked up or torn out."

    PURELY rhetorical.

    Parent
    Ultimately. She had the power through the (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by andrys on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:55:57 PM EST
    hiring of the 2nd term's librarian to remove/ban any book she wanted, if the librarian was willing.  I'm curious why they don't interview that librarian as well.

     Here's an interesting document all interested should read, so we can proceed from something closer to facts.

     It was also published by Newsweek.

    Another Must Read is Politifact's age on Palin.  For those interested in more than rumors.  It backs up with detail what statements are true, half-true, false, etc.

     These and daily-articles on this are at my page on this, which Wall Street Journal, on Sept. 9, footnoted as the apparent origin of the viral email by Anne Kilkenny on the web.
     It wasn't, of course.  It was Washington Independent.  And many had it on their pages.  The email is now discussed on about 4,000,000 pages.

     But the statements disturbed me enough so that I set up a page as an alert (much of what she says is true, while some of it is questionable).  The letter, said to be only to friends and family obviously is not, because of the intro.  Kilkenny is a Democrat and worked for the former Mayor's re-election.  The legislative people investigating Troopergate have been identified as Obama supporters.

      I then used it as a starting point to explore what was true from the letter and what isn't.  


    Parent

    Contemporary news accounts (none / 0) (#209)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:14:39 PM EST
    state she inquired 3 times. The librarian in question says she inquired 3 times. The rest of what you write is but puffs of smoke to obfuscate.

    Parent
    Molly. (5.00 / 4) (#223)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:43:19 PM EST
    Sarah Palin did not ban a book.

    She appointed a new librarian.

    Palin did still not ban a book.

    Andrys is documenting the political nature of smearing.  Would you trust a Republican's account of a Democratic candidate as gospel?  Do you believe Larry Sinclair has no motives of his own?

    This is nothing more than trying to frame Palin as a "culture warrior."  It.  will.  not.  work.

    It's not smoke and mirrors.  This book thing won't catch on because there is nothing there.  No book was banned.  No book was censored.  None.  Not one.  Nothing.

    If there was, feel free to continue.  But all you're doing is creating a distraction from real issues, and getting liberals like myself to defend Palin on this.  Because this whole fracas is a bunch of nothing.

    Not the best strategy.

    Parent

    She inquired 3 times into the process of banning (3.00 / 2) (#231)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 05:08:08 PM EST
    I assume you do not dispute that basic fact. Contemporary news accounts and the librarian in question agree on this point.

    Maybe a simple inquiry into the procedure for book banning is Ok with you. It is not with me. Maybe I take censorship and an inquiry into the procedure of censorship more seriously than you do. If Sarah Palin were Sam Palin, would this be Ok with you? If so I am have to say I am a little saddened. I don't care if it is something she actually wanted to do or it was just red meat to the base. The former is wrong, because censorship is wrong. The latter is wrong for the same reason gathering up a lynch mob is wrong.

    Parent

    Don't say it's sexist. (5.00 / 2) (#235)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 05:18:09 PM EST
    I don't care if she's Sarah or Sam Palin.

    I look at record.  This is why I was a Hillary supporter -- because of her record.  And I find this line counterproductive to Democrats and a blatant refusal to acknowledge Palin's record.  I prefer integrity in my politics.

    I'm all about criticizing Palin where it matters.  I'm all about criticizing her on her policies and record.

    Hear-say and comments from two people (and we're talking about two: Kilkenny and Baker) doesn't mean much to me.

    Did she ban a book?  No.  I can understand concern, but this outrage is just beyond the scope.

    Never mind that the Mayor she defeated for her first term -- Democrat John Stein -- is pushing this story as well.

    Reeks to me of political hit-job more than any tangible evidence Palin ever attempted to ban a book.

    She could have.  She could have put in a "puppet" who would let her.  She did not.

    Record.

    Parent

    Contemporary news accounts (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 05:22:44 PM EST
    and the librarian in question agree- Palin did inquire into the procedure for banning books. DO you or DON'T you find that objectionable? It is a simple question.


    Parent
    No. (5.00 / 2) (#241)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 05:36:55 PM EST
    I don't.

    Her banning books, yes.

    Her inquiries into the procedure?  No.  And remember -- those "memories" conflict.  One is if she would support Palin if Palin wished to ban them.  The "procedure" is not a direct quote, but a paraphrase.

    I'm more interested in what Palin does.

    Not what she asks.


    Parent

    worse yet is (4.00 / 3) (#98)
    by NYShooter on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:39:02 PM EST
    the deluge of accusations, of which the overwhelming number have been immediately debunked.
    The fact that the librarian works at the pleasure of the mayor and can be fired at time, for any reason, but wasn't, because of Palin's naïve attempt to show bipartisanship. That attempt was immediately rewarded with the librarians very public signing a "letter of loyalty" to her predecessor, an avowed enemy of Palins.

    This is really getting tiring!


    Parent

    Librarian Was, In fact, Fired (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:57:23 PM EST
    "Soon after taking office, Palin, according to a New York Times report, fired Baker, and news reports from the time indicate that Palin thought Baker hadn't done enough to give her "full support" to the mayor.

    "Palin reversed course on Baker's dismissal after a local outcry, and later said the discussions about banning books were "rhetorical." "

    Parent

    bah, who needs facts.... (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by NYShooter on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:34:30 PM EST
    Pacific Northwest Library association

    PNLA Quarterly, Vol. 63 No.4 Summer 1999

    "Mary Ellen Baker, Wasilla Public Library Director, has announced her resignation effective August 31."
    **********************
    If you're going to smear those who present facts
    You should do so on sites like Kos or HuffPo where strutting, swaggering, and high fiving each other's ignorance is actively solicited


    Parent

    Are you familiar with the term (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:54:04 PM EST
    constructive discharge?

    If you were, you might not think you link was dispositive as to what actually happened.

    But it comes down to this: I can understand why liberals and progressives  would want to defend Palin as to outrageous sexist remarks- despite her being on the other side of most issues. I cannot understand why liberals and progressives  would be so eager to downplay the facts in this case. Asking about the procedure to ban books (rhetorical or otherwise) ought to send alarm off. This is not an issue of sexism.

    Parent

    Fine. Let's talk alarms. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:14:21 PM EST
    Emmons resigned in '99.  

    Palin could have replaced her with anyone she wanted, especially someone who would allow her to pluck books off the shelves while she tosses them into a bonfire.

    Did Sarah Palin do that?

    No?  Well, if she had, then I would have a big alarm going off.  Because it's not like Emmons was some "free speech" warrior for the Wasilla Public Library.  Palin could have done as she pleased.  She could have encouraged residents to question what they considered "objectionable material."

    Did she?  No.

    Again: such. a. non. issue.

    Talk economy for the love of Pete.

    Parent

    and another librarian was in charge for (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by andrys on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:35:29 PM EST
    the 2nd term, and would have been chosen by Palin.

     Still, no indication by librarian-watch dogs of banning of books there.

     

    Parent

    Eaxctly. (none / 0) (#216)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:30:26 PM EST
    Go avoid the issue. (none / 0) (#207)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:12:40 PM EST
    What issue? (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:33:38 PM EST
    There isn't an issue.  Emmons resigned in '99.

    Palin had anyone she wanted to fill that position from '99 to '02.  Especially a "book banner."  And then, if you think Sarah Palin wants to ban books as you apparently so strongly believe, books would have been banned.

    They weren't.

    It's not like Emmons was single-handedly stopping Sarah Palin from taking a big sharpie to texts on evolution, or throwing "Are You There, God?  It's Me, Margaret." into her fireplace.

