In 1996, when Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, she asked her town librarian how she would respond to censoring books. According to the librarian at the time, three inquiries had been made by December 1996. Palin also asked for resignation letters from some department heads and high appointments that she inherited from her predecessor (including the librarian), several of which had publicly supported her opponent in the election.
That Palin would ask about censorship suggests, but doesn't prove, that she was very probably actually contemplating asking the library to censor or remove books.
As if the truth weren't bad enough, Palin's opponents are now distributing a long, apparently phony list of books that Palin tried to ban.
On the list are the first four Harry Potter books, all published first from mid-1997 through 2000 [in the UK, and from 1998 through 2000 in the US, AFTER the censorship policy inquiries were made].
UPDATE: I see that Michelle Malkin spotted the fake list before I did, and she notes that it's being spread on the Obama Campaign site. The post is by Mark Brickman, who is described as "a member of Obama San Mateo/California 12th Congressional District, a grassroots organization that is dedicated to the election of Barack Obama."
2d UPDATE: The list has now been determined to be a complete hoax. The list has nothing to do with Palin; it is one that has been circulating for years, with exactly the same books and in exactly the same order. It is a list of important or great books that have been banned from libraries somewhere at some time.
After being up for most of the day, the Obama campaign page spreading the phony list has now been deleted. The reason I listed the background of the official Obama website blogger was because, if I had not listed his position, it would have looked like it was probably coming from the Obama campaign leadership, rather than just a low-level local Obama campaign worker who was nonetheless given a national Obama blog.
What lies will be made up next?
Clear across the state, a dozen of "confessions".
Checked on others. Mostly ten and up.
Not buying the demand excuse.
Librarians ban books all the time by simply not acquiring them. Our local branch had "The Nation" but not "National Review" subscriptions.
Doesn't exactly do her credit, does it? Obviously you're going to replace the high political appointments from the previous governor, but a librarian?
Nah, that isn't it at all. Being the governor of Alaska is quite demanding. You've got the Alaska National Guard to equip, the Russians to deal with, all that land to watch over, snow shovels full of corrupt politicians to expose, and the Canadian border to watch. The real question is not whether Palin is qualified to be Vice President. No, what we should be asking ourselves is whether the United States can take the hit from moving such an experienced person away from such an important job, Governor of Alaska, to a much less significant one, Vice President.
Isn't it an important function of new media to point out the inconvenient truth (Palin contemplated book banning) along with exposing the apparent outright lies (Palin's supposed list of books she tried to ban)?
Let's face it. Neither McCain nor Biden are very interesting. They have been public figures for ages. People are rightly fascinated by the two new stars on the stage.
Then I checked for Penthouse. No go.
Palin casts a long shadow, evidently.
Palin once, as mayor, asked if the librarian if was OK to remove some books from the library as part of a policy discussion. The librarian said no. Palin took no action to remove any books.
Seriously, which is worse?
But I think it may actually be to McCain/Palin ticket's benefit to keep her from the media.
Every day we see more and more attempts to find scandals (just go read Digg.com, they'll all be on the front page.) A story about Palin allegedly making a racist remark about Obama, as overheard by a waitress, was a top story over there.
I imagine there's a large group of people out there who see the increasing speculation into her life and conclude there's a lot of outright hatred for Palin. They may think, "Why should she subject herself to this kind of nonsense from the press and media?"
The more Palin's access is limited, the more desperate people will be to attack her, which in turn helps solidify that impression.
I look forward to Lindgren exposing every fake blog comment and spoof email aimed at Obama.
2. As to its presence on an Obama campaign site, wouldn't it be fairer to note also that the early response there was quite negative, and objected to the posting on the ground that it was unverified and probably false? Certainly someone reading the site wouldn't get the impression that the posting was accepted as true or responsible by Obama supporters.
One does get the sense that this is less out pointing out inconvenient truths and outright lies than about dwelling on the latter -- or rather, broadcasting them beyond their original audience, with the hope of attributing them in an exaggerated way to others. At least guard against that.
