Update ( 9/10/08 3:40 p.m.) Having taken some heat in the comments that somehow I am biased in my analysis of Sarah Palin lying to the American public (or even for the tone of this post or the campaign), I have supplemented some of the links I included in my original post (particularly as to Sarah Palin’s lies), with these additional links that follow immediately below. The rest of my post remains the same:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/10/halperin-on-palin-stop-th_n_125336.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/09/does_the_truth_matter_anymore.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/margaret_talev/story/52169.html
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/apology_not_accepted.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/09/eveningnews/main4433129.shtml?source=mostpop_story
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/a-piggish-debat.html
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccains-integri.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/sarah-palin-bridge-to-now_n_125209.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/the-mccain-palin-lies-and_b_125240.html
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ici5RhMkh6-9V07yckpLBEEjzf6QD932MU100
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2008/09/the-campaign-gets-ridiculousan.html
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=28378
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/mccain_plays_dirty_on_obama_se.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2199738/
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/The_race_descends.html?showall
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/09/the_pig_takes_the_cake.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/mccain-plays-gender-card_b_125231.html
As far as I can tell, the good Alaska Governess has appeared in a few Bloggernacle posts: DKL has a couple of posts over at Mormon Mentality here and here. He raises some good points, (i.e., she is a “babe”); but, a bit thin on substance (Palin–not DKL’s posts). Geoff B over at Millennial Star describes her as a phenomenon in a pretty glowing post. Clark posts over at Mormon Metaphysics. ECS, posts the feminist take over at fMh, and makes some hard hitting points about the irony of the far right’s defense of this woman as the VP nominee. If I have missed any, please let me know and I’ll link them.
I think I’m closer to ECS’ take on this whole thing. It’s probably much too simplistic to write her off as a lightweight–having ascended to the Governesship of Alaska; but, her resume for the national stage–actually–the Presidential stage, is certainly in question. Some thoughts I had, in no particular order after observing her now for a few days:
1. McCain emasculates his “country first” motto by placing his campaign first in a decision with blatantly political overtones–rather than statesman like overtones. He’s looking out for John McCain, and what he thinks can elect him as president–giving little or no thought to the “country” he claims to put first, apparently only in campaign slogans.
2. Active LDS members need to compare and contrast the guidelines in The Family A Proclamation to the World, set forth by the united and unanimous Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency, and the lifestyle choice of Sarah the barracuda Palin to take on the role of second in line in leadership of the free world:
By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.
So, does being a pretty and popular political pawn in the renewed cultural wars constitute the “other circumstances” contemplated in the Proclamation? Or, are the Brethren simply out of touch with modern day Babylon and its customs and practices? Does the Proclamation actually mean anything, or does it just contain a bunch of words, that don’t apply when it conflicts with our baser political desires?
3. This is probably a subset of the Proclamation Category, but since the good governor brought up her special needs son, directly as a political ploy to solicit votes from families with similarly situated children–it appears now to be fair political commentary. See also this excellent New York Times article. Perhaps, just perhaps, the governor’s time would better be spent actually attending to those special needs rather than talking about them and shilling for votes as John McCain’s pit bull (sans the lipstick).
And, what about that unwed teenage daughter–so proudly displayed for the nation front and center at the Republican National Convention? Not so long ago, but in a different part of this same country, some teenage mothers were actually ripped apart from their babies, and threatened with legal action to keep those mothers and babies apart. It’s just a sign of a normal American family when the Republican Vice Presidential nominee has an unmarried, pregnant teenage daughter. We can proudly display her to the world at the Republican National Convention with balloons and confetti all around. But, if teenage mothers (most if not all of whom were actually married to the babies’ fathers) are members of an unpopular religious group read FLDS, (denigrated as a cult, and ridiculed and scorned in the national media) then, they are the most vile social outcasts imaginable.
3. Sarah Palin has trouble telling the truth. As far as I can tell she has consciously and deliberately lied to the American people on the following counts:
a. Selling the Alaska Executive Jet on e-bay;
b. Claiming to oppose the bridge to nowhere;
c. Claiming to be an earmark, pork barrel spending reformer;
d. Claiming to be cooperative with an ethics investigation by her own legislature.
