PDA

View Full Version : FactCheck:The Sliming of Sara Palin



Biernutz
09-13-2008, 03:45 PM
FackCheck.org
Sliming Palin
September 8, 2008


False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate.

Summary


We’ve been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.

Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she increased funding and signed a bill that will triple per-pupil funding over three years for special needs students with high-cost requirements.
She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.

She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.


Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesy" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.


Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."We'll be looking into other charges in an e-mail by a woman named Anne Kilkenny for a future story. For more explanation of the bullet points above, please read the Analysis.

Correction: In our original story, we incorrectly said that a few of the claims we examine here were included in the e-mail by Kilkenny. Only one of the claims – about the librarian's firing – was similar to an item in that e-mail. We regret the error.

Clarification: The summary originally said that Palin "tripled" per-student funding. The bill Palin signed will triple per-student funding for what Alaska calls "intensive needs" students, but has not done so yet. We also reworded that sentence to make clear the tripling is for funding for special needs students with particularly high costs. Special needs funding overall increased as well.
Analysis










Since Republican presidential nominee John McCain tapped Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, information about Palin's past has been zipping around the Internet. Several claims are not true, and other rumors are misleading.


No Cut for "Special Needs" Kids


It's not true, as widely reported in mass e-mails, Web postings and at least one mainstream news source, that Palin slashed the special education budget in Alaska by 62 percent. CNN's Soledad O'Brien made the claim (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/04/cnr.01.html) on Sept. 4 in an interview with Nicolle Wallace, a senior adviser to the McCain campaign:

O'Brien, Sept. 4: One are that has gotten certainly people sending to me a lot of e-mails is the question about as governor what she did with the special needs budget, which I'm sure you're aware, she cut significantly, 62 percent I think is the number from when she came into office. As a woman who is now a mother to a special needs child, and I think she actually has a nephew which is autistic as well. How much of a problem is this going to be as she tries to navigate both sides of that issue?
Such a move might have made Palin look heartless or hypocritical in view of her convention-speech pledge to be an advocate for special needs children and their families. But in fact, she increased special needs funding so dramatically that a representative of local school boards described the jump as "historic."

According to an April 2008 article (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/04/30/35recaps.h27.html) in Education Week, Palin signed legislation (http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill_text.asp?hsid=HB0273A&session=25) in March 2008 that would increase public school funding considerably, including special needs funding. In particular, it would increase spending for certain special needs students that Alaska calls "intensive needs" (students with high-cost special requirements) from $26,900 per student in 2008 to $73,840 per student in 2011. That almost triples the per-student spending in three fiscal years. Palin's original proposal, according to the Anchorage Daily News, would have increased funds slightly more, giving intensive needs students a $77,740 allotment by 2011.

Education Week: A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special needs [the intensive needs group] to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.Unlike many other states, Alaska has relatively flush budget coffers, thanks to a rise in oil and gas revenues. Funding for schools will remain fairly level next year, however. Overall per-pupil funding across the state will rise by $100, to $5,480, in fiscal 2009. ...Carl Rose, the executive director of the Association of Alaska School Boards, praised the changes in funding for rural schools and students with special needs as a "historic event," and said the finance overhaul would bring more stability to district budgets.
According to Eddy Jeans at the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, funding for special needs and intensive needs students has increased every year since Palin entered office, from a total of $203 million in 2006 to a projected $276 million in 2009.

Those who claim that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent are looking in the wrong place and misinterpreting what they find there. They point to an apparent drop in the Department of Education and Early Development budget for special schools. But the special schools budget, despite the similar name, isn't the special needs budget. "I don’t even consider the special schools component [part of] our special needs funding," Jeans told FactCheck.org. "The special needs funding is provided through our public school funding formula. The special schools is simply a budget component where we have funding set aside for special projects," such as the Alaska School for the Deaf and the Alaska Military Youth Academy. A different budget component, the Foundation Program, governs special needs programs in the public school system.

And in any case, the decrease in funding for special schools is illusory. Palin moved the Alaska Military Youth Academy's ChalleNGe program (http://www.ngycp.org/), a residential military school program that teaches job and life skills to students under 20, out of the budget line for "special schools" and into its own line. This resulted in an apparent drop of more than $5 million in the special schools budget with no actual decrease in funding for the programs.
Not a Book Burner

One accusation claims then-Mayor Palin threatened to fire Wasilla’s librarian for refusing to ban books from the town library. Some versions of the rumor come complete with a list of the books that Palin allegedly attempted to ban. Actually, Palin never asked that books be banned; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication. The librarian was fired, but was told only that Palin felt she didn’t support her. She was re-hired the next day. The librarian never claimed that Palin threatened outright to fire her for refusing to ban books.