I guess to Malkin that makes him a senior Obama advisor.
And?
Is the only point of this sentence an attempt to tie Obama to this vicariously? Sort of like, back in the day, when your references to Saddam's possession of WMDs, made you into a (vicarious) liar?
AT BEST, this "suggests, but doesn't prove" Obama wrongfully attacking Palin.
Far more likely, people are trying to fill the void of the silence from the bunker in Alaska that the GOP has created with whatever they can glean. Such a process inevitability produces erroneous details that take on their own life. Here is seems self-evident that, like a group 'playing telephone,' the details have become blurred as one person has commented unto another until the final, erroneous story emerges. The cure is hardly limiting speech to repeating campaign propaganda but rather the campaign producing truthful, detailed, and accurate information.
Unless you have news-breaking information on the identity of the original "faker" I would suggest that mere refutation of error is sufficient without trying to add politically motivated "spin." Better yet, you could actually produce Gov. Palin to provide answers herself.
(BTW: did you know Obama was really a Muslim?)
Frankly, merely *asking* about banning books sounds to me about as innocuous as asking "which members of the city government are Jewish ... just for future use, y'understand."
Jim, If you don't like her vote for someone else.
Unless you live in Wasilla, AK, I don't see how that is relevant. Or maybe you were being sarcastic.
I know it's typical to glorify one's biases, but how about getting to the story behind the story here?
It was (before being memory holed) on Obama.com. If anything, the sentence you find offensive serves to clarify that the statement is not an official one from the campaign but from one of his supporters.
***********
Perhaps more importantly, by limiting access to Palin while she is undergoing attacks, a massive audience is guaranteed for when she does finally "sit down" with the media in a way that allows her to speak directly to the American people -- rather than having her explanations/answers filtered by the media.
This strategy worked wonders last week -- the TV ratings for Palin's speech would have been far smaller had Palin been constantly accessible the prior week (and Palin's success on Wednesday led to greater interest in McCain's speech on Thursday; thanks to Palin, voters wanted to give McCain 'another look'. )
But some blogger who got a free my.obama blog site posted a fake banned book list and this is the objectionable part of the story.
Actually, no, as people pointed out above.
So, I got curious as to Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition of "barracuda."
Here is their second definition, with a link to it below. Pass this on to everybody you know.
bar·ra·cu·da
Pronunciation:
\ˌber-ə-ˈkü-də, ˌba-rə-\
2 : one that uses aggressive, selfish, and sometimes unethical methods to obtain a goal especially in business
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barracuda
I'd guess the MSM will be watching the 'sphere for something not debunked fast enough to see what they'll run.
Serious question: anyone know which media outlets will be performing these interviews? All it says in the schedule is "Media Interview." I would like to see the interviews and/or read about them.
Of course and of course. But slow down with the amateurish internet rumors. Ace can only write so fast.
let the riot begin.
Aside from my quick quip about the lateness of disappearing the blog (and I could have been nasty and mentioned how it was up for over 24 hours with multiple comments about how awful Palin was without anyone noticing how easily false the list was) a discussion of Pallin and censorship ensues. People who assume Jim is a partisan hack arrive and begin to attack the "Obama lies meme" (which is no where in evidence) with the "a Blogger is not the campaign" line, something everyone no doubt knows by now because it has happened so many times already (otherwise my quip about disappearing posts would not be funny).
Now a new attack, Jim Lingren is trying to divert attention from the real issue of Palin's censorship with lies (tm) confusing the Obama campaign with a blogger, because a bunch of his critics hijack one of his threads to argue about how it wrong to confuse Obama with Obama supporters. If it weren't so amusing I wouldn't support your hijacking of the thread, but seriously are you even reading the thread?
Try not to heap undue scorn. Surely someone might disagree with your reading of the post's thrust -- the headline, as you note parenthetically, was about the purported list; it's not clear at all what significance someone's submission to the Obama site was, but it was duly noted, without adverting to the abreaction that was readily evident there. Now I guess the post is gone, and the dozens of angry rejections of the made-up list, and only this post here sticks around.