I’m certain there are more; but, these seem to be the most blatant lies Ms. Palin continues to propagate to the country. In short, I think there are many troubling aspects to Ms. Palin’s VP candidacy, or many aspects that should be troubling for any voter–but particularly those who are active, believing LDS members.
I’m going to be following the daily reports out of the local media that know Sarah Palin the best. The most accurate appears to be Anchorage Daily News. (See also this L.A. Times article–quite good). I was particularly struck by an email they published by an individual who has known Sarah Palin since the early 1990’s, which you can find here, and which I am going to re-post in its entirety at the end of this post.
It’s certainly a different perspective on Governor Sarah Palin, and one that deserves consideration:
“I have known Sarah since 1992…”
Posted: September 4, 2008 – 12:11 pm
From David Hulen in Anchorage —
The e-mail below has been bouncing around the Internet since Sunday. It was written by Anne Kilkenny of Wasilla – stay-at-home mom, letter-to-the-editor writer and longtime watcher of Valley politics. She’s a registered Democrat. She was one of the delegates to the Conference of Alaskans in Fairbanks back in 2004. Her bio from the conference is here.
She e-mailed this letter over the weekend to family and friends Outside, and (despite her request not to post it) it went viral on the Internet very quickly, showing up on blogs and Web sites all over. Since then, Kilkenny has been inundated with phone calls and e-mails. She said she stayed up until 3 a.m. last night answering e-mails, and found nearly 400 new ones waiting when she logged on this morning.
It’s posted here with her permission.
***
Dear friends,
So many people have asked me about what I know about Sarah Palin in the last 2 days that I decided to write something up . . .
Basically, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have only 2 things in common: their gender and their good looks. 🙂
You have my permission to forward this to your friends/email contacts with my name and email address attached, but please do not post it on any websites, as there are too many kooks out there . . .
Thanks,
AnneABOUT SARAH PALIN
I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992. Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child’s favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.
She is enormously popular; in every way she’s like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won’t vote for her can’t quit smiling when talking about her because she is a “babe”.
It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months.
She is “pro-life”. She recently gave birth to a Down’s syndrome baby. There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.
She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.
She is savvy. She doesn’t take positions; she just “puts things out there” and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.
Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin’s kind of job is highly sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything like that of native Alaskans.
Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.
She’s smart.
Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000 (at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents.
During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign.
Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a “fiscal conservative”. During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.
The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren’t enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn’t even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later–to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.
While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once.
These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.
As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.
In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today’s surplus, borrow for needs.
She’s not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.
While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. 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. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.
Sarah complained about the “old boy’s club” when she first ran for Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of “old boys”. Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal–loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the State’s top cop (see below).
As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla’s Police Chief because he “intimidated” her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska’s top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it’s pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn’t fire her sister’s ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support.
She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn’t like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.
Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her.
When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the “old boys’ club” when she dramatically quit, exposing this man’s ethics violations (for which he was fined).
As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the “bridge to nowhere” after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.
As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects–which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their importance–but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as “anti-pork”.
She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative.
Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They call her “Sarah Barracuda” because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah’s mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.
As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package of legislation known as “AGIA” that forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum.
Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned “as a private citizen” against a state initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State’s lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior’s decision to list polar bears as threatened species.
McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being President.
There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she.
However, there’s a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it.
CLAIM VS FACT
*”Hockey mom”: true for a few years.*”PTA mom”: true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since.
*”NRA supporter”: absolutely true
*social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconsitutional).
*pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it.
*”Pro-life”: mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down’s syndrome baby BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation
*”Experienced”: Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska. No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.
*political maverick: not at all
*gutsy: absolutely!
*open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.
*has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
*”a Greenie”: no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
*fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
*pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.
*pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents
*pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla’s history.
*pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union doesn’t make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union.
WHY AM I WRITING THIS?
First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny + Alaska), you will find references to my participation in local government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.