It’s true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla’s librarian, on at least two occasions, three in some versions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition each time. But, as the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman (Wasilla’s local paper) reported at the time, Palin asked general questions (http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/05/breaking_news/doc48c1c8a60d6d9379155484.txt) about what Emmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned. According to Emmons, Palin "was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons' position would change if residents were picketing the library. Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny, who was at the meeting, corroborates Emmons' story, telling (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-palin-book_bdsep07,0,3537053.story) the Chicago Tribune that "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' "

Palin characterized the exchange differently, initially volunteering the episode as an example of discussions with city employees about following her administration's agenda. Palin described her questions to Emmons as “rhetorical,” noting that her questions "were asked in the context of professionalism regarding the library policy that is in place in our city." Actually, true rhetorical questions have implied answers (e.g., “Who do you think you are?”), so Palin probably meant to describe her questions as hypothetical or theoretical. We can't read minds, so it is impossible for us to know whether or not Palin may actually have wanted to ban books from the library or whether she simply wanted to know how her new employees would respond to an instruction from their boss. It is worth noting that, in an update, the Frontiersman points out that no book was ever banned from the library’s shelves.

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 (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-palin-book_bdsep07,0,3537053.story), 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 (http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/510219.html). 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 (http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/510219.html) 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.

So what about that list of books targeted for banning, which according to one widely e-mailed version was taken “from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board”? If it was, the library board should take up fortune telling. The list includes the first four Harry Potter books, none of which had been published at the time of the Palin-Emmons conversations. The first wasn't published until 1998. In fact, the list is a simple cut-and-paste job, snatched (complete with typos and the occasional incorrect title) from the Florida Institute of Technology library Web page, (http://www.lib.fit.edu/pubs/librarydisplays/bannedbooks/website.htm) which presents the list as “Books banned at one time or another in the United States.”

Update, Sept. 9: We have revised this section dealing with accusations that Palin wanted to ban books from Wasilla's library to include more detail about what transpired at the time.


Closet Secessionist?


Palin was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party – which calls for a vote on whether Alaska should secede from the union or remain a state – despite mistaken reports to the contrary. But her husband was a member for years, and she attended at least one party convention, as mayor of the town in which it was held.

The party's chair originally told reporters that Palin had been a member, but the official later retracted that statement. Chairwoman Lynette Clark told the New York Times (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/alaska-party-official-says-palin-was-not-a-member/?scp=2&sq=palin%20independence%20party&st=cse) that false information had been given to her by another member of the party after she first told the Times and others that Palin joined the AIP in 1994. Clark issued an apology (http://www.akip.org/090308.html) on the AIP Web site.

The director of Alaska’s Division of Elections, Gail Fenumiai, confirms that Palin registered to vote in the state for the first time in May 1982 as a Republican and hasn’t changed her party affiliation since. She also told FactCheck.org that Palin’s husband, Todd, was registered with AIP from October 1995 to July 2000, and again from September 2000 until July 2002. (He has since been registered as undeclared.) However, the AIP says Todd Palin "never participated (http://www.akip.org/index.html) in any party activities aside from attending a convention in Wasilla at one time."

There is still some dispute as to whether Sarah Palin also attended the AIP’s 1994 convention, held in Wasilla. Clark and another AIP official (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/another-aip-off.html)told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that both Palins were there. Palin was elected mayor of Wasilla two years later. The McCain campaign says Sarah Palin went to the 2000 AIP convention, also held in Wasilla, “as a courtesy since she was mayor.” As governor, Palin sent a video message (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI) to the 2008 convention, which is available on YouTube, and the AIP says she attended in 2006 when she was campaigning.


Didn't Endorse Pat Buchanan


Claims that Palin endorsed conservative Republican Pat Buchanan for president in the 2000 campaign are false. She worked for conservative Republican Steve Forbes.

The incorrect reports stem from an Associated Press story on July 17, 1999, that said Palin was "among those sporting Buchanan buttons" at a lunch for Buchanan attended by about 85 people, during a swing he took through Fairbanks and Wasilla. Buchanan didn't help matters (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/jstreet/350730/sarah_palin_buchananite) when he told a reporter for the liberal publication The Nation on Aug. 29: "I'm pretty sure she's a Buchananite." But in fact, she wasn't.

Soon after The AP story appeared, Palin wrote in a letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News that she had merely worn a Buchanan button as a courtesy to her visitor and was not endorsing him. The letter, published July 26, 1999, said:

Palin, July 26, 1999: As mayor of Wasilla, I am proud to welcome all presidential candidates to our city. This is true regardless of their party, or the latest odds of their winning. When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I'll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect.