You tell me: what's point of the headline? Of noting that "it's being spread on the Obama Campaign site"? And was noting Brickman's qualifications added to make the supposed link to the campaign stronger or weaker? I'm glad you're so amused by at all, and so careful in your reading, as opposed to anyone else.
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html
"In December 1996, [the librarian] 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.
Emmons told the Frontiersman she flatly refused to consider any kind of censorship. Emmons, now Mary Ellen Baker, is on vacation from her current job in Fairbanks and did not return e-mail or telephone messages left for her Wednesday.
ation from her current job in Fairbanks and did not return e-mail or telephone messages left for her Wednesday."
We'll need the librarian to return from vacation and comment on the story before putting this to rest completely.
It's hard to miss how smart they are, on the whole. Also a reminder that their work deserves utter respect.
http://www.librarian.net/stax/2366/sarah-palin-vp-nominee/
http://www.librarian.net/stax/2366/sarah-palin-vp-nominee/
As an incoming mayor, she would want to start figuring out what staffing changes she would need to make, and probably preferred to get it all done in the early days of her administration.
What?
Librarian??
Oh.
Never mind...
Palin did indeed fire the librarian. Letters went out terminating her, the police chief, and the other city managers. It's just that Palin had to backtrack on the firing of the librarian due to public outcry.
And as noted above, the Obama link doesn't work. I'm hoping they removed the link because of its dubious origins, in which case I think they deserve some credit for walking the walk.
To Palin opponents: The reason I listed the background of the poster was precisely the opposite of the one attributed to me. Read it again. If I had not listed his position, it would have looked like it was probably coming from the Obama campaign leadership, rather than a low-level local Obama campaign worker who was nonetheless given a blog. Other bloggers have been thrown off the site; I think a (former?) Communist education blogger was deleted.
To everyone: Has anyone nailed down the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine? Is Obama really supporting this? I haven't seen any evidence.
Isn't this only a problem because we have state-run libraries? While it's obviously good for children (and adults) to have ample access to books, it gives the state power that it would not otherwise have. (One can assume that, in the absence of public libraries, private libraries - either for profit or charitable - would spring up. The absence of publicly-funded DVD resulted in Blockbuster, Netflix, Cable on Demand, etc.)
The logical result is that you either have pseudo-censorship (not stocking the book in the library is not the same as forbidding people from possessing and reading it), or state-sponsored smut (Playboy, Penthouse).
I'm not sure I buy the idea that the lack of government-sponsored access is censorship. The problem is not with the substantive decisions made by state officials, but with the fact that they are making those decisions at all.
In a sense, we already have private libraries: bookstores.
Do you have the minutes from that meeting? I would like to see the question asked, and the context. Thank you.
I have not seen the list by I bet I could be analyzed to determine what would a leftist poor excuse for a politician considers 'dangerous books'
How many Bush appointees do you believe will keep their jobs in an Obama administration? Do you have any problem with that?
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's a longstanding tradition. One other issue that this (and Troopergate) points out is that she does have executive experience. She's had to manage people who had competing agendas. Whether or not she's been successful at it is your call to make, but there's a reason why these sort of issues aren't being raised with Obama and it isn't just because he's such a great guy.
My wife is a librarian - they are a liberal and even radical group and do get histrionic about censorship as they define it, i.e. questioning a librarian's acquisition.
Palin was likely thinking about books that could or should be removed. Jumping to the conclusion that any such volumes were her personal censorship list is unwarranted. She might well have been aware of an outcry about certain books from people who thought her a sympathetic ear. Learning "what does it take to get a book removed?" is not unreasonable when asked on behalf of the people who are purchasing those books (Librarians get huffy about their Higher Calling, and there's an argument to be made for that, but the taxpayers can do any damn fool thing they want). Palin was perhaps hoping it would be easy, a wink's as good as a nod to the librarian and everything would simmer down.