Secondly, I’ve always operated in the belief that “Bad things happen when good people stay silent”. Few people know as much as I do because few have gone to as many City Council meetings.
Third, I am just a housewife. I don’t have a job she can bump me out of. I don’t belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me somehow in the future: that’s life.
Fourth, she 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.
Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.
CAVEATS
I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor) from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of Wasilla, and I can’t recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of City Hall–they are swamped. So I can’t verify my numbers.You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the population of Wasilla, ranging from my “about 5,000”, up to 9,000. The day Palin’s selection was announced a city official told me that the current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90’s.
Anne Kilkenny
August 31, 2008
Messenger and Advocate 
September 8, 2008 at 12:02 am
A curious bit of pro-8/anti-Palin opinion from another Mormon blogger:
http://katzbox1.blogspot.com/2008/09/open-letter-to-sarah-palin.html
Apparently, Deborah Katz doesn’t appreciate pounding the pavement for Prop 8 and then hearing Sarah Palin poke fun at community organizing.
September 8, 2008 at 4:40 am
I will not be voting for Sarah Palin and her running mate.
However, you — like Adam Greenwood, when he first did this at T&S five months ago when acknowledging the birth of Trig Palin (Adam is your role model now, Guy?) — are being unnecessarily rude and demeaning to refer to the female governor of any one of the United States as a “governess.” As you are no doubt aware, despite your pretending otherwise, “governess” is, in modern English, not the feminine equivalent of “governor,” but is an archaic word designating a menial servant, barely half a step above babysitter.
I stopped reading your post at the point where you made this “joke” twice. Guy, I expect better of you.
September 8, 2008 at 5:14 am
Ardis,
You may be right that Guy knows the meaning of “governess” but I didn’t until I just read your explanation. I hope you don’t ever expect better of me. But thanks for the heads up, Bloggerness. 🙂
September 8, 2008 at 6:06 am
#1 Chino Blanco,
Thanks for the link.
#2 Ardis,
Reasonable minds can differ.
#3 Rusty,
It can and does mean both.
September 8, 2008 at 6:39 am
Guy, I think using “governess” is an unnecessary distraction to an otherwise fine and important post. Don’t lose people you would otherwise win by hanging your hat on a word that some people find demeaning.
As far as the Proclamation goes, I wonder if we might not understand Todd Palin to be exercising his “obligat[ion] to help one another as equal partners.” I’m conflicted on that issue, but disgusted enough by Palin’s politics that it isn’t really an issue for me.
September 8, 2008 at 6:51 am
I apologize for thinking too highly of you, Guy (and Rusty). Won’t happen again.
September 8, 2008 at 7:12 am
#5, Julie,
I confess I must be clueless to the offense of the term “governess”; but, clearly others, including you and Ardis find it offensive, which of course, was not my intent. Admittedly, it may have been a clumsy use of the lowest form of humor.
Regardless, I think you raise a good point about Todd Palin’s role as an equal partner. I guess my question is whether Governor Palin’s particular circumstances are the “circumstances” contemplated that might require individual adaptation. I think Todd Palin’s decision to suspend his career to spend more time with the children and family is admirable and what an equal partner in a marriage ought to do.
I do think Governor Palin’s choices here speak volumes about her priorities in life.
#6, Ardis,
Again, my intent was not to offend you, Julie or anyone else. I was sincere when I said “reasonable minds differ.” I’m sorry if you don’t see it that way.
September 8, 2008 at 7:42 am
I’m not sure we need to withhold support from politicians because their lives aren’t up to the standards of the Proclamation. If we did we wouldn’t have many options. I definitely wouldn’t hold up any of the major party candidates as paragons, but they’re not running for national paragon. I do want leaders that are decent, honorable people, but they don’t need to live up to Mormon standards to be decent, honorable people.
So yes, the Proclamation is meaningful and relevant and should arguably prevent us from holding Mrs. Palin up as a hero and model mother. But it shouldn’t prevent us from supporting her candidacy if we judge her to be a good candidate in other respects.
For the record, I’m not a supporter of either party or ticket.