Though no reporter interviewed me for the Associated Press article on the recent visit by a presidential candidate (Metro, July 17), the article may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla. As mayor, I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla.
Palin actually worked for Forbes. Less than a month after being spotted wearing the "courtesy" button for Buchanan, she was named to the state leadership committee of the Forbes effort. The Associated Press reported on Aug. 7, 1999:

The Associated Press, Aug. 7 1999: State Sen. Mike Miller of Fairbanks will head the Alaska campaign chairman for Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes, campaign officials said. Joining the Fairbanks Republican on the leadership committee will be Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin, and former state GOP chairman Pete Hallgren, who will serve as co-chairs.
Still, after nine years, the truth has yet to catch up completely.

No Creationism in Schools


On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That's true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.

In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied:

Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.
A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying:
Palin, Oct. 2006: I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.
After her election, Palin let the matter drop. The Associated Press reported Sept 3: "Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them. ... It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans." The article was headlined, "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_creationism)." It was written by Dan Joling, who reports from Anchorage and has covered Alaska for 30 years.

That E-mail Author


Switching gears: Almost 100 readers have written to ask us if the many claims made about Palin in an e-mail written by someone named Anne Kilkenny are true. We can tell you that Kilkenny is a real person. (She was quoted by the Chicago Tribune, as we said above.) According to the New York Times, she’s a Democrat. According to Kilkenny herself, Palin “has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah’s attempt at censorship."

We’re still analyzing Kilkenny’s claims, and we will be posting something on this soon.





—by Brooks Jackson, Jessica Henig, Emi Kolawole, Joe Miller and Lori Robertson


Sources
Sutton, Anne. "Governor signs revamped education package into law." Anchorage Daily News, 28 Mar. 2008.

Holland, Megan. "Intensive needs funding examined." Anchorage Daily News, 12 Jan. 2008.

Cavanagh, Sean. "Alaska Legislators Overhaul Funding (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/04/30/35recaps.h27.html)." Education Week, 29 Apr. 2008.
Joling, Dan. "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." The Associated Press, 3 Sept. 2008.

Hayes, Christopher. "Sarah Palin, Buchananite. (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/jstreet/350730/sarah_palin_buchananite)" The Nation "Capitolism" Web site, 29 Aug. 2008.

Palin, Sarah. "Letters from the People." Anchorage Daily News. 26 July 1999; 5B.

The Associated Press: "Forbes sets Alaska leadership team," 7 Aug 1999.

Kizzia, Tom. "'Creation science' enters the race." Anchorage Daily News, 27 Oct. 2006.

Paulson, Michael. "Sarah Palin on faith, life and creation." The Boston Globe, 29 Aug. 2008.

Tapper, Jake. “Another AIP Official Says Palin Was at 1994 Convention (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/another-aip-off.html).” ABCNews.com, 2 Sept. 2008.

Tapper, Jake. “Members of ‘Fringe’ Alaskan Independence Party Incorrectly Say Palin Was a Member in 90s (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html).” ABCNews.Com, 1Sept. 2008.

Komarnitsky, S.J. "Wasilla Keeps Librarian, But Police Chief Is Out (http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/510219.html)." 1 February 1997. The Anchorage Daily News, 8 Sept. 2008.

Stuart, Paul. "FROM THE ARCHIVE: Palin: Library Censorship Inquiries 'Rhetorical' (http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/05/breaking_news/doc48c1c8a60d6d9379155484.txt)." 18 December 1996. Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, 8 Sept. 2008.

White, Rindi. "Palin Asked City Librarian Whether She'd Ban Books (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-palin-book_bdsep07,0,3537053.story)." 7 September 2008. The Chicago Tribune, 8 Sept. 2008.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

Mr. Peabody
09-13-2008, 03:55 PM
You know that FactCheck has summaries you can use, right?

Biernutz
09-13-2008, 04:07 PM
You know that FactCheck has summaries you can use, right?

I posted the whole article because it took up who Anne Kilkenny is and why her name keeps coming up. I guess I missed the summary you are talking about---Link?

boutons_
09-13-2008, 04:40 PM
factcheck last week, in chiding McWorse for distorting factcheck's reports, suggested some the Palin slime was coming from the right, not the left.

I love to hear the sliming right-wingers whining like self-righteous bitches when the slime is thrown back at them. pussies, wimps, dickless

Aggie Hoopsfan
09-13-2008, 05:01 PM
factcheck last week, in chiding McWorse for distorting factcheck's reports, suggested some the Palin slime was coming from the right, not the left.