I offer that not as a possible scenario, but as a likely one.
We need someone as VP who completely understands God's will for a change -- it would be a lot of welcome clarity to McCain's policies.
Just saying.
SG, a librarian is generally not considered a political appointment, now were most of the others she fired. Palin did have the right to fire them since they were at will employees so what she did was legal. If the President had the same right to fire librarians or other such employees I would hope they wouldn't fire those who were doing a good job. A librarian isn't there to carry out any political policy.
I would think the reason these sort of issues aren't being raised with Obama is because he hasn't been in charge of non-political employees since his community organizing days when he was a director of a program that had 13 employees by the time he left.
Assistant Village Idiot, you have to admit that the librarian in this case doesn't sound the least bit histrionic (and does your wife know you consider them a radical group and do get histrionic about censorship as they define it")
Also for the librarian to have campaigned for or against Palin would be considered unethical by the ALA.
Here's the actual list: Sarah Palin Banned Books List.
Lots of interesting titles there ...
Richard,
What the hell are you trying to say here? Do you think it's better that someone be raped than call to light a political candidate's views on censorship?
Remember that the librarian only called out the story that Palin wanted to know how to ban books. It was a random commenter on her blog who made the comment with the list of books. The blogger then updated the post to indicate that the list was bogus.
For this she should be raped?
--PtM
The question of censorship is inane; nobody really believes that a library has an unfettered right to purchase for the library any book, magazine or other published material that they want. Furthermore, nobody really believes there are no legitimate circumstances to pull a book from the shelves of a public library.
There is a legitimate question for a mayor or member of the city council as to what the procedure is to question and possibly remove offending material from general circulation at their public library.
Another legitimate question is what elected officials should do if a librarian isn't purchasing sufficient material that the townspeople are interested in. A public library has a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers.
The bottom of the barrel is going to be absolutely spotless when this thing has played out.
How much ya'll wanna bet that you can search far and wide in most local libraries for Conservative books and not find any? Passive aggressive book burning by Liberals. It happens all the time yet I don't hear anybody howling about it. It happens in book stores too, when popular Conservative books get put behind the counter while the mountains of Bush-hating books clogging the tables blocks them from sight. That's the way it is, in fascist Amerikkka.
And what is this ridiculous Victorian romance with libraries anyway? As Peter Griffin says on "Family Guy" a library is "just a place where homeless people come to shave and go BM."
That's about what most local libraries are good for. This mouth-foaming notion that somehow the great brutal hand of government censorship is clamping around people's throats because somebody maybe wants to pull a few sleazy books off the shelf is ludicrous.
Librarians are in general sensitive to not acquiring children's books whose only goal is propaganda, such as "Heather Has Two Mommies." They might, however acquire a YA fiction title in which a teenager has gay parents, if the book had other things to recommend it. Many challenges are solved by placement, moving them from children's to YA or YA to adult. As a group, librarians are more likely to acquire more controversial titles that lean left, purchasing conservative titles only when popularity (of book, topic, or author) demands it. They are of the opinion that most people are exposed to conservative ideas already, and need liberal titles to broaden their horizons.
Frankly, I'm hoping for a nobleman too. But during our Revolution, we killed most of them on Bastille Day, which is called the Night of the Long Knives.
Keep trying to find a monster in Palin, it's not going to work.
Meanwhile, you just have to poke Obama and hundred skeletons fall out. But we wouldn't want to pry.
Prof. Lindgren, this is the least objective I've ever seen you.
You ought to re-think, starting from first premises.
First, congrats on knowing what "a fate worse than death" means. You must be older than dirt.
Think about the following concept...J O K E.
After my encounter with the cad (another old word), I got all kinds of help with my library needs. To the point that, although the folks in my branch don't turn over much, I always said, "My name is Aubrey and I understand I have a book in." Didn't want to seem to be taking anything, including my hero status, for granted.
Nevertheless, except for the lady whose husband writes for Townhall, they were all screaming liberals and I used to order conservative books just to annoy them. Interlibrary loans are a pain in the butt, I gather. So I'd order Buckley. Clancy.
