Just because I read Sullivan doesn’t mean that I agree with everything he says. I don’t give a hoot whether Trig is really Palin’s baby. However, coming from someone who insists that Obama isn’t really a citizen until he produces his birth certificate, you shouldn’t be throwing stones at anyone who demands proof from any politician.

And so my statement will “protect” me from what, exactly? Sullivan has presented evidence of her lies, and quite openly asks anyone, including anyone from Palin’s camp, to explain the lie as somehow truthful. That includes you, dear Dangermouse. If you think that any of the lies quoted above are in fact Palin’s truthful statements, then please do refute everyone. In one sweep, you can embarass Sullivan, me, and all the rest of Palin’s detractors. So could Palin. But, naturally, you can’t. Instead, you merely insult and issue vague threats. I guess that’s all you really have left, isn’t it? Heck, even Skylar admits these are lies, and now we are merely arguing over the import of them.

Personally, I don’t really care about Palin. Evidently, she gives you ‘starbursts’, and there is no reasoning with someone biten with her bug. She isn’t going anywhere, except to the bank, and I’m perfectly content with that.

On Palin’s request the State Personnel Board investigated, hiring an independent counsel. She was fully cleared by that investigation. The fact that you want to believe in the accusation, not in the adjudicated result, doesn’t make her statement a lie. She was cleared.

Either your reading comprehension is exceptionally poor, or you must think the people you are addressing are exceptionally stupid. I can’t think of any other possibilities.

When Palin said on 10/11/08 that she had been “cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity,” she was not describing the results of the State Personnel Board investigation. She could not possibly have been describing the results of that investigation because the results of that investigation (under the direction of a board appointed by the governor) were not announced until 11/3/08. Do you understand that the arrow of time always moves forward?

When Palin said on 10/11/08 that she had been “cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity,” she was describing the results of the Branchflower investigation, which had been announced the prior day. Trouble is, her description was false.

The issue (at the moment) is not which report is more credible. The issue is that she made a false statement about the Branchflower report.

By the way, the Petumenos report is a joke, as I demonstrated in detail here.

What’s the lie?

Palin’s lie is that she falsely described the outcome of the Branchflower investigation. And your lie is to pretend that her statement about the Branchflower report was a statement about a different report that hadn’t even been released yet.

So, you want to admit that you just lied about her?

So, do you want to admit that your feeble attempt to whitewash Palin’s lie is incoherent gibberish?

jukeboxgrad: Feel free to explain how this is something other than a “demonstrated lie.”

What’s the lie? A private investigator under the direction of a Democratic legislator made that conclusion. On Palin’s request the State Personnel Board investigated, hiring an independent counsel. She was fully cleared by that investigation. The fact that you want to believe in the accusation, not in the adjudicated result, doesn’t make her statement a lie. She was cleared.

So, you want to admit that you just lied about her?

geokstr: Let’s also keep in mind, that, unlike a lot of the major pols in the lower 48, she had not been campaigning for the next higher office as soon as she was sworn into the current one…

Living in Juneau and working with the state legislature at the time of her election, I would argue that she was campaigning for higher office as soon as she was elected governor. The political scuttlebutt at the time, however, was that she was gunning for U.S. Senate, probably Ted Steven’s position.
Many political people noticed that Governor Palin carefully avoided speaking engagements that were politically sensitive after the election. She turned down invitations to speak at both the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) convention and at the Alaska Municipal League (AML) convention. In both cases, she was too busy cutting ribbons at, respectively, a Wal-Mart and a strip mall. The AFN represents much of the rural parts of the state, and strongly push for a subsistence priority for natives, a political hot potato in Alaska. The AML represents Alaska city mayors and local governments. At the time they were arguing for continuation of the power cost equalization payments to rural communities, which went against Ms. Palin’s political base.
Perhaps these snubs were less political maneuvering and more petty vindictiveness, hard to tell. She is vindictive of people who disagree with her and, as others have noted, she is thin-skinned. But many people noticed that Governor Palin was often “missing in action” after her election. A popular bumper sticker in Juneau at the time read “Hey Sarah – The Job’s In Juneau”.