September 8, 2008 at 7:49 am
Guy, dude, rest your political itch a minute and re-think the logic of your second point. If a mother were running for office in Utah and your post made it to the Letters at the SLTribune, Mormons would be ashamed to know you. Your thinking would make Huckabee proud.
And a word to the wise: it’s not smart to publicly acknowledge that you discriminate against mothers when making hiring decisions.
September 8, 2008 at 8:19 am
I’m not sure we need to withhold support from politicians because their lives aren’t up to the standards of the Proclamation. If we did we wouldn’t have many options.
The Lord gave us the standard: good, honest, and wise men (I’ll venture to guess here that He was using the collective, gender-neutral form of men to include both men and women…).
Perhaps the Proclamation doesn’t need to be the explicit litmus test for all politicians, but certainly a moral, virtuous life is expected for anybody seeking office.
My biggest fear about Palin is that she subscribes to the McCain/Bush foreign policy. She’s quite good (from what we can tell) on some domestic issues (well, at least in word if not in deed), but domestic policy becomes irrelevant if your foreign policy is off the mark. If she’s in favor of an interventionist foreign policy, we can expect to see more legislation and action that will curtail domestic liberties, despite all the niceties we may hear in her speeches. She and her running mate are anything but mavericks.
September 8, 2008 at 8:37 am
“a bit thin on substance”
Not really. She is a conservative Republican. That says everything about what the politics and positions are or will be; at least as much as any liberal Democrat like Obama. If she was so thin on substance, why is it so easy for people to disagree with her if she has none?
“blatantly political overtones”
I think this emasculates the “change” issue more than the “Country First” motto. He is a politician trying to get elected. What person in their right minds who wants public office, no matter how honest they are, will not do what will get them elected? You can’t put country first if you don’t get into office. I am shocked really to hear this given as a serious argument. The only people I can think of who could take this as a serious argument are libertarians. Politically they have nothing to lose.
You argument number 2 is compelling and that was the thought that crossed my mind when she was chosen. Yet, on reflection I must say her husband seems capable enough. For a frank combination of political expedience and personal opinion I am going to let this one pass. She is not LDS and I can’t say what her own religion says on the subject. I think if she were Mormon then the criticism would be far more valid.
Your right about at least the first part 3 as a subset. What you are wrong about is exactly what the baby and even her daughter represents to the conservative base. This isn’t about the roles of women or the morals of teen-pregnancy. This is about Pro-Life issues and having a baby no matter how inconvenient. This is about what is considered priorities.
The teen pregnancy also means two other things; forgiveness and responsibility. You should be happy that the teen is no longer shunned. That should be lauded instead of using her to score political points on the flip side of the coin. Second, the teenager is going to get married to the father of the baby. Yes, how well that works out is yet to be seen. However, the man is doing mroe than running away or paying child support; even if through cohersion.
As to your connecting this with the FLDS, you are missing an important piece of the outrage (I am actually in agreement with you on the polygamy issue). It isn’t so much about teen pregancy and marriage, but about over-age men getting married to under-age girls. Then, to have those men marry more than one under-age girl. From what I know the boyfriend of the Palin’s teen daughter is also a teenager by law. They are just following the “Catholic tradition” of shotgun weddings. Again, if they were LDS this would be far more of a valid argument.
“Sarah Palin has trouble telling the truth.”
In politics, truth is negotiable even far more than reality. I find Obama and Biden have equal problems telling the truth as I see it. You just choose to believe the liberal viewpoint spin rather than the conservative viewpoint spin. Give me a politician who tells the truth, especially about themselves and what they have done or will be doing, and I will give you someone who has never been in politics. I believe Sarah Palin is telling the truth as she sees it as much as I think Obama is telling the truth as he sees it. To put it bluntly, all politics are lies. The voter has to decide what lies they believe the most.
“email they published”
I trust e-mails and letters to the editor as much as I trust rumors of any kind; not at all. At least it isn’t anonymous, but this person doesn’t sound like they actually know her. What they know is politics. Add to that the person is a registered Democrat who is politically active and “truth is negotiable” makes the whole thing a lie for the good of the party. My guess is that a letter from a Republican and a letter from an Independant (an animal that is really too hard to define) would be completely different.