    I am addressing this issue, and I am telling you there is no "there" there and you are ignoring addressing Palin's economic record and what she intends to do to "reform" government.

    Parent

    Check the ADN. (4.00 / 4) (#114)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:09:41 PM EST
    Anchorage Daily News has that same quote, more or less, and contradicts itself later:

    A few months later, the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, got a letter from Palin telling her she was going to be fired. The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for the firing. The letter just said the new mayor felt Emmons didn't fully support her and had to go.

    Emmons had been city librarian for seven years and was well liked. After a wave of public support for her, Palin relented and let Emmons keep her job.

    Later in the article:

    Four days before the exchange at the City Council, Emmons got a letter from Palin asking for her resignation. Similar letters went to police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton and finance director Duane Dvorak. John Cooper, a fifth director, resigned after Palin eliminated his job overseeing the city museum.

    Palin told the Daily News back then 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.

    Source.

    Total non-starter.  It contradicts on whether it was a request for resignation or an outright dismissal.

    Parent

    You Can Spin It (none / 0) (#143)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:47:45 PM EST
    any way you want.

    The facts as presented in most news accounts and in this piece at FactCheck.org
    are these:

    "Palin initially requested Emmons' resignation, along with those of Wasilla's other department heads, in October 1996. Palin described the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all of them (except one, whose department she was eliminating) to retain their positions. But in January 1997, Palin fired Emmons, along with the police chief. According to the Chicago Tribune, Palin did not list censorship as a reason for Emmons' firing, but said she didn't feel she had Emmons' support. The decision caused "a stir" in the small town, according to a newspaper account at the time. According to a widely circulated e-mail from Kilkenny, "city residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter."

    "As we've noted, Palin did not attempt to ban any library books. We don't know if Emmons' resistance to Palin's questions about possible censorship had anything to do with Emmons' firing. And we have no idea if the protests had any impact on Palin at all. There simply isn't any evidence that we can find either way. Palin did re-hire Emmons the following day, saying that she now felt she had the librarian's backing. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned."

    Parent

    Good. (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:09:42 PM EST
    I'm glad to have the timeline corrected.  Thanks!

    But right there, an admission: "There simply isn't any evidence."  And we're talking about the Kilkenny e-mail.  Yes, the woman exists.  But to take her account as gospel because she says things you want to hear is no better than spinning anything any anecdotal account says to suit your narrative.

    "There simply isn't any evidence that we can find either way."

    But we do know Emmons was a vocal proponent of the former 3-term mayor.  

    This can easily fit in with Palin's "reform/fighting the 'good ol' boys network'" narrative, and not get the outcome you want.

    I think it's an absolute non-starter.  If Palin had banned books, then we could talk.

    But even then, this isn't something worth discussing.  I'd like to hear Palin talk about the Rust Belt economy and the Big 3, with regard to her strong commitment to "energy independence" which she touts so fervently.

    But you want to chase phantoms over cultural wars and "censorship!" when the fact of the matter is that nothing was censored or removed.  That is a documentable fact.

    Oy.

    Parent

    Part of a group resignation-request (none / 0) (#174)
    by andrys on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:33:03 PM EST
    Also, the Mayor was a 3-term Democrat and so where members of his team (Democrats).  Palin was coming in as a Repub of course.

    Apparently though, friends say, and Emmons/Baker acknowledges, that she felt badly treated by Palin.

    Parent

    What? (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Steve M on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:57:30 PM EST
    The librarian signed a "letter of loyalty" to the former mayor after Palin was already in office?  That doesn't even make sense.

    You might want to try this nonsense on someone who will actually believe that the position of librarian in a small town is generally considered to be a partisan political appointment.

    Parent

    It must be true. I read it on (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:10:58 PM EST
    the internet.

    Parent
    What kind of a person (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:09:43 PM EST
    asks such "rhetorical questions," even making the ridiculous necessary to assume that's what they were?

    Parent
    My answer: a person trying to (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:11:42 PM EST
    keep her political cred w/the religious right.

    Parent
    Has it come to this (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:21:19 PM EST
    Are we that quick to designate the "Religious Right" as a block of American citizens, for God's sake, who are sympathetic to book banning.

    This is not a critique of your comment, but only sadness at the implied truth in it.

    As for Palin or anybody else willing to make such a move to establish "cred" with anybody.  Such a person is fundamentally unfit to be sworn in as a protector of the United States Constitution.  

    Parent

    Maybe its because my aunt is a librarian (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:41:30 PM EST
    I have to agree with you-

    Anybody willing to make such a move to establish "cred" with anybody is fundamentally unfit to be sworn in as a protector of the United States Constitution.

    I am amazed at how many progressives think because it was "rhetorical" it was Ok. Who was it who said a liberal is someone so wishy washy they would disagree with themselves.  

    Parent

    An aside: Molly Bloom I'm (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:54:50 PM EST
    kind of surprised you so dogged in your criticism of Palin, even though she has many flaws and is diametrically opposed to most everything I value.  Kind of exhausting and not sure you are accomplishing anything in this venue.  Do you think you are having any effect on the Obama hold-outs, aginners?  

    Parent
    Mayhaps you are right (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:52:29 PM EST
    But I wonder at the doggedness in her defenders.

    I think her public acts are fair game. I think her private ones are not. I am offended by her claims to be a reformer.

    If a public official used their position to get a benefit for their family - say used their influence to get a major interchange on a highway to be located on otherwise useless land belonging to themselves or a family member- most would agree that is a form of corruption, not anti-corruption. Invoking office for personal benefit is at heart of the charge in trooper gate (the character of the ex is not the issue). I could agree that politically trooper gate is not the best issue, but I am astounded at those who think the behavior of mixing personal with official is acceptable because the brother in law was a bad man. That is not good government.

    Obviously I am offended at even the broaching of the subject of book banning. I am astounded at those  who are not.

    What I see is people looking to defend Palin because of their (not unjustifiable) grievances with the primaries. For those people, Palin has become a proxy war. And a ridiculous one at that.  

    If Palin were a man, no one would dispute her governing record as fair game. But she is a proxy war.

    She is in my opinion a phony whose record doesn't bare up to scrutiny. Too much has been made of personal items and some claims weren't well researched.

     

    Parent

    Thanks for your response. (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:56:50 PM EST
    I'm waiting for the report of the investigation on Palin's exercising her discretion to remove the highway patrol commissioner.  I do think the fitness for duty of the state law enforcement officer, whether or not he is related by marriage to Gov. Palin, is a relevant part of the inquiry.  

    Parent
    Unfair (3.00 / 0) (#179)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:38:40 PM EST
    I really appreciated Molly Bloom's comment.  Every comment is not made to "win over" the undecided.  Heck, look at everyone's comments here.  Is that their goal??

    Parent
    I am a fervent admirer of Molly (none / 0) (#192)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:49:37 PM EST
    Bloom's comments in general, a fact of which she is well aware.  I've always viewed her comments as advocacy and she is very good at it.  

    Parent
    I am not sure my response below bears up to your (none / 0) (#213)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:18:48 PM EST
    kind comments.

    Admiration is mutual

    Parent

    What some people give more weight to (none / 0) (#203)
    by andrys on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:58:41 PM EST
    is that she apparently decided not to do it.

    Normally we distinguish between people's impulses
    and what they actually do.

    Now, if you are afraid of her impulses that is
    understandable, to understate it.

    But to insist they are the same in weight doesn't help.

    That the idea was important to her at one point IS
    indicative of a need to worry but that's it.

    Parent

    A politician (3.50 / 2) (#134)
    by NYShooter on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:31:07 PM EST
    catering to their constituancy?....No! Say it isn't so. Obama would certainly never do such a thing.
    At least not until he had time to throw them under the bus.