Although, considering the number of times my helpful self has been told to take a hike by feminists, I may not be joking about them.
Keep trying to find a monster in Palin, it's not going to work."
They'll keep trying. But the American public makes its general assessment of a politician pretty quickly. First impressions count. It's probably too late to make her into a negative factor for McCain. Unless something REAL comes out, or she proves incompetent as a runningmate, it's going to be hard to convince people to be afraid of her.
What *specifically* did she say, and what was the context in which it was said? What has been provided so far isn't enough to know if she was making a point, or if she was asking to remove something she thought was offensive (or some other reason I'm not thinking of).
On the topic of library censorship, there's a good deal of it. Most of it is done by, at least in the large public library I worked in during school, "acquisition committees". This is a group of librarians who decide which books should be on the shelves. For instance, I always remember the micro-scandal when Limbaugh put out his first book. The committee decided to purchase 1 copy of the book. And it was put onto the "reserve stacks", which meant the book could only be read in the library, not checked out. And you couldn't get it yourself; you had to put in a request and wait for a staff member to go off and get it and give it to you.
This lasted about 2 weeks, until the public outcry was so great they had to buy a dozen or so more copies and put them into circulation. I don't mean this to suggest all librarians are liberals, but most of the ones I worked with certainly were. And they were happy to make up an excuse about how they couldn't buy a popular book that many people had put in early requests for (one way the library used to gauge if they needed to buy a lot of copies of an upcoming book) due to budget. Of course budget was never an issue when the next Sue Grafton novel came out (dozens of copies) :)
I realize I digressed a bit there, but my point was that it's a bit frustrating to hear a librarian complaining about someone above them talking about some form of censorship, when they make decisions themselves that determine if something is acquired or not, and if so how it's provided to the public. Their censorship is no better than anyone else's censorship.
Feel free to drop by and add more. Preferably bring links, as it's taking a lot of time to keep the list current.
Asking how the librarian would respond could have any number of explanations, some innocuous, many not. Not sure why we would assume the worst explanation, to tell you the truth.
Lets also keep in mind that the source of these stories (the librarian) has a motive to spread/exaggerate this story. First, of course, it puts her in the public eye. Second, she was opposed to Palin as mayor. Third, she was (apparently) opposed to the merger of the library and the museum.
Grain of salt, people.
If you've ever worked in a library, this actually makes sense. Libraries typically have very limited acquisitions budgets. If they buy 12 of a book, that means 11 fewer other books that they can purchase. Want to bet that the library had to dispose of 11 of those copies in six months when no one was interested in checking out and reading the book anymore? Political books have a very short shelf life, which is why buying multiple copies is usually bad policy.
I guess this is why the McCain team dispatched a squad of lawyers to Alaska immediately after the announcement.
You would have figured that the Republicans would have learned from both Watergate and Monicagate that the coverup, if unsuccessful, is more damaging than the underlying scandal.
It looks as if the McCain team is banking on success.
RE: The Obama Site Cited....
....in the UPDATE to the original article no longer has that list there.
It would be nice if someone could provide a screen shot of that now-disappeared item.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
So until someone can provide an ACTUAL list of things Palin allegedly wanted to remove from the library, and shows that the ACTUAL list contains things other than blatantly offensive material like hard core porn, etc., this is not an issue anyone should care about.
I would presume the opposite, only because my Library had a elderly citizen appoint himself a citizen ombudsman liaison to our local library since so many of his friends at the library were complaining they would not order or supply popular conservative books.
Incidentally, he got results and now he supplies the main library with a list of books requested by the library patrons. He explained to me that these folks do a lot of work for the library and libraries should stock books their communities desire.