Guy, you don’t normally come off as a partisan. In this case you do. Hopefully that is because you just don’t like politics, but I am afraid that isn’t the case. If you had said I don’t agree with Palin’s politics or given as much space showing the many lies of Obama’s campaign then I would come to that conclusion. Aside from some political statements from the posted e-mail, most of your arguments against her are character assasinations. If you are Democrat then perhaps character really is more important than the issues, no matter what Joe Biden said.
September 8, 2008 at 10:48 am
#11 – Setting aside Guy’s initial comments, I’ve seen some external corroboration of many of the allegations in the e-mail he has reposted, including Palin’s early support of the “bridge to nowhere” and her hiring of a city administrator to do the job she was elected for. Assuming these things are true, how exactly is this character assassination? If Palin’s behavior in these instances are not important to you then I respect that, but simply repeating true accounts of a person’s past behavior is not character assassination.
September 8, 2008 at 11:39 am
ditto ditto ditto ditto Jettboy
September 8, 2008 at 12:42 pm
It cracks me up that my neighbor that waves the Proclamation around while talking about gay marriage seems to have misplaced it when telling me Palin is the best thing since Ronald Reagan.
Other than that, I couldn’t care less about her.
September 8, 2008 at 1:36 pm
jjohnson:
He’s got you totally snookered. Just because you “wave” the Proclamation one day and “waive” it the next, don’t fear that you’re inconsistent. That’s just for the small minds who worry about spelling.
September 8, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Rubbish. It was a cheap shot, Guy, and no amount of either feigned ignorance or specious explanation (it has both meanings??) will change the fact.
While we’re cheap-shotting, why not jump on Obama for referring yesterday to “my Muslim faith?”
How many governors have ever been called “governesses?” What about Gov. Sibelius? Or Gov. Whitman? Or Gov. Gregoire? Ms. Whitman has been around for a long time and was the EPA Admininstrator for a short time in the early Bush 2 years. Surely if “governess” were ever in common use in our lifetimes, we would have heard it sometime. But we haven’t. Because nobody uses it that way.
For those who are unfamiliar with its common meaning, I’d suggest more reading–19th century English literature, for starters. Maybe Jane Eyre would be a good start.
September 8, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Guy, even though we disagree deeply on this issue (and the disagreement is so deep there’s really no common ground to start a discussion) I do appreciate your linking my post at M*. 🙂
September 8, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Guy, I really enjoyed your posts about Proposition 8 in California. This post? Not so much…
Allow me to make a prediction that within the next few election cycles you will find yourself supporting a candidate that violates your point #2. If you apply your standard fairly instead of aiming it solely at young conservative female politicians then you’re putting yourself in a very uncomfortable box.
Regarding your false accusations of lies:
a. Governor Palin DID put the plane on E-Bay. (It didn’t sell though, they later sold it through other means).
b. Governor Palin DID cancel the Bridge to Nowhere.
Anchorage Daily News – February 8, 2008 –
“Let’s count how many things Gov. Sarah Palin’s predecessor did that she’s undone.
It’s quite a list.
The state-owned jet: Sold.
The proposed Gravina Island “bridge to nowhere” and a pioneer road to Juneau: Won’t be funded.”
Anchorage Daily News – March 12, 2008 –
“Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is aggravated about what he sees as Gov. Sarah Palin’s antagonism toward the earmarks he uses to steer federal money to the state. … A common target for earmark snipers is the so-called “bridge to nowhere” plugged by Alaska Rep. Don Young into the five-year transportation bill in 2005. Congress stripped the earmarks directing the spending but let the state keep the money to use on the bridge if it wanted.
Palin ruffled feathers when she announced – without giving the delegation advance notice – that the state was killing the Ketchikan bridge to Gravina Island, site of the airport and a few dozen residents.”