“Palin lied because someone else did something else” is not a “demonstrated lie.”

Feel free to explain how this is something other than a “demonstrated lie.”

I had been under the impression that Obama’s LSATs weren’t available

Any theory about why Palin has failed to release transcripts from the five colleges she attended? What’s she trying to hide? Likewise, have you seen McCain’s transcripts? Or Romney’s? Or their birth certificates?

Are you aware of any recent candidates who released their college transcript when they were candidates? Dubya didn’t release his: it was leaked. And Kerry didn’t release his until long after he was no longer a candidate. And we still haven’t seen their birth certificates. How do we know Dubya wasn’t born while his mom and dad were traveling in China?

Hopefully someone will explain why Obama has been expected to do things that no other candidate has done.

========================
Hi Chris, good to see you. I started posting here years ago, shortly after comments were first opened. And my pattern over the entire period has been to come and go, often taking long breaks. Sometimes this has led to premature celebration by certain parties. Rumors of my demise etc.

However, I do greatly dislike the new formatting. Have you noticed that traffic is down? I think I’m not the only one.

On the other hand, there’s nothing like a Palin thread. How could I stay away? She and her supporters are highly entertaining. More than anything else, she’s an entertainer. Her highest skill is attracting attention (both the positive kind and the negative kind). That’s why she and the press are locked in their mutually profitable embrace.

Palin whines about getting negative attention, but her worst nightmare is that the press will stop paying attention. Palin, like Rush, is all about attracting attention. Substance and integrity are quite secondary to that. The GOP is in solid hands.

Randy: Ditto. As I said before, her actions towards Levi are of little interest to me. Laura keeps pressing me about it, and I’ve answered, but I stated I care much more about Palin’s demonstrated lies.

But for a complete list, here you go:

“Palin lied because someone disagreed with her” is not a “demonstrated lie.” Nor is “Palin lied because she said X and if I were in her shoes I would have done Y” is not a “demonstrated lie.” “Palin lied because someone else did something else” is not a “demonstrated lie.”

eyesay: Order of the Coif wrote “Obama is smart (as his LSAT scores demonstrate) but he’s a lazy, ignorant, ditherer.” What you call “dithering” I call “coming to decisions after listening to all interested parties.” That is how a community organizer sees the world, in contrast to President George W. Bush, whose governing was “my way or the highway.”

Hrm, yah, possibly… of course all interested parties already said what they were going to say months ago. Face it, everyone, Obama isn’t dithering, he is delaying.

The woman is a pitiful joke. Facebook is exactly where she should be and stay.

The fact that this fact doesn’t even enter Somin’s analysis is important information about Somin, VC, and the GOP. And it fits in with a history here of supporting Palin’s efforts to revise history regarding Troopergate.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by jasonmcclain: Sympathetic yet rational and critical review of Palin and Going Rogue ::: from the Volokh Conspiracy, natch.
http://bit.ly/85Hd40...

I think this stacks up as kind of really small in the scale of politicians lying

If you think it’s OK for anyone (politician or otherwise) to lie as frequently and as blatantly as Palin does, then your standards are too low. But we already knew that.

a cop that tasers a 10 year old kid probably should be fired

Whether or not Wooten should have been fired has nothing to do with Palin claiming the Branchflower report didn’t say what it actually said. Nice job trying to change the subject.

By the way, you probably don’t realize that the Palin family waited two years to report the Taser incident. You also probably don’t realize that Bristol admitted to the police that they finally brought it up “because of the divorce.”

You also probably don’t realize that Palin claimed that Monegan was never pressured to fire Wooten, even though there is ample proof (including her own emails) that Monegan was pressured to fire Wooten.

You also probably don’t realize that Palin made a series of false accusations against Wooten.

The wiki article I’m citing includes links to primary sources (such as the original police interviews of Palin and her family) which support the claims in the article. Let me know if you can find any errors, or any claim that is not supported by a primary source.