    Parent
    Book banning is seriously anti-American (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:07:38 PM EST
    and serious business in general.  Even "rhetorically."  And yes, regardless of Constituancy.  

    Sad you and and others want to pooh-pooh it as not anything much.

    Myriad, the Dangerousness of McCain.  

    Parent

    Lmao at the ridiculousness....but it is okay (3.67 / 3) (#197)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:52:42 PM EST
    for the government to spy on Americans, with the approval of obama who flip-flopped on FISA.  So much about upholding that pesky Constitution.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#182)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:41:10 PM EST
    I ask folks to just think of your own town/city.  Does your Mayor start asking the librarian hypotheticals about books he/she finds objectionable?  

    Well, I live in Cambridge, MA, affectionately called the People's Republic of Cambridge. So we can't go by my experience  

    Parent

    There are other books... (none / 0) (#148)
    by EL seattle on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:53:37 PM EST
    ...such as The Anarchist's Cookbook (which had bomb-making recipes as I recall), or The Turner Diaries (which has always been controversial), or The Satanic Verses (which some folks really didn't like too much).

    Has the concept of "restricted stacks" been mentioned in any of this brouhaha?

    Parent

    Are there still "restricted shelves." (none / 0) (#204)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:01:09 PM EST
    When I was a kid, it was "behind the desk."  But I pulled a CD of a Margaret Cho concert tape off a low open shelf recently.  Pretty raw but quite funny.  I thought--this is on the shelf where a gradeschooler can check it out?  

    Parent
    yes, Obama hasn't been vetted (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by byteb on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:55:23 AM EST
    these last 18 or so months. And since, it's only a month or so until the election, let's not examine new-to-the-scene Palin because, it's just so not fair to do that to a politician.

    btw, WaPo has a story (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by byteb on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:02:17 PM EST
    on her governing style too echoing the same themes. So have at it.

    Article is pretty weak (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by JBJB on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:04:12 PM EST
    This article is indeed pretty weak stuff. The information in the article certianly doesn't match the ominous headline. Firing lazy bureaucrats is hardly a political loser. Sourcing a story from 5 people in Alaska that don't like Palin is also a bit ridiculous. Not to mention the reputation of these journalist has been so sullied that nobody believes what they write anyway.

    I am curious, as I didn't really follow the Obama/Hillary primary, has the NYT, WaPo, or anyone, ever done one piece of investigative reporting into Obama's early days in Chicago?

    Actually, Article Is Pretty Strong (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:22:11 PM EST
    It presents Palin, warts and all with considerable appreciative quotes and evidence of her accomplishments while mayor and governor.

    Parent
    USA Today Story different spin (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    Palin 'governed from the center,' went after big oil
    USA Today

    So Which 'Facts' Are Erroneous? (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:17:36 PM EST
    The ones that describe Governor Palin's accomplishments?

    Maybe you found the opponents' nevertheless positive quotes to be distorted?

    This article is full of actual named sources, both positive and negative, and presents a complex portrait of a public servant who accomplished things, and cultivated a questionable style of management.

    It's really a pretty remarkable job.

    They did vet her, (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by DeanOR on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:33:35 PM EST
    at least enough to get exactly what they wanted for their purposes. The Times description of her is the ideal Republican candidate. They were not trying to find a great governmental leader, they wanted right-wing ideology and a marketable personality to win an election and be a front-person to carry out their agenda. She has proven that she is slick enough to impress many people favorably in a lengthy interview with a carefully vetted light-weight journalist. So far, they're doing great, from their viewpoint.

    Well, I have had all kinds (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:43:18 PM EST
    of comments deleted and take none of it personally....This blog actually allows more dissent than usual.....It is moderated however.....and over time one's ability to see the line becomes better....

    It is her blog....

     

    and (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by sas on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:58:13 PM EST
    we all know how impartial the Times is, so it would be ridiculous to suggest that they have an Agenda.....

    How Impartial The NY Times Is (none / 0) (#97)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:36:51 PM EST
    Did you actually read the article, the whole article?

    It features repeated praise from supporters, and even sometimes from opponents.

    " Still, Ms. Palin has many supporters..." followed by a paragraph about her accomplishments.

    A critic who describes her governing style as 'raising a lot of hard questions is also quoted as saying:

    "She is bright and has unfailing political instincts," said Steve Haycox, a history professor at the University of Alaska. "She taps very directly into anxieties about the economic future."

    And then there's an approving quote from her own Lt Governor carrying the water when her campaign and she, herself offers no comment.

    "Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell said Ms. Palin had conducted an accessible and effective administration in the public's interest. "Everything she does is for the ordinary working people of Alaska," he said."

    Then there's a part describing the challenges she faced when first elected mayor and the way she met them, including more approving comments from supporters.

    And this is in the first several paragraphs.

    You seem to have a very odd definition of impartial. This article is a textbook example of it.

    Parent

    sarcasm (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by sas on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:42:04 PM EST
    my friend, sarcasm

    Parent
    Actually, Talk Left (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:16:04 PM EST
    can be very accommodating even within its own rules.

    For example, here you are, posting 24 times, and counting in your second day writing messages here and no one has stopped you  or even warned you yet.

    You did see this among those rules you find so odious, didn't you?

    "New commenters, i.e, those registered for 30 days or less, may not post more than 10 comments in a 24 hour period.'

    Different standards (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by esmense on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:10:28 PM EST
    Republican blogs are pointing out the difference between questions Gibson asked when he interviewed Obama, and also when he interviewed Edwards when he was a VP Candidate (with even less political experience than Obama or Palin). They claim Gibson asked much less serious and consequential question (which he did) of Obama and Edwards because they were Democrats. Looking at the questions side by side, they do have a point about a different set of standards. But the difference isn't political party, it's gender. Men are simply automatically, by the grace of their gender, granted more authority (and greater rewards) based on fewer credentials than women. (That's why women get the majority of advanced degrees in this country, but still lag substantially behind men in terms of both earnings and authority.)

    There's also, as this NYTimes article illustrates, a different standard in terms of "virtue" as well as credentials.

    Just for fun, here are the questions Gibson asked Obama:

    How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
    How does it feel to "win"?
    How does your family feel about your "winning" breaking a glass ceiling?
    Who will be your VP?
    Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
    Will you accept public finance?
    What issues is your campaign about?
    Will you visit Iraq?
    Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
    What did you think of your competitor's [Clinton] speech?

    And the questions he asked Palin:

    Do you have enough qualifications for the job you're seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
    Aren't you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
    Questions about foreign policy
    -territorial integrity of Georgia
    -allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
    -NATO treaty
    -Iranian nuclear threat
    -what to do if Israel attacks Iran
    -Al Qaeda motivations
    -the Bush Doctrine
    -attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
    Is America fighting a holy war?

    I don't care where you stand ideologically or who you are supporting, if the obviousness of the different standards applied in those interviews doesn't make you laugh (ruefully, and with recognition) you are denying reality.

    Unfortunately for Democrats, the media's too obvious and over the top gender bias, and double standard, weakens their critical coverage of Palin and puts the Obama camp in a difficult spot; it's hard for them to make use of the criticisms without appearing to also be supporting the obvious sexism.

    But (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:25:27 PM EST
    we already knew all about Obama.  he has been running for over 18 months and has published two "autobiographies."  Asking Obama if he has ever been out of the country would make no sense etc.  You ask what you don't know, otherwise why ask the question.  

    Parent
    Palin's Been In Hiding (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:36:27 PM EST
    and under wraps since she was introduced as the VP candidate a little more than two weeks ago.