I love to hear the sliming right-wingers whining like self-righteous bitches when the slime is thrown back at them. pussies, wimps, dickless

But you get your panties in a bunch when anyone throws your liberal slime back in your face.

Pussy, wimp, dickless.

boutons_
09-13-2008, 05:22 PM
nope, it's disgusting, my panties are fine. McWorse has convinced me he will do anything to win, Bent-Talk Express, slime, outright repeated lies. It's gonna cost him some backlash.

nobody trusts his word any more, no honor, no civility. fuck 'em, we've had too much of that kinda of degrading shit from the Repugs

Aggie Hoopsfan
09-13-2008, 05:30 PM
nobody trusts his word any more, no honor, no civility.

You really are a dick. :lol Obama changes his opinions on topics as often as he changes his underwear. I don't have any respect for anyone who says McCain has no honor or civility to him. He's not the one trotting out ads lamenting his use of email when his hands are crippled from his time as a POW...

ploto
09-13-2008, 06:04 PM
THREE different news organizations with three different sources have corroborated the account about the book banning discussion- none in support of Palin's portrayal. The list being circulated did not come from any of those sources or news accounts. That list is simply a list of the most commonly banned books- not any list that came from her.

Even if you do not want to believe she actually wanted books banned, the story of how she tried to micromanage and control every department head in the city government is cause enough for concern.


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.


Palin described her questions to Emmons as “rhetorical,” noting that her questions "were asked in the context of professionalism regarding the library policy that is in place in our city."
I guess she has no clue what this word means.

jochhejaam
09-13-2008, 08:55 PM
1. Palin found the content of some books objectionable (oh, the horror!)

2. There were no banned books.

3. There was no list.


Not much of a story (except for slimers)

Wild Cobra
09-13-2008, 09:41 PM
1. Palin found the content of some books objectionable (oh, the horror!)

2. There were no banned books.

3. There was no list.


Not much of a story (except for slimers)
I heard the list that was published contained Harry Potter books that were not yet written!

bobbyjoe
09-13-2008, 11:18 PM
1. Palin found the content of some books objectionable (oh, the horror!)

2. There were no banned books.

3. There was no list.


Not much of a story (except for slimers)

What about the fact that she did fire the librarian, only to rehire her once public sentiment was strongly against Palin? Palin claims it was because the "librarian and her weren't seeing eye to eye". So the librarian was fired for a reason other than job performance. How often do you hear about something like that happening?

You can't exactly shrug this off as an isolated incident given Troopergate either.

In a very short to date political career Palin has shown a tendency to be quite power-hungry and vindictive against those who don't agree with her.

I don't care what side of the aisle you are on, repeated allegations of abuse of power have to concern you at some level. The last thing we need is another stubborn, egotistical President who always thinks he/she is right and shuns and even punishes those who dare disagree. That's not what America is about.

101A
09-13-2008, 11:59 PM
What about the fact that she did fire the librarian, only to rehire her once public sentiment was strongly against Palin?

(credible) link?

efrem1
09-14-2008, 12:32 AM
You can't exactly shrug this off as an isolated incident given Troopergate either.



On a personal note, I get tired of this "-gate" nonsense. Watergate, filegate, Monicagate. As for the trooper incident, I say whatever. After reading histories of Richard J. Daliey, Bob Maestri, James Michael Curley, Jimmy Walker and reading the stuff about Kwame Kilpatrick, I have come to the conclusion that no matter how corrupt the Dems are, you guys will vote for anybody as long as you get the benefits and the checks.

bobbyjoe
09-14-2008, 02:11 AM
(credible) link?

It's from the article at the beginning of this thread by factcheck.org:

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.

This is another article: http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/510219.html

The language in Palin's comments is a little bit scary (i.e. "if you dont support me, you are done"). Why were all department heads subject to loyalty tests? Whom else would they be in threat of being loyal to?

Hopefully, she's matured a lot if she goes on to become President, but on the surface from the limited data we have about her (and like you, I do struggle to accept something from a questionable link so it's a little hard to sift through hyperbole vs. fact vs lie) it's fair to say IMO that there are legitimate questions as to how well she'll work in Washington when you cant just try to bully people around who dont share your beliefs or views.

Regardless of what her intentions were or what the real truth is, firing someone and coming up with such a vague reason such as "i didnt feel i had her committment" and then rehiring her the next day smells to me. It sounds an awful lot like the very vague reasons given for the firing of Monegan.

I wish this librarian would come out of hiding and speak on the issue so we'd have a little more information to go on. But apparently, she will just not talk...