I suppose when you don’t actively stop subordinates from acting to get a cop fired

Nice try. Palin and her staff repeatedly pressured Monegan to fire Wooten, and then Palin claimed that Monegan was never pressured to fire Wooten. If a lie that transparent means nothing to you, then you and Palin are made for each other.

With Palin the lies never stop. I’ll be disappointed if the GOP picks someone else. She’s exactly who they deserve.

Oh, and Randy, I think it’s clear that you’re a Trig Truther. If you read Sullivan at all, then you know his reputation is in the gutter because he’s acting Trutherish regarding whether Trig is really Palin’s baby. Do you seriously think denying it is going to protect you? Sorry. I used to think at least you had some brains, but if you’re on board with Sullivan “just questioning” Trig and Palin, then you’re insane.

When we talk of politicians lying, usually we expect that they all lie. Haven’t seen one that doesn’t, have you? There are limits to what one might allow for. Perjury is one I draw the line at, but most of the democrat party a dozen or so years ago seemed to think it’s okay.

Any politician coming out of Chicago has no room to complain about lying politicians. Corruption is so institutionalized that the Governor felt free to speak openly about it when he knew he was under investigation.

But I suppose when you don’t actively stop subordinates from acting to get a cop fired (a cop that works for the Governor) because he tasered a ten year old kid, then I suppose you might could kind of call that a lie. Maybe. Doesn’t really matter. I doubt I’d vote for the lady or that most people would. But I sure appreciate how she is getting people to listen to her, and I find it unpardonable that even here on a vaguely respectable blog that she is discussed in a post titled “Palin, Ignorance and Stupidity Revisited.” That title says more about the bigotry of the author than the supposed stupidity of the subject.

The reason that Palin is compared to Obama is that the dems kept Joe Biden–remember him? he was candidate for VP, same as Palin–out of sight. Joe “the Gaffemaster” is so dumb that there was no way the dems could allow appreciations of him to be be matched with appreciations of Palin. . . . It wasn’t the republicans who decided to hide Biden and leave Obama the only target in sight.

I’m not sorry to rain on your Palin parade, Richard. Your theory that the public resonated with Palin and not with Biden does not jibe with the facts.

There was a televised debate between Sen. Biden and Gov. Palin on October 2, 2008. According to a poll of uncommitted voters conducted immediately after the debate by CBS News and the former Knowledge Network, 46% thought Senator Biden won the debate, 21% thought Governor Palin had won, and 33% thought it was a tie. Fox News Channel held a poll regarding the performance of each candidate, with 51% of the votes in favor of Biden, and 39% in favor of Palin. The Opinion Research Corporation’s poll on the debate revealed that 51% of viewers felt Biden had won, while 36% were in favor of Palin. In the same poll, 87% said Biden was capable of fulfilling the duties of the vice presidency, while 42% said Palin is. Source with additional references

The proof has nothing to do with Andrew Sullivan, so hiding behind him isn’t going to work.

I’ve provided the link. If you choose to ignore, that’s your problem, not mine.

“Good lord, now we’re going to have “serious” discussions of politics based on teenagers and which one broke up with the other first. I’m out of this.”

Ditto. As I said before, her actions towards Levi are of little interest to me. Laura keeps pressing me about it, and I’ve answered, but I stated I care much more about Palin’s demonstrated lies.

But for a complete list, here you go:

Palin lied when she said the dismissal of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, had nothing to do with his refusal to fire state trooper Mike Wooten; in fact, the Branchflower Report concluded that she repeatedly abused her power when dealing with both men.
Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed to have said, “Thanks, but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere; in fact, she openly campaigned for the federal project when running for governor.
Palin lied when she denied that Wasilla’s police chief and librarian had been fired; in fact, both were given letters of termination the previous day.
Palin lied when she wrote in the NYT that a comprehensive review by Alaska wildlife officials showed that polar bears were not endangered; in fact, email correspondence between those scientists showed the opposite.
Palin lied when she claimed in her convention speech that an oil gas pipeline “began” under her guidance; in fact, the pipeline was years from breaking ground, if at all.
Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy.
Palin lied when she denied having said that humans do not contribute to climate change; in fact, she had previously proclaimed that human activity was not to blame.
Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska produces 20 percent of the country’s domestic energy supply; in fact, the actual figures, based on any interpretation of her words, are much, much lower.
Palin lied when she told voters she improvised her convention speech when her teleprompter stopped working properly; in fact, all reports showed that the machine had functioned perfectly and that her speech had closely followed the script.
Palin lied when she recalled asking her daughters to vote on whether she should accept the VP offer; in fact, her story contradicts details given by her husband, the McCain campaign, and even Palin herself. (She later added another version.)
Palin lied when she claimed to have taken a voluntary pay cut as mayor; in fact, as councilmember she had voted against a raise for the mayor, but subsequent raises had taken effect by the time she was mayor.
Palin lied when she insisted that Wooten’s divorce proceedings had caused his confidential records to become public; in fact, court officials confirmed they released no such records.
Palin lied when she suggested to Katie Couric that she was involved in trade missions with Russia; in fact, she has never even met with Russian officials.
Palin lied when she told Shimon Peres that the only flag in her office was the Israeli flag; in fact, she has several flags.
Palin lied when she claimed to have tried to divest government funds from Sudan; in fact, her administration openly opposed a bill that would have done just that.
Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed that troop levels in Iraq were back to pre-surge levels; in fact, even she acknowledged her “misstatements,” though she refused to retract or apologize.
Palin lied when she insisted that the Branchflower Report “showed there was no unlawful or unethical activity on my part”; in fact, that report prominently stated, “Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.”
Palin lied when she claimed to have voiced concerns over Wooten fearing he would harm her family; in fact, she actually decreased her security detail during that period.
Palin lied when asked about the $150,000 worth of clothes provided by the RNC; in fact, solid reporting contradicted several parts of her statement.
Palin lied when she suggested that she had offered the media proof of her pregnancy with Trig to “correct the record”; in fact, no reports of her medical records were ever published; and the letter from her doctor testifying to her good health only emerged hours before polling ended on election day, even though there was nothing in it that couldn’t have been released two months earlier.
Palin lied when she said that “reported” allegations of her banning Harry Potter as mayor was easily refutable because it had not even been written yet; in fact, the first book in that series was published in 1998 – two years into her first term – and such rumors were never reported by the media, only circulated as emails.
Palin lied when she denied having participated in a clothes audit with campaign laywers; in fact, the Washington Times later confirmed those details.
Palin lied when asked about Couric’s question regarding her reading habits; in fact, Couric’s words were not, “What do you read up there in Alaska?” or anything close to condescension.
Palin lied when she mischaracterized the “$1200 check” given to Alaskans as the permanent fund dividend check; in fact, that fund had yielded $2,069 per person, and she claimed otherwise to obscure the fact that Alaskans also received a $1200 rebate check from a windfall profits tax on oil companies – a tax widely criticized by Republicans.
Palin lied when she claimed to be unaware of a turkey being slaughtered behind her during a filmed interview; in fact, the cameraman said she had picked the spot herself, while the slaughter was underway.
Palin lied when she denied having rejected federal stimulus money; in fact, she continued to accept and reject the funds several times.
Palin lied when she claimed that legislative leaders had canceled a meeting with her to hold their own press conference; in fact, they only canceled it after being told she would not participate, and the purpose of the press conference was very different from the meeting’s.
Palin lied when she announced on the news that she never holds closed-door meetings; in fact, she had just attended a closed-door meeting with the legislature earlier that day.
Palin lied when she said that former aide John Bitney’s “amicable” departure was for “personal” reasons; in fact, Bitney said he was fired because of his relationship with the wife of Palin’s friend, plus a Palin spokesperson later claimed “poor job performance” for his firing – without elaborating.
Palin lied when she said she kept her running injury a secret on the campaign trail; in fact, her bandaged hand was clearly visible in photographs and the story was widely talked about.
Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska has spent “millions of dollars” on litigation related to her ethics complaints; in fact, that figure is much, much lower, and she had initiated the most expensive inquiry.
Palin lied when she denied that the Alaska Independence Party supports secession and denied that her husband had been a member; in fact, even the McCain campaign noted that the party’s very existence is based on secession and that Todd was a member for seven years.
Palin lied when she told Oprah that she desperately wanted to go on Saturday Night Live because it would be “fun” and could push back on the Tina Fey impression Palin says she hated but never actually listened to. Contemporaneous emails show that Palin resisted going on SNL and was therefore lying to Oprah.
Palin lied when she told Oprah Winfrey that she gaffed on the campaign trail in saying that the McCain campaign shouldn’t quit Michigan. She said she had been unaware at the time that the decision to withdraw had already been taken. Contemporaneous emails show she was lying, and had already been told.
Palin lied in “Going Rogue: in accusing two journalists she recognized from a press conference as ambushing her daughter Piper on the street. One of those journalists had never attended the press conference cited by Palin, but Palin has never withdrawn the charge.