What they did made no sense. There was a strong advance demand for the book, and they chose to buy 1 copy, and put it on the reserve stacks so it couldn't be circulated. Like I said, they never had any problem buying dozens of copies of Grafton novels, which were busy for a few months after purchase, and then most copies had to be sold off in the yearly book sale at a good loss ($22 hardback for $3) after taking up space on the shelves for several months. And of course, once they were publicly called out, suddenly they bought 10 or so more copies of the Limbaugh book, so the budget issue wasn't really the issue (at other times, when we actually didn't have the budget, no amt of pressure would cause us to be able to bring something in).
You are right. That's why this spry old coot appointed himself mayor of my library. See above.
It's not about going 'to bat' for Trooper Wooten.
It's about her firing the Public Safety Commissioner because he followed the rules and wouldn't back the Governor in a personal vendetta and fire Trooper Wooten.
But I'm sure we can look for the Republicans and the other usual suspect (Hannity, Rush, and others of that ilk) to spin it the way you are.
In other words, using lies and misdirection to paint her as a sympathetic character.
Abuses by police shouldn't be tolerated. She's not going to look bad for this.
Hardly. This is disapointingly simple-minded.
Let's show a little imagination before leaping to politically expedient conclusions, please. Here are a few for starters:
Palin may have been aware that there were persons or groups in town who were pressing for certain books to be eliminated from the library, and was interested in how the library might handle the pressure. This would not be surprising - most towns have people who think that the budget shouldn't be paying for crap (a laudable goal, the only difficulty being the definition of crap). Or perhaps the librarian only had the job because she was the previous mayor's mother-in-law, and Palin was wondering if she was competent to deal with minor crises. Maybe there were rumors that the librarian was spiraling into severe alcoholism, and Palin was wondering if she was even conscious. I'm sure a few Conspiracy readers, even the ones who haven't dealt with small city library staff, can come up with other possibilities.
The assumption that Palin was contemplating "book censorship" is simply unwarranted.
I've asked librarians about removing titles - I'll make a wild guess and speculate that by the time the newspapers reported my interest, they would have changed from "removing" to "censorship." The book was the infamous Arming America - after it was convincingly shown to be bogus throughout and the author had resigned his faculty position at Emory U.
Note that I was not asking them to remove the book. (I'm not the Mayor, but I am a taxpayer and a not-insignificant financial donor to the library.) I was wondering how the library would handle a book packed full of lies. My own mind was not settled on the matter - I could think of good arguments for throwing it out, and other good arguments for keeping it. It turns out that the library had the situation well under control - just how is not really germane here. So I was glad that I had asked. The librarians were very professional, and not at all outraged that I had asked a question about "censorship."
If the librarian was actively campaigning for the other guy it's entirely reasonable to find out if she was prepared to work constructively with the new Mayor. The question itself, frankly, implies nothing at all about Palin's desire to remove books from the shelves. It's a question. That's all. And I think she found out how the librarian would react to questions from the Mayor's office.
And it's true, I'm not all that inclined to side with the librarian. The person who suggested it's a matter of State run and funded libraries is right, I think. Librarians do censor stuff all the time by deciding what not to buy and what not to put on the shelf. What is the moral difference between making choices at acquisition or afterward?
Why do librarians get this particular authority, to chose not to shelf books, while the rest of us are branded near criminal if *we* don't want to shelf a book?
Hmm?
That is exactly what you should ask! I do not support banning anything except to maybe under 6 year olds but really, does the question and result have to be spelled out before you take any stand?
There are things that should not be accessible to those underage (Okay, that is negotiable - age that is). So why not actually take a stand?
By the way, it in no way has to due with funding of the library...
You make it sound as if no action were taken against Wooten.
You'd be incorrect.
Also, let's not take every allegation made against him at face value simply because they were made in the context of a messy divorce battle, and I can tell you from experience that a *lot* of lies and distortions are bandied about from all parties involved.
Personally I find the idea of a state governor trying to have a state employee subject to civil service laws (AFAIK, the job of Trooper in the ASP is not a political patronage job) fired to be very disturbing.
Also, my original point still remains: If there is nothing to 'troopergate' other than the view that she was simply trying to protect her sister from this brute, why block the investigation?