    She emerges for this first interview with Gibson and he (gasp, shudder!) asks her some pointed questions about her knowledge of foreign policy and her credentials to serve.

    If she had served at a national level as Obama has done, she would have a record that could be weighed and scrutinized as his has been.

    Serving a couple terms as a small town mayor and council person and less than two years as governor of Alaska doesn't provide much evidence of her abilities, understanding or experience with international affairs.

    And, as far as answering questions about Iraq, Iran, al Quaeda etc., Obama participated in how many debates so far this season? 20? Whatever. The news media have had a pretty fair shot at him and his preparedness.

    Palin faces a shortened schedule till the GE made more intense by the McCain campaign's unwillingness thus far to let her answer questions. Of course, she's going to be tested. If they let her be.

    Parent

    She (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by sas on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:51:39 PM EST

    has a long record that can be weighed and scrutinized.

    International affairs?  Surely you jest.  Obama has no record on International Affairs.  And he has less experience in public life than she does.  

    And, importantly, he is running against McCain, not Palin.

    He can't touch McCain on knowledge of International Affairs.  

    Also, I'm an Independent, and if you think you can persuade people based on Obama's experience, you better go back to square one - because the average person realizes he has next to none.

    Parent

    Right. Obama actually said this: (5.00 / 3) (#227)
    by andrys on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:51:18 PM EST
    in the same San Francisco fundraiser talk during which he talked about 'bitter/guns' ... Here's his statement, which is part of a long article reported by Mayhill Fowler and titled Obama: No Need For Foreign Policy Help From V.P..  
    Last night at a fundraiser in San Francisco, Barack Obama took a question on what he's looking for in a running mate. "I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on," he said, and then he was off and running. "I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more Commander-in-Chief-like.  Ironically, this is an area--foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

    "It's ironic because this is supposedly the place where experience is most needed to be Commander-in-Chief. Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know. When Senator Clinton brags 'I've met leaders from eighty countries'--I know what those trips are like! I've been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There's a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then--you go."

    "You do that in eighty countries--you don't know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa--knowing the leaders is not important--what I know is the people. . . ."

    "I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college--I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. . . ."

      He was aged 6-10 when in Indonesia.

    Parent

    na (none / 0) (#200)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:56:30 PM EST
    Quite silly.

    This woman is not only a creationist who has expressed interest in removing books from shelves but also about as intellectually curious as GWB. Which is to say not at all.  

    The other candidates have all actively pursued this job and prepped accordingly to answer a broad range of questions.  They also dont seem to be afraid of interviews. She's playing two week catchup.  How much tutoring can she get in just a few weeks?


    Parent

    Oy! The Palin smears! (5.00 / 4) (#230)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:58:37 PM EST
    Sarah Palin is not a Creationist.  That is a total perversion.  Her father was a science teacher for cryin' out loud.  They talked about fossils.

    And the book thing has been hashed out to death here.

    And I'm with BTD on the "experience" line.

    Ask her some serious questions on her own freakin' turf.  She says she's for reform.  Reform of what?

    EXAMPLES OF GOOD QUESTIONS:

    What does Sarah Palin have to say about manufacturing jobs moving to Ontario, Canada from the rust belt because of employer healthcare costs?  How do we make our jobs competitive without healthcare coverage?

    Should we raise CAFE standards to pressure the Big 3 into more R&D for fuel efficient vehicles?  Does that contribute to our "energy independence?"

    Impending Big 3 bailout (again!): As a "reformer," what do you think the government's role should be in private firms such as General Motors?  Why bail them out?

    Get Sarah Palin on her own turf of the nebulous "Washington/economic reform" -- and I don't mean the silly slogan of "She's Bush!"

    Doing this culture war crap -- especially when it's clear as a freakin' bell that Palin is not a creationist (nor has ever said she is), or some "book banner (yet didn't ban a book EVER)" -- is absolute hogwash that detracts from the nuts-n-bolts, blue-collar, "everyday American" economic questions and answers.

    UUuuURGH I feel like I am shouting into the wind on this won.  When the Democrats lose this Novemeber, I blame people like you who refuse to attack McCain-Palin on their catch-phrase messages with serious policy questions, but will devolve into these ridiculous culutral battles that don't mean one freakin' whit.

    UGH.

    Parent

    Um (none / 0) (#198)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:53:36 PM EST
    This woman is just about invisible on the national radar. Of course she gets asked questions.  Why shouldnt she be questioned?

    Parent
    Thz McCain issue. (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Oceandweller on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:19:31 PM EST
    Or is it rather how  we look at hero-status. OK , his conduct during the Vietnam war was heroic. But is his heroism relevant in 2008; that is teh question.
    THE WORLD HOSTORY BOOKS ARE FULL OF SO-CALLED HEROES WHO SOURED BADLY AS THEY GREW OLD.
    no joke.
    Goring; bad giy by any standard, heroic young aviator in 1918. Petain, pitiful puppet in 1945; wose soldier in 1918 etc etc.
    Are we by our total blindness to the fact that MCcAIN IS NOT HEROIC IN 2008 rendering much disservice to our country.
    Methinks , yes. Methinks that while granting the man the hero label; deso not mean I grant him theright to lecture me about his past. His selectionof Palin is not only tragic for it shows how unsound is his mind, but tragic for the rest of us. Imagine for one second the 3am call for Palin and its consequence.The woman is not only inapt but also inept.
    To see that some Clinton voters for the sale of sisterhood have fallen for this choice say that firstly a great number of women do not seem what mean feminism and secondly is a worrying feature . Are we living among a nation of morons...


    Memoirs tell you only what the writer wants (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by esmense on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:42:15 PM EST
    you to know -- political questioning should help voters learn what they need to know.

    The questions Gibson asked Obama were absurd.

    You (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by sas on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:44:12 PM EST
    know what?

    I'm an Independent and I believe the Democratic Party takes women for granted.  Every 4 years the Dems say "What about Roe v Wade?" and women line up behind them for fear that it will be taken away.  (Don't get me wrong - the Republicans are no better).

    I think women should get together as Feminists on issues in which they do agree across party lines -equal pay for equal work, equal opportunities, de-crying sexism when it occurs ( the A list blogger Boyz [for example the big Cheet] , Olberman, Matthews) et. al.

    We could bring both parties to their knees - and we should.  When either party actually does something for us they would get our votes.

    PS to all you lefties - the last thing a party did that will be good for me is the Republican Party passing a medicare drug benefit....as flawed as it is...it is a step in the right direction

    Here's To The Republicans (none / 0) (#215)
    by liberalone on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:26:09 PM EST
    While I agree that the Republican Party deserves some credit of the Prescription Drug plan, the other issues you mentioned they shoot down.

    Equal pay for equal work-- Republicans say no.
    Equal opportunities--  Republicans say only if you are rich and/or you agree to do our bidding.
    Decrying sexism--  Republicans say only if it means we keep our power.

    Choose the party that has consistently represented the interests of all Americans, including minorities and the working class.   McCain/ Palin follow the policies of a party that has consistently worked against the interests of the average American.

    Parent

    Attacks on Palin's experience and character (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by esmense on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:57:12 PM EST
    miss the point. And do Obama's cause little good. McCain didn't put her on the ticket to make an argument about experience or character.

    HE PUT HER ON THE TICKET TO BOLSTER HIS ARGUMENT THAT HE IS A "REFORMER" THEREBY MAKING A "CHANGE" ARGUMENT FOR HIMSELF WHILE WEAKENING OBAMA'S.

    That is the argument the Obama campaign has to answer -- McCain's "reformer" argument.

    The media and the left blogosphere's sexist tizzy over Palin does not help make that argument. The sexism of too many Obama supporters, in fact, makes it impossible for them to clearly see McCain's argument or understand how it must be countered.