I’m solidly pro-Obama, and yet Sarah Palin is actually too socialist for my taste, with the added burden of being the most single greatest hypocrite of my political generation. Sarah Palin ran, and expanded, the single most unrestrained welfare state among the 50 states. Sarah Palin’s policy record on handing out free money made Massachusetts look like Alabama. And she’s *against* socialism? Hahahahahaha! Sarah Palin is for anything that makes Sarah Palin look good and sell tickets. Fiscally, she’s the equivalent of John Hagee – someone who lives the life they demonize. She makes Richard Nixon look principled.

If she ever ran for president, a major ad campaign along these lines would wipe her out among independents and turn her into Mitt Romney.

In a field of Republican candidates, her record is literally dead last on “free-market principles”. There’s no one you could name who she could be ahead. She ran Alaska along the Saudi Arabia plan, without the Islam.

Also, as I understand it, it was Bristol and not Levi who ended their relationship.

Good lord, now we’re going to have “serious” discussions of politics based on teenagers and which one broke up with the other first. I’m out of this.

No, no. They build their own roads.

ChrisTS:
This interests me. Perhaps a good libertarian (or anarchist?) should reimburse all the other members of the polity — individualy, of course — for all the goods s.he has enjoyed and including the costs of distributing goods such as education , roads, ambulances, the national grid, etc..Then s/he can purchase property as yet unowned to undertake his/her vision of just living with other like-minded folks. Otherwise, it’s all just a bid for free-riding.

Yes, and they could all live in the planned unit development “Galt’s Giveaway”, in houses built of materials paid for by the taxpayers of Wasilla, and drive on roads and highways paid for by the taxes of all Americans on the way to their taxpayer-subsidized (meaning the book was written while on the government payroll) book tour. At least our esteemed ex-governor didn’t attend any taxpayer-funded public colleges or accept any taxpayer-funded health care for herself or any of her children or any taxpayer-funded travel benefits for herself or any of her children. You know the rest……………

Also, as I understand it, it was Bristol and not Levi who ended their relationship.

You are changing the subject. The fact that Obama did something does not excuse Palin.

It does if she’s accused of being worse in comparison to people like Obama.

Why would I assume that what Levi has to say is true? For several reasons: First, he hasn’t been a proven liar…

Sure, we don’t know what he said to Bristol. (“I swear I’ll love you forever”?)

Second, if he never give’s a dang about seeing his kid, then it’s highly unlikely he could care enough to actually sue for custody. He has nothing to gain by such a lawsuit and quite a bit to lose.

Right, because no one ever files a lawsuit out of spite. But what has he got to lose? Also, do you have evidence that he has in fact filed such a suit? Can’t find it on Smoking Gun.

Third, if it’s true, then it’s unlikely that he would have much of a case if he can’t show any interest in his own child.

Would he know that? Also, no one else seems to have any trouble filing frivolous lawsuits against Palin. Why would the people using him be any different?