Up until she was announced as VP candidate, the only thing I remember reading about it was how her and her staff were going to cooperate.
What brought about the sudden change of heart?
Another pathetic smear attempt on Sarah. She is the most popular politician in America. Obama is as interesting as moldy bread right now...Guess some people cant accept that.
But I repeat myself.
Links? Or is this another case of "throw enough BS, some will stick"?
Implies you were following very inside-baseball Alaskan politics way back when.
Which Alaskan papers do you read on a daily basis?
As long as you keep reading and believing the tales of KOS, you are going to be left out in the cold.
There is nothing there...but by all means keep up the charade.
I really love it when leftists keep kicking the door and it has double locks. You will feel really foolish as the truth comes out... But, hey, don't let me ruin your enthusiasm for the chase... It only amplifies the Palin effect.
No, so you can take your innuendo and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
For the record, I've been paying attention to Palin since she was first mentioned as a possible VP candidate for McCain.
Before that, I read one or two stories on Yahoo! news about 'troopergate' and didn't have an opinion one way or another on it.
As for the McCain campaign obstructing the investigation, you can read about formerly cooperative witnesses changing their minds and the attempt to shut down the investigation by Palin's allies in the AK legislature.
Like I said in my original OP, if there's nothing more to it than her trying to fire an abusive ex brother-in-law, the cover up of the attempt will damage her more than the report saying that's what she tried to do will inflict.
The 'what's being covered up?' meme hurt Clinton in ways he didn't foresee when he lied in his deposition and was a huge mistake.
The McCain camp is risking the same mistake if the stonewalling becomes the issue rather than the incident itself.
Especially since McCain's new strategy is to sell the two of them as 'reformers'.
It's important to dispel defamatory lies when they arise (if you can).
I was one of the chief debunkers of the Michelle Obama "whitey" tape story. I believe that my debunking was pointed to by the Obama campaign on the official Obama site and it was certainly widely noted on pro-Obama sites.
And unlike the anti-Palin lie I debunk here, I actually drove out and did real reporting on that anti-Obama lie, which required a lot more time and effort than debunking this one.
Don't be so complacent about lying just b/c it agrees with your political orientation. The attack on Palin is unprecedented in my lifetime.
Did I mention Kos even once?
No.
How the posting standards here have slipped.
Palin removes a state official who won't fire a State Trooper for tasering a child "just to show him what it felt like".
There's an abuse of power, I tell you.
Darrin, I understand the tactical point you're trying to push here about cover ups, but the problem is that all the facts in the case seem to be pretty much out in the open already. People made calls for Palin (whether she knew it or not) asking the guy's boss to can him. He didn't, and she ended up canning the guy who should have fired the jerk who tasered his stepson.
Wow. Drama. (Jerk with the badge is meanwhile still on the force. Now wouldn't a little digging into why be interesting? Oh, wait, that might just show how corrupted Alaskan politics is, and put Mrs. Palin in a good light again. Strike that.)
The problem is, the facts are known, they're ugly, and they all make Palin herself out to be reasonable, and the people standing up for the punk to be, well, not.
Good luck with this line of attack. And keep reading about inside baseball Alaska politics. You never know when it might come in handy.
I haven't seen or heard such a blatant misrepresentation of the facts since I listened to Sean Hannity's radio show on Friday.
But you just keep on living in your blinkered wonderland if you want to see Obama win, because in almost all cases the coverup in events such as this does more damage than the event itself.
But I realize that intellectual honesty isn't all that common among neocons, so I can't say that I'm surprised.
I proved here that NRO relayed a false statement from the McCain campaign. It's a whopper.
I know you were just relaying what York wrote, but you gave the false statement further circulation. Therefore I wonder if you might be interested in taking any steps to "dispel" it.
The facts show that Palin lied. That's proven here.
Here are the words of someone who didn't think he was a "jerk:"
The real issue here is the coverup. But let's review some other points.