    Fortunately for all those who don't want to see McCain elected (as opposed to all those who just want to see Palin insulted), the Obama campaign does seem to have finally understood the argument they must counter. They've just done a very good ad attacking McCain's choice of a high powered lobbyist to head up his "transition" team. I hope they keep it up -- because the "reform" argument is a very powerful argument aimed at the swing voters -- independents, moderate Republicans, right-leaning Democrats -- who will decide this election. Obama has to destroy McCain's credibility on that issue.

    No, you have the blinders on (4.57 / 7) (#43)
    by tootired on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:13:56 PM EST
    because getting Obama elected is very important to you. I've been a Democrat all of my life, but getting Obama elected is only slightly better than getting McCain elected for me. That being said, I still want him to win. For the Democrats to go after Palin for cronyism in Alaska when our own candidate is a product of the Chicago political machine is saying "Bring on Rezko, Ayers, Wright, and Obama's other cronies" to the Repubs. This isn't a winning play for Obama. If I were a Republican, I'd being telling you to go for it.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:43:25 PM EST
    Your argument would hold more water if they weren't already using the Rezko, Ayers, Wright and currupt Chicago politics memes.

    Parent
    No (3.50 / 2) (#111)
    by jccleaver on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:06:38 PM EST
    You ain't seen nothing yet. It's been bubbling, but I'm sure there are a lot harder hits coming out. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if those were the areas that 527 composed of Swift Boat alumni will be hitting most.

    Parent
    Believe me, they've not used them yet (none / 0) (#219)
    by andrys on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:35:03 PM EST
    Only Wrights' videoclips.

    We don't want to see illustrated videoclips
    re the others on mainstream tv in primetime.

    Parent

    If these stories had been the focus (4.50 / 2) (#1)
    by dailygrind on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:54:59 AM EST
    of the media's attention from the begining they would have been more effective. By focusing on her family stuff, it allowed for a certain amount of "well this all just  the same picking on Palin" to settle into the mind of electorate. It's good reporting, but still I wish they had waited to report these stories rather than the fluff they were reporting before.

    As others (4.50 / 6) (#19)
    by frankly0 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:30:23 AM EST
    have noted, the real problem with the piece is that the media has lost any real credibility in the eyes of the public when it comes to evaluating Palin.

    There is certainly nothing like a "smoking gun" of cronyism or corruption presented in this article, that I can see -- nothing whose facts are so indisputable and outrageous that it can get past the public's general cynicism about the media's coverage of Palin.

    Of course rationally the evidence here does suggest Palin has a real cronyism problem.

    But the pushback from Palin can be seen from a mile away: she hired people she knew because she knew them to be trustworthy, and a reformer needs people on board whom they can trust implicitly. Moreover, in general the people who are criticizing her are the very people who most need "reforming". And, finally, it's just one more case in which the media is distorting her record any way they can to express their uncontrollable hatred of Palin and McCain.

    In short, the media has mostly given away the game to McCain and Palin by undermining their own credibility -- and now, when they really want it and need it, it's far too late to get it back.

    As I said the other day, if you successfully tarnish the supposed referees of a game as being biased, then it becomes a war of all against all to dominate the message. And Republicans thrive on wars.

    Why can Republicans get away with lies? Because they always seem to manage to make the supposed "honest broker" of lies -- the media -- seem like a dishonest player itself.

    And they have, I think, succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in sabotaging the credibility of the media in this cycle -- more so, I think, than even Bush was able to manage.

    And the media has no one but itself to blame for this. On any rational account, they haven't been objective or credible.

    consensus here (4.33 / 6) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:16:49 AM EST
    Scary and surreal

    I just hope (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:49:04 PM EST
    that these kinds of comments cease overflooding this blog after the election is over.  The Primary brought in a gaggle of apparently uninterested in defending civil liberties and critiquing government overreach and abuse.    

    Like a Law of Physics, Palin wagon cricling, and sniping at Obama, wind up dominating every thread on this blog, even the ones not originated by BTD. But again, maybe they'll go away after the election and these threads can return to the kinds of issues TChris is engaging here.

    Parent

    The fact that there really ISN'T anything here. (4.40 / 5) (#18)
    by Southsider on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:30:14 AM EST
    If anything it just deepens my contempt for the NY Times...dammit, we'd have been better off if they DIDN'T run this article at all.  Why?  Because every single person not already deeply in the tank will look at this article and say "what's the big deal?  She brought in her own team as mayor, she remembered people who pissed her off, and...?"

    Jeralyn, I EAGERLY picked this article up.  I was hoping there'd be some juicy dirt.  Some line of attack.  There's nothing - NOTHING - here that amounts to squat.  Jesus, I'm getting so frustrated about this I want to punch a wall.  The more we keep pretending that stuff like this NY Times article is "really going to dent Palin's positives," the more we cocoon ourselves.  Give me a corruption story, give me a major face-palming gaffe on TV, but this?  It's just chicken feed.  It certainly doesn't make me think one iota worse of McCain's candidate.  It makes me think, "oh well, what else is new?"

    My vote for Obama is literally staked to the ground, unmovable (unless he calls for the overthrow of democracy or something).  I'm no concern troll, for god's sake.  But I've shaken off the hyperpartisanship enough to realize how making big things out of small beans can only backfire on us now.  Obama's Tier 2 is stuck in a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop, constantly attacking Sarah Palin WHEN SHE DOES NOT MATTER.  

    Parent

    She does matter (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:45:47 PM EST
    She is why McCain is currently leading....A response to her being nominated is inevitable....and that involves pushback.

    I do think that once the campaign goes back to Obama and McCain, Obama will probably do better....But this phase is inevitable.....

    Parent

    I had forgotten about that. (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by ccpup on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    For voters to compare the cronyism of Palin hiring a childhood friend to run the Dept of Agriculture to State Senator Obama helping his long-time friend and top fundraiser Tony Rezko secure a multi-million dollar City contract to build public housing (despite having no construction experience whatsoever) is not a path I think Team Obama wants them to set foot on.

    When they learn the buildings were completed with major structural deficiencies, started falling apart and were considered slums by the City within five years and were going unheated during one of Chicago's coldest winters -- because Rezko claimed he was in financial straits -- while Obama and Rezko fundraised within spitting distance, Gov Palin's "cronyism" in Alaska will seem like Disneyland.

    Parent

    Don't care about the consensus on this blog (4.00 / 4) (#24)
    by wasabi on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:38:40 AM EST
    Anybody can write anything.  The woman is too much like Bush.  Secretive, vindictive and too much cronyism.  Any time this can be emphasized, I'm all for it.

    Parent
    And, it may be good to read it (none / 0) (#239)
    by andrys on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 05:30:13 PM EST
    with an open mind because what's needed to change as many votes as possible to Obama for sure is to pick the reasons that will work, not that she hired friends (they all do) or fired people (where she had the right) who, she felt, didn't fit into her administration.

      Her belief set, her narrow way of looking at things, yes.

      Don't be surprised and stop there though.  Look further if you really want to change minds of those who don't think exactly as wanted, though they are intelligent.  There's a danger of just dismissing people as "unhinged" as we see in another forum and sometimes here.

    Parent

    And JFK hired his brother. (4.25 / 4) (#5)
    by tootired on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:03:37 AM EST
    So? This isn't helping.

    Wasn't there something in the news recently (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Matt in Chicago on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:28:25 AM EST
    about "Faux Outrage".  I am pretty sure that no matter what they do, the NYT is not going to get Obama elected on their own... He is going to need to help himself.

    And this story is not doing it.