(Yes, she did flip-flop on supporting it, but to say that she didn’t kill it is incorrect, if not a deliberate lie. No one disputed this until it became an Obama campaign talking point. You can even find references on the Alaskan Democratic website talking about how she killed the bridge – again before Obama made it an attack point).
c. I’m not sure what lie you’re referring to here, being anti-earmark is more McCain’s reputation than Palin’s. They’re a team now and it’s a team message.
d. The trooper deserved to be fired. I’m not sure how you call this a lie. Ethical lapse perhaps, but like I said the trooper deserved to be fired.
Regarding the letter you posted – Congratulations you found a 20%’er. Governor Palin’s approval rating in Alaska is ~80%, but not 100%, so the ability to find someone there that doesn’t like her isn’t particularly surprising.
September 8, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Another source regarding Governor Palin killing the Bridge to Nowhere – The New York Times:
“Gov. Sarah Palin ordered state transportation officials to abandon the ”bridge to nowhere” project that became a nationwide symbol of federal pork-barrel spending.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E7D81F3AF931A1575AC0A9619C8B63
September 8, 2008 at 7:59 pm
#8 Tom
That’s not really what I said. I’m just saying for all those hundreds of thousands if not millions of LDS members who want to swallow Sarah Palin lock, stock and barrel, there ought to be another factor in the evaluation equation. I find it a tad hypocritical to be championing the Proclamation principles relating to genderless marriage, but not championing other principles in the same Divinely inspired document.
The fact is that in this national election, only one candidate, Sarah Palin has four children under 18 at home, one of whom is an unwed, pregnant minor, and the other a special needs child.
Seems to me a fair point to make to an LDS audience to compare and contrast Palin’s political decision to leave those kids at home with the counsel of the prophets, seers and revelators of our time to guide them in which candidates are more in tune with the critically moral guidance of the Proclamation.
#9, Matt,
That’s really rich, coming from you Matt.
Many Mormons are ashamed to know me already–I don’t lose much sleep over it. See my response to Tom, above on the Proclamation and politicians in this general election.
Matt, your sarcasm is even more sophomoric than Sarah Palin’s–need to work on it man.
#10 Connor,
See my comments to Tom on whether the Proclamation should be a litmus test. That’s not really what I’m saying. I agree with you that her foreign policy views are off the charts; but, I don’t think the Proclamation really speaks to any of those issues.
#11 Jetboy,
Except he isn’t the mother, and has differing responsibilities. The question I was asking is whether Palin’s circumstances constitute the “other circumstances” contemplated by the proclamation. In my view, the answer is no. So, we have a disagreement over our ultimate conclusions on the importance of the Proclamation–no problem, I can live with that. I’m simply pointing out this ought to be considered by LDS voters before they swallow the whole packaged product.
#12 Bro. Jones,
agreed.
#13 NODYMB1
Ditto, Ditto, Ditto, my prior comments to all.
September 8, 2008 at 8:23 pm
#14 jjohnson,
agreed.
# 16 Mark B,
Did you have a substantive criticism, of my post, or did you just want to vent?
#17 Geoff B,
Always a pleasure to disagree with you without being disagreeable–though there are some occasions where we see eye to eye.
#18 Aluwid,
I don’t think so. See my replies above, particularly to Tom. Sarah Palin’s circumstances in this particular campaign are unique; but, I would have the same complaints of a candidate from any party or political persuasion given this same fact pattern.
As to the lying aspect of Sarah Palin, and John McCain–I regret you have set your expectations so low for truth telling from your elective representatives. Perhaps that is a reflection of our times. Frankly, I expect more from elected officials, again, regardless of party affiliation.
September 8, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Guy,
“Sarah Palin’s circumstances in this particular campaign are unique; but, I would have the same complaints of a candidate from any party or political persuasion given this same fact pattern.”
Remove politics from the equation, what exactly do you object to? In no situation should a women with young children ever serve in political office? That is a position that you really intend to stick to?
“As to the lying aspect of Sarah Palin, and John McCain”
Ok, at this point you’ve stepped into smear territory. As I pointed out, the “lies” you listed, aren’t lies. Is this the new Democratic strategy against Palin? Lie and claim she is telling lies?