The Taser incident happened in 2003. No one complained about this until 2005, when a messy divorce was happening. That's when the Palins finally decided to report this event to the police. A police investigator asked Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol why they were finally reporting it two years later, after being silent for so long. She said "because of the divorce." Kids say the darndest things!
If the incident was serious enough to warrant Wooten losing his job, then why didn't the Palins report the incident promptly?
And speaking of inexplicable delays. Wooten is accused of making a death threat against Sarah's father. But Sarah didn't report this to the father until a month later, and it wasn't reported to the police until two months later. If the threat was considered serious, why wasn't it reported sooner?
Sarah was asked that question. She said it was because "Wooten had no reason to shoot her father." In other words, she admitted she never took the threat seriously.
The inter-library loan system here not only gets one access to public books and magazines but also those found at medical and law schools and universities. Thru our system you get access to paid electronic services at no cost to patrons. If you own a library card you get access to books on line.
The librarian in question wanted a bigger library. Palin wanted to eliminate government jobs. The supposedly miniscule town of Wasilla has a city museum.
In addition to the ominous sounding "book-banning" there's the notion that maybe the library is too big and maybe all those copies of Jim Wright's Reflections of a Public Man weren't really needed.
Librarians are human too and might spin this into a crazed attempt at burning books. Especially since Palin was firing said librarian's boyfriend.
Tom's Mad BLOG has a picture of something MAD Magazine is sending out as part of it's parody (They did this for Obama and McCain earlier too, with different posters). One of the things listed is this book banning charge.
http://www.tomrichmond.com/blog/?p=2774
I made a post (not sure if it'll stay or not), and pointed this out.
After all, a good parody is based on truth, not lies, right?
Sort of like pointing out the falsity of the "Obama is a Muslim" e-mails? I'm sure that all those in the media who dutifully took it upon themselves to report on the anonymous e-mails about Obama for the purpose of preemptively debunking them to a wider audience (and casting blame on those dastardly Republicans) will do the same thing to debunk all of the false rumours about Palin, right?
Several people keep saying this even though Lindgren, above, said this:
Since we're discussing the subject of books, this suggestion comes to mind: read.
==============================
A good blog comment is also "based on truth, not lies." The parody you're criticizing didn't reference the bogus list. It referenced the fact that Palin repeatedly inquired about banning books.
I am not sure you will get this, but I'm trying because you seem to be pretty responsive and making an effort at course correction. In your latest comment, you say that the attack on Palin is "unprecedented in your lifetime." Honestly, reflect on whether that's fair relative to, say, Hillary Clinton; as I recall, there were persistent rumors, purposefully recirculated, that she had arranged to have Vince Foster killed to conceal their affair. This was of course before a similar campaign concerning her lesbianism, or maybe concurrent with it. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I will put aside the stuff about Obama, because perhaps that's too fresh for us to have perspective about.
Also, you keep saying, and now say in the second addendum to this post, that you provided the background "because, if I had not listed his position, it would have looked like it was probably coming from the Obama campaign leadership, rather than just a low-level local Obama campaign worker who was nonetheless given a national Obama blog." I don't really doubt your intention, and I accept that you really believed that the credentials you described would have disabused the reader of its official quality rather than the opposite (though I think you are quite wrong, and at best extraordinarily subtle in the way you pursued that objective). But it simply isn't the case that the posting's location on that site was an important aspect of the reportage; it was being circulated more widely among librarians. So adding the discussion of its presence on the campaign site was a gratuity and a distraction in the first place. In fact, the only conceivable basis for adding that fact is as a corrective to Malkin, who characteristically thought it sufficient to claim simply that "the official Obama campaign website is also perpetuating the fraud." Had you the intention you now attribute to yourself, you might simply have said that she was misleading in insinuating "official" involvement, or gone with what she correctly billed as the primary source of the rumors, the librarians, and ignored the insinuation.
I applaud your interest in debunking rumors; more power to you. I just think you need to be constantly attentive to matters of emphasis (emphasizing the list, rather than the original and sounder allegation) and presentation.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.