    Parent

    Sooooo true (none / 0) (#188)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:45:22 PM EST
    the voters Obama needs to win over do not read the NYT, I assure you.

    Parent
    Competence (none / 0) (#214)
    by G Davis on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:22:51 PM EST
    Bobby Kennedy was more than competent to do the job he was hired for.  Were Palin's hires?

    It is incumbent that these questions be asked if we are to know how these people will govern once elected.

    If helping means the horserace, maybe not.  But this whole exercise is, afterall, about how we want this country run.

    Do you want more heck of a job Brownies?

    This is more about McCain's selection than about Palin herself.  She is not ready, she is not experienced, she has no world view, she is not competent any more than Brownie was.

    And it's not sexist to say so.

    Parent

    Truly the female version of g. w. bush (4.00 / 3) (#122)
    by pluege on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:15:37 PM EST


    Keep it up (3.50 / 2) (#54)
    by JAB on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:39:12 PM EST
    Ras has McCain at 50% for the first time. He leads 50-47.

    Here are ALL today's tracking polls (none / 0) (#181)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:41:08 PM EST
    Hotline: Obama 45-McCain 43
    Research 2000: Obama 47-McCain 45
    Gallup: McCain 47-Obama 45
    Rasmussen: McCain 50-Obama 47

    And the only crosstabs that I get are from Research 2000 and they show Palins unfavorables rising.  


    Parent

    The article is a hit piece (3.00 / 5) (#10)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:11:40 AM EST
    and not even a very good one.

    Anyone with average critical thinking skills can see that it's just another big "nothing-burger."

    Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:05:53 PM EST
    It's actually quite balanced with as many (or more) positive comments from admirers and opponents alike, as well as considerable evidence of Governor and Mayor Palin's accomplishments.

    Parent
    What about the specifics of (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:39:46 PM EST
    Palin's trying to ban books from the Wasilla library?

     

    Parent

    There (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by sas on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:02:51 PM EST
    are no specifics about Palin banning books....check out Snoprs on that one - that story is FALSE.

    Parent
    Uh (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by Steve M on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:13:54 PM EST
    You might want to be "specific" about what is false.

    Palin's own campaign admitted that she spoke to the librarian on three different occasions about how she would go about getting books removed from the library, although they now claim the question was "rhetorical."  I'd say it's up to everyone's good judgment as to whether a question she asked three separate times was truly rhetorical.

    Parent

    Sure, this was just a 'hypothetical': (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by steviez314 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:16:06 PM EST
    In December 1996, Emmons told her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman, that Palin three times asked her -- starting before she was sworn in -- about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose.

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

    The only thing Snopes debunks is the book list going around, not her "rhetorical" question.

    If you have any doubt that if the librarian had said "no problem with me", Palin wouldn't have pulled some books from the library, I have a bridge to niwhere to sell you.

    Parent

    According (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by sas on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:40:09 PM EST
    to the Alaska newspaper reporting the story, Palin asked the librarian what was the procedure that is followed if/when books are deemed objectionable....

    do not read into the story

    Parent

    It was an innocent (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:10:41 PM EST
    whimsy--just intellectual curoisty not connected to any agenda.....

    Really?  Do you really believe that?

    Parent

    Pfft. (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:01:44 PM EST
    Hypotheticals pretty much lead to nowhere, so maybe you should hold onto that bridge.

    Palin could have canned Emmons.  She didn't.

    Perhaps, as Emmons was one of the former mayor's vocal supporters, Palin wanted to trip her up on something controversial like "book banning" and have a clear reason to dismiss her.

    If Palin were hell-bent on banning or censoring books in the local library, it would have been done.

    Just like, as Governor, if Palin were hell-bent against gays, she would have signed the AK-GA legislation barring same-sex State employee benefits (effectively saying "Ha!  Eat it, courts!  Try this case again!") but she didn't.

    This framing that Palin is some nefarious knuckle-dragging Christ warrior is just false on its face.  Talk about her economic policies.  She is not a culture warrior, and so much of this is just a non-starter.

    Parent

    Did you hear her (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:07:50 PM EST
    say she supports the reversal of Roe and that there should be no exceptions for rape and incest?

    Remember when Bush campaigned on being a uniter and not a divider?  It just amazes me how liberals and moderates are so susceptible to this nonsense....

     

    Parent

    Did you hear her... (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:33:00 PM EST
    Say that she was an "open book" and will share her personal beliefs, but not necessarily that those personal beliefs are a part of policy goals?

    I find that better than pandering with responses such as "that's beyond my pay grade," quite frankly.

    Sarah Palin has held that same stance since she ran for office as Governor.  She ran against, and defeated, Murkowski in her Party Primary.  She then ran against and defeated a former Democratic governor.  Even with those "personal opinions."  And even on the back of an unpopular, corrupt Republican administration.

    And she holds an 80% approval rating in the State, and has never moved to criminalize abortion.  But sure, they made hay about it when she ran for that office.

    Short point: I disagree with Palin on Roe, too.  But there is nothing in her policy measures that has ever raised a red flag for me.  Just her rhetoric.  And that's what I expect of a Republican politician going into national office.

    But this sabre-rattling is a non-starter.  Sarah Palin is not a Culture Warrior.  Obsessing over book bannings, her church, and her beliefs on Roe don't make it so.

    She's wrong for America.  She has no knowledge of infrastructure in the "lower 48."  She's good on gas, energy, and "drill!" but talk to her about the Big 3 in Detroit.  Talk to her about healthcare costs driving large firms out of the States or reducing their workforce.

    Hit her there.

    Not on this "Roe" obsession.


    Parent

    I am really flummoxed (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:49:11 PM EST
    by this willful blindness on Roe.  

    She says she is pro-life, she says she wants Roe reversed, but we should all ignore this because she did not champion an anti-abortion crusade as Governor?

    Most pro-life governors have done nothing on abortion because they are constrained by Roe, and Palin also by a libertarian streak in Alaska.  The only anti-abortion statute of note signed by a governor that I know of was the one in South Dakota.  So, pro-life governors are waiting for Roe to be reversed before acting.

    And Roe hangs by one vote now--the vote of an 88 year old Justice.

    Why do people have any doubt that McCain and Palin would appoint a pro-life Justice?  They have said they would do so in the plain light of  day....McCain has voted for Alito and Roberts and Thomas and Scalia.....

    And, yet, people come up with reasons why Roe is really safe....Lulled into complacency because of how long it has been in place...or rationalizing their support of Palin....

    I live in California, where state law requires abortion techniques to be taught in medical schools....so, we'll be fine here....But, heh, if the rest of you guys think it is no big deal if Roe is reversed, charge on.

    Parent

    And I agree with you. (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:59:49 PM EST
    But even if I agree with you, I will continue to say that Roe is a non-starter with Sarah Palin.

    Perceptions.  She does not come across as a champion of anti-choice.  She has nothing in her record that is anti-choice.  She has a family of 5, a down syndrome baby, and supports her pregnant daughter.

    Roe will not tip this election.  And screaming it will not shake up the electorate unless there is something demonstrated in her record that will change the debate.

    Going after Palin (or McCain) on Roe is just a rehash of every other Democratic election ever.  Everyone screamed Bush would overturn Roe in 2004.  Roe still stands.  Now McCain (or Palin!  The heartbeat!) will overturn Roe.

    It's not going to resonate with anyone in Middle America.

    Palin was attacked on abortion rights in her gubernatorial bid (and I linked an archived piece above).  Palin ran as a Republican on the back of an unpopular, corrupt Republican administration.  And against a well known Democrat.  Sound kinda familiar?