I think it's a shame that the stupid media had to go on and on about Palin's baby with down syndrome and her pregnant teenager, etc. The media crusade against her was so strong that now many people will simply write off any questions about her history as slander and media sensationalism.

Because there are some legitimate issues about her past IMO that have absolutely nothing to do with her family or her gender. Questions I'd like answers to in order to make a more informed decision in November. Answers we probably wont have until after the election (i.e. the outcome of the pending investigation against her).

If only McCain wasn't 72. This would all be irrelevant then. :blah

PixelPusher
09-14-2008, 02:12 AM
EDIT: ^beat me to it by a hair.


(credible) link?

You could just scroll back to the beginning of this thread, were factcheck.org states:

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.”
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/510219.html

...or you can just retreat into the always convenient "all media is liberally biased" sensory deprivation cocoon, which would end all meaningful discussion.

mogrovejo
09-14-2008, 09:26 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-09-Palin-book-ban_N.htm"Sarah

Palin has never asked anyone to ban a book," Griffin said. "It shouldn't be surprising that the new mayor of a city that had seen recent protests over books and was in the process of re-evaluating the book-challenge policies at its library would ask the librarian what those policies were."

mogrovejo
09-14-2008, 09:28 AM
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.”

So, an e-mail from one of the fiercest Palin's political oponents quoted on a democrat-leaning newspaper?

Hey, what about start using Alan Keyes remarks on Obama as facts? Makes sense to you, I suppose...

bobbyjoe
09-14-2008, 05:38 PM
So, an e-mail from one of the fiercest Palin's political oponents quoted on a democrat-leaning newspaper?

Hey, what about start using Alan Keyes remarks on Obama as facts? Makes sense to you, I suppose...

Do you think Factcheck.org and the Alaska Anchorage lean Democratic?

Wow...

spurster
09-15-2008, 08:23 AM
Oooo. I can quote factcheck, too!

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html

Palin says Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy. Not true. Not even close.

Summary

Palin claims Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." That's not true.

Alaska did produce 14 percent of all the oil from U.S. wells last year, but that's a far cry from all the "energy" produced in the U.S.

Alaska's share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

And if by "supply" Palin meant all the energy consumed in the U.S., and not just produced here, then Alaska's production accounted for only 2.4 percent.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/belittling_palin.html

A McCain-Palin TV ad accuses Obama of being "disrespectful" of Palin, but it distorts quotes to make the case.

Summary

The McCain-Palin campaign has released a new TV ad that distorts quotes from the Obama campaign. It takes words out of context to make it sound as though the Democratic ticket is belittling Palin:

* The ad says "they said she was doing 'what she was told.' " But the Obama adviser who's being quoted didn't accuse Palin of meekly following orders. What he actually said is that she made a false claim about Obama's legislative record and added, "maybe that's what she was told."

* It says "they lashed out at Sarah Palin; dismissed her as 'good looking,' " But "they" didn't lash out at all. Obama – who is the one pictured – didn't say anything like that. The only one the McCain campaign quotes is Obama's running mate, Biden, and he actually offered the remark as a compliment. Biden said the "obvious" difference between Palin and himself is "she's good looking."

* The ad says Obama was "disrespectful" when he accused Palin of "lying" about her record. But the truth is Palin's claim to have "said no" to the "bridge to nowhere" is indeed a dubious one, as we and many have pointed out.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html

Those attacks on Palin that we debunked didn't come from Obama.

Summary

A McCain-Palin ad has FactCheck.org calling Obama's attacks on Palin "completely false" and "misleading." That's what we said, but it wasn't about Obama.

Our article criticized anonymous e-mail falsehoods and bogus claims about Palin posted around the Internet. We have no evidence that any of the claims we found to be false came from the Obama campaign.

The McCain-Palin ad also twists a quote from a Wall Street Journal columnist. He said the Obama camp had sent a team to Alaska to "dig into her record and background." The ad quotes the WSJ as saying the team was sent to "dig dirt."

Update, Sept. 10: Furthermore, the Obama campaign insists that no researchers have been sent to Alaska and that the Journal owes them a correction.

Wild Cobra
09-15-2008, 04:11 PM
Wow...

Factcheck found something that Sarah said wrong.

OK, she made a mistake. How many is that compared to Obama or Biden?

Yes, Alaska (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=AK) supplies the USA with about 3.5% (2005 number) of the total energy production. However, it does product the USA with almost 20% of the domestic oil poduction, at 18.5% (2006 number).

I think when you are a bit nervous during an interview, it is understandable to exchange "energy" and "oil".

However... you libtards must simply be estatic... She got one wrong.

Where will number two be?

JoeChalupa
09-15-2008, 04:45 PM
Get the facts people. They are out there!!!!!