“Frankly, I expect more from elected officials, again, regardless of party affiliation.”
Great, please provide your list of Senator Obama and Senator Biden’s “lies” as well. Given your very loose definition of what it means to lie I’m sure you can come up with quite a large list.
September 8, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I know it is beside the point but she seems to pass the Nancy Pelosi mother-of-five test as far as experience goes:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mzg1OWY3ODE5OWE1N2YyYTI3MTI3ZWNlMDA4Y2IyZDk=
September 8, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Aluwid,
You seem to want to change the facts–which isn’t going to happen. What I have said, is that in Sarah Palin’s circumstance, her first priority ought to be to her family. And, I’m not alone in this position. See the beginning of the transcript of CNN’s Reliable Sources, and the discussion with Sally Quinn and Emily Rooney.
You and I clearly have a different concept and definition of lying. The list I suggested is well documented through out the MSM as well as the well respected political blogs. When Sarah Palin gets up and says I’m a reformer and against pork because I said thanks but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere—and the reality is that the same candidate (Sarah Palin) campaigned for that same bridge to no where while seeking her current position–that is a lie. What she is trying to convey to the public is a lie. It’s that simple. That we disagree is obvious.
September 8, 2008 at 9:28 pm
By the way, the Anne Kilkenny letter has been discredited by FactCheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
September 8, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Or I should probably say, will be investigated since they are planning on delving into more of the specifics of the letter in a future posting.
September 8, 2008 at 9:34 pm
#23 Will F
Nancy Pelosi is not the mother of five, four of whom are under 18, one a special needs child, and one an unwed, pregnant minor. See the difference?
September 8, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Guy,
What is ironic is that you are actually penalizing Governor Palin for following the teachings expressed in the Family Proclamation, in particular: “We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.”
Governor Palin’s oldest son is an adult. She could have chosen to stop after one, have no more children, and focus on her career instead. If she had made that choice, if she had decided that her career was more important to her than having more children, then you would not be making this objection to her.
Basically your message to women is that if they want to enter politics then they had better forget about a large family. Unmarried woman: ok, Career woman with no kids: ok, Career woman with one kid: ok, Family-oriented woman with multiple young kids: not acceptable.
Regarding the Bridge to Nowhere, lets go through the steps:
1. The Bridge to Nowhere project exists
2. ?
3. The Bridge to Nowhere project is dead
What do you suppose goes in step #2? I’ll give you a hint, it involves Governor Palin killing the project, just like she said she did.
According to your definition both Senator Obama and Senator Biden are liars. If you want to claim that then go ahead. But if not then you’re the one that is being misleading by applying a different standard to your political opponents than you do to the politicians that you favor.
September 8, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Anyway, that’s all from me. Like I said Guy, I have really enjoyed your posts on the work that the church is doing to protect the meaning of marriage in California. I don’t want to carry on this argument any further and tarnish that good feeling.
September 8, 2008 at 10:06 pm
1. The Bridge to Nowhere project exists
2a. Palin is an enthusiastic supporter of the project
2b. The project is ridiculed and held up in the national press as an example of the worst excesses of the earmark system
2c. Palin decides that the better part of valor is discretion (in the which better part she preserved her national political ambitions, while diverting the funds to other projects)
3. The Bridge to Nowhere project is dead
September 8, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Here’s an alternate mormon view on Palin:
September 9, 2008 at 12:26 am
Your first two examples were poor support for the claim that Palin has “trouble telling the truth. As far as I can tell she has consciously and deliberately lied to the American people on the following counts.”
a. Selling the Alaska Executive Jet on e-bay
(In her speech, Palin said that she put it on eBay. She did not say that she sold it.)
b. Claiming to oppose the bridge to nowhere (she did oppose it).
Seems to me that Palin’s opponents (including the media) are reaching for ANYTHING to pin on this woman. Fortunately, the public sees through this.
September 9, 2008 at 3:52 am
I find it a tad hypocritical to be championing the Proclamation principles relating to genderless marriage, but not championing other principles in the same Divinely inspired document.
I don’t see the hypocrisy that you