    Yet she won.  By eight points, in 2006, and during the "Democratic Wave."  And she's wildly popular state-wide.

    I'm sure I'll get the obligatory "Red State!  Duh!  Of course they'll vote Republican" response, but really -- if you think the electorate is going to be so concerned about Roe as the issue (or her church, or gays, or books in libraries, or all of the above) that it will get them back on the Democratic message, then you are really, really underestimating Palin's appeal.

    Parent

    Two separate issues (none / 0) (#240)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 05:31:29 PM EST
    One:  Is Palin a social conservative who would work to defeat Roe, emergency contraception and otherwise work to implement her social views where and win she can?  She is very savvy and is now covering, having lit up the conservatives with her red meat conservatism.

    I hope all Democrats and Progressives can see the answer to issue #1.  But many do not....A carrryover from the primaries I'm afraid....A rationalization by some to justify voting for McCain.....

    Two:  How do you win this election?

    Campaigning on Roe will help in some isolated areas.  Philadelphia suburbs.  The Radio ads run there are probably sufficient....

    Sure, it is not an issue to prominently feature nationwide...but many women still think McCain is moderate on abortion.

    It is sometimes hard to tell here if people are talking about issue #1 or #2 above.

    Parent

    You invent arguments (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:13:44 PM EST
    about Palin trying to get the librarian to push book banning as an excuse to fire her?  Oh my.....You must really, really like Palin.

    Occam's razor anyone?

    The New York Times identifies two books Palin wanted removed.....

    Parent

    No. (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:37:34 PM EST
    I'm saying that if you want to invent hypotheticals on "What Palin really thinks!" that anyone can pull a hypothetical out of their derriere to counter it.

    Hypotheticals on "Behind the Pentecostal Mind of Sarah Palin: Tounges Translator Required!" is not going to get anywhere.

    It's counter productive to Obama.

    Repeat after me: She is not a culture warrior.  She has not moved to enact any policy criminalizing abortion.  It is not her raison d'etre.

    Look at my comment above.  I give you smart ways to attack Palin on economic policy.  This "culture warrior!" crap only works with liberals that already decided they would never vote Republican.

    Parent

    I do not have to repeat (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:01:05 PM EST
    any of your nonsense....

    You bury your head in the sand on cultural issues with McCain/Palin.....

    Parent

    Logic (none / 0) (#145)
    by andrys on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:51:59 PM EST
    Librarian Emmons/Baker left her office two months before the end of Palin's first term.

      She would have been replaced.  Palin was re-elected by a huge margin and certainly, after Emmons, could pick her own librarian.

      Even then a multitude of investigators, including a librarian watchdog group there, have not found indication of any banning of books from the library by the mayor during that 2nd term either

    Parent

    Logic? (3.00 / 0) (#157)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:07:37 PM EST
    That Palin was stymied in her effort to ban books makes everything just peachy? ....It makes it okay that rational people prevented her from carrying out an expressed desire to ban books?

    The timeline as I understand it is:

    Palin before she was Mayor inquired three times of the librarian about banning books.

    During this time, Palin's church was interested in banning books.

    After Palin is elected she tries to fire the librarian but public outcry stops her.

    Witnesses says Palin wanted to get rid of two books discussing gay lifestyles....

    Tell me if these facts are wrong....But if they are accurate, the conclusion that she is in favor banning books seems inescapable...

    Parent

    Everything (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by sas on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:17:25 PM EST
    you have just written qualifies as "Hearsay" and would not be admitted into any legal argument.  What statement of fact are you citing?

    We only know what has been written in the Alaska Newspaper.  

    At this time no books were banned, no titles were ever mentioned. The newspaper reported that a procedural question was asked as to what would happen if a book was found objectionable - what would be done?

    Honestly, I'm so disgusted by the left's distortion of fact. Before this election cycle,  I only thought the right wingers slandered, distorted, etc.

    What a disillusionment and what a letdown.

    Parent

    You are not saying (none / 0) (#234)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 05:16:25 PM EST
    that the facts I have cited are wrong.....

    No, you instead lecture me about the Hearsay rule?  You apply the Rules of Evidence to all your political judgments?  Really?  If you rely on newspapers or blogs, you realize of course everything written in a newspaper (or a blog) is hearsay....You never rely on that?--you go and interview the experts and fact witnesses in person?.....Good grief.....getting lectured on the hearsay rule....

    And, even going by that standard, we have Palin's agent, her campaign, admitting that she made three inquiries about banning books (that's an exception to the hearsay rule); we have two witnesses who have apparent personal knowledge identyfing the two books (yes, titles were mentioned--books about gay lifestyles) she wanted banned; we have others giving first-hand accounts of the uproar that ensued when she tried to fire the librarian.

    Requiring a heightened standard of proof is the way, of course, to stack the deck in favor of the result you want.

    Parent

    Logic, #2 (none / 0) (#238)
    by andrys on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 05:26:19 PM EST
    Please re-read.

      She was able to put in her own librarian for the 2nd term.

      There is no indication found by investigators and librarian watchers that even then did she move to ban any books.

      I suggest going on to other stuff while making sure you vote against her for a myriad of reasons.  We all have concerns that we weigh more or we weigh less than you.  Insisting that others react as you do doesn't help your cause.

     

    Parent

    I am concerned about (none / 0) (#242)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 05:45:29 PM EST
    defending Palin on the basis that she really isn't a social conservative--she doesn't really mean it.....People can react as they will, but twisting a social conservative into a social moderate doesn't make any asense...

    If your point is to move on to something else, then, well...BTD has made that argument--without btw saying that Palin really isn't a social conservative....

    That she didn't ban books in her second term just tells me she is savvy and learned from the uproar that resulted in her first term from trying it......That makes her even more dangerous as she will pick her battles carefully....And, a Supreme Court Justice would be a battle she would fight, saying ah shucks there is no litmus test, just the requirement that the judge not legislate from the bench....And FDA rules on emergency contraception...she will make no effort to impose her views here?....

    Parent

    Several news outlets... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:52:28 PM EST
    specifically CNN, NPR and the Los Angeles Times (3 key cheerleaders for Obama in the media, IMO) have refuted this rumor. The latest report was on NPR yesterday afternoon, and I heard it.

    According to NPR, there's even an e-mail making the rounds now alleging the list of books that she asked to have banned, and it contained books that were published 8 months to a year after she was no longer the mayor of Wassila.

    Parent

    Not the list (3.66 / 3) (#113)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:09:29 PM EST
    The admission from Palin that she three times asked as Mayor about banning books.

    The NY Times identifies two books she opposed that discussed gay lifestyle issues.

    Parent

    Link. (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:38:54 PM EST
    I want to see these "two books" she wanted banned.

    Parent
    did you read the article? (5.00 / 0) (#172)
    by DefenderOfPants on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:29:40 PM EST
    "Daddy's Roommate"

    Parent
    Why? Just the fact (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:45:14 PM EST
    that she inquired about banning a book tells all we need to know about her.

    Parent
    oh, ok. (3.00 / 2) (#29)
    by byteb on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:52:51 AM EST
    thanks for telling us what to think.

    Parent
    I think (3.00 / 0) (#194)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:51:30 PM EST
    The censorship angle has more legs now.  Not only did she express interest as mayor (asking the librarian three times) but before she was mayor as well.  If I was gay I would be a little concerned that the titles always revolve around homosexuality.  

    What is unique about Palin (2.00 / 0) (#166)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:21:40 PM EST
    WILE GOVERNOR, PALIN WAS MIA FOR OVER 300 DAYS OUT OF ONE YEAR FROM THE CAPITAL.  SHE REMAINED IN WASILLA.  SHE WAS NOT ACCESSIBLE TO ANYONE.  LEGISLATORS COMPLAINED THEY DID NOT KNOW OF VETOES OR HER SIGNATURE UNTIL THEY READ IT IN THE PAPER.  MAYORS COMPLAINED THAT THEIR REQUESTS WERE IGNORED AND ONLY A HANDFUL EVER GOT A MEETING WITH HER.  AND NOTE, SINCE SHE WAS OUT OF TOWN, SHE GOT TO CHARGE THE PER  DIEM, THOUGH SHE WAS IN HER OWN HOUSE.

    MIA GOVERNOR IS WORSE THAN NO GOVERNOR.  

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#218)
    by JAB on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:34:58 PM EST
    Not another argument you want to make because it can be compared to Obama missing most of his first Senate term on the campaign trail, not holding committee hearings, missing important votes (like Kyl-Lieberman) and then using his opponents' votes against them, even though he couldn't be bothered to be there, etc.

    Parent
    I thought Jeralyn was (none / 0) (#41)
    by byteb on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:08:47 PM EST
    saying that the consensus emerging here about the NYT story was scary and surreal.

    Perhaps "here" meant (none / 0) (#193)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:50:45 PM EST
    St. Petersburg, FL, site of the Lexis/Nexis conference.

    Parent
    We're Shooting Ouselves in the foot (none / 0) (#75)
    by Rob4321 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:58:35 PM EST
    I read the New York Times article this morning in my local paper (St. Louis Post-Dispatch).  While the allegations are disturbing and deserve an airing, I fear we may be shooting ourselves in the foot on this one.  The right is very good at manufacturing righteous indignation where there normally wouldn't be an uproar (look at the flap over Janet Jackson's "Wardrobe Malfunction" a few years ago or more recently the flap over "public sex acts" at the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco).  No doubt, we'll see conservatives soming out in the next few days talking about "liberal media bias," especially since the article ran in their favorite target-The New York Times.  We'd do better to let Palin hang herself...McCain's people have started letting her campaign on her own (giving her enough rope for the job so to speak).  Its only a matter of time before she opens her mouth and inserts her foot...squarely to the kneecap.  Once she does that, use the sound bite in an Obama ad.  Until that happens though, giving Palin attention is doing exactly what the Republicans want...giving free attention to their campaign.  

    Problem is (2.00 / 0) (#128)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:22:11 PM EST
    Palin is too well versed at this point to make a huge mistake.  Luckily for us, Charlie Gibson isn't completely owned by Murdock so we have a few gaffes from the ABC interviews.  We'll get nothing from Hannity and Faux News next week.  But we have material that show patterns in her personal approach to governance and material that helps dispute her/Rove claims.  

    Now how do we package that into sound bites to relay a message that resonates with Indies and fence sitters?

    Parent

    What is needed.... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:52:00 PM EST
    ... is material on McCain. Gibson scored a few points against Palin, but I'm sure just as many independants were put off by his bullying, prosecutorial tone. And unless a real smoking gun emerges, most things that stick to Palin will play similarly. The way to win the election is to beat the guy on top of the ticket.

    Parent
    I (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by sas on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:10:02 PM EST

    am a registered Independent.

    I thought Gibson came off poorly.  When he didn't like an answer she gave, he asked the same question in a slightly different way, as if she would give a different answer.  At times his tone was condescending - as in do you REALLY think you are ready?

    And the question "Have you ever met a head of State" was especially dumb. C'mon let's be fair here.....how many Governors can answer yes to that?  Could Obama answer yes to that, before his European tour - and of course, he was not a governor. And if so, what does MEETING a head of State do for you?

    Parent

    Asking a question in a (none / 0) (#178)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:38:22 PM EST
    slightly different way when you don't like the answer is a standard interview technique.  It is used in almost every in-depth interview.   Even Leno, Oprah, and Letterman use that tactic sometimes.  

    Parent
    Well, I agree.... (none / 0) (#221)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:40:09 PM EST
    ... I don't know that Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton had met foreign heads of state prior to, at least, their candidacies. I was a bit surprised Palin hadn't met the Prime Minister of Canada, but if she had, it's not like she'd be a whole lot more qualified.

    Parent
    And in the transcript of the unedited interview (5.00 / 3) (#236)
    by andrys on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 05:19:02 PM EST
    which can be read here,  the portions not televised are in bold print.

      Gibson edited out even his own first half of a sentence:

    I take your point about Lincoln's words,

    Apparently that was not to be heard by his fellow journalists.

      Left out were several statements (not well-worded) about Russia and how she wanted to avoid even a new cold war, much less an actual war.

      They left out her rationale for saying Russia was visible from her place - she said

    Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies...


    Parent
    Of all the things I've learned about Palin... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:11:00 PM EST
    ... since she emerged as a potential nominee, I think this is the one that most concerns me, mostly because it's so Bush-like. And, to be fair, also because it's rather un-McCain-like.

    McCain has been very un-McCain-like (none / 0) (#220)
    by andrys on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:39:18 PM EST
    With ad after ad holding vast distortions of the truth.

    Parent
    Fair Game (none / 0) (#124)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:19:54 PM EST
    How Palin conducted herself as Mayor and now as Govenor is very relevant. We have nothing else to judge her by.

    But again, the issue should be on McCain and how irresponsible and reckless his pick of Palin was.

    If Obama had chosen any other woman besides Hillary to be his VP, he would have been  excoriated.

    The focus should be on McCain and how (none / 0) (#211)
    by esmense on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:18:16 PM EST
    false his "reformer" argument is. People do want change. Obama has to prove that he is the agent of change and McCain is not.

    Someone with a resume (to support his argument) as short of Obama's isn't in the best position to make this campaign about "judgement."

    Parent

    Actually, I think talking about Palin is (none / 0) (#205)
    by WillBFair on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:01:40 PM EST
    a mistake. She doesn't have ebnough of a record to really attack effectively. And it's obvious they're trying to win the election with sex appeal. In the interview, the skirt showed her nice legs to full advantage. She wore what we gay folk call 'come f--- me pumps.' And if they were sitting any closer, well, I won't say it.

    I think we have to attack them on policy nonstop, and I devised this sound bite, which I added to Lemon into Lemonaid on my blog, which no one reads anyway. See below:

    The democrats' agenda was developed almost entirely by the Clinton team: healthcare, fiscal restraint, strategic investment, middle class tax cuts, green energy (thank you Al), bipartisanship, and far reaching diplomacy. They are the most effective policies of our time and the standard by which we will govern for the forseeable future. Compare them with the neo conservative agenda: tax cuts for corporations and the rich, out of control deficit spending, nonstop lying, and needless wars to dump cash on the oil and war intustries.


    Leading European papers are vetting Palin also (none / 0) (#210)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:15:10 PM EST
    This article from Barcelona provides a synopsis of Palin coverage in European papers, with links to the articles.  Quite interesting.

    http://tinyurl.com/5j6xu5

    They are not very happy with Palin, to say the least.  Too bad they are not voting.

    Brussels, not Barcelona (none / 0) (#212)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:18:46 PM EST
    Speed readig does it all the time.

    Parent
    Let me simply note the top six (none / 0) (#224)
    by frankly0 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:46:59 PM EST
    most emailed stories on the NYTimes at this moment:

    1 Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes
    2 Thomas L. Friedman: Making America Stupid
    3 Bob Herbert: She's Not Ready
    4 Frank Rich: The Palin-Whatshisname Ticket
    5 Editorial: Gov. Palin's Worldview
    6 Maureen Dowd: Bering Straight Talk

    Five of these top six are about Palin, whose selection for VP was announced over two weeks ago.

    Obsess much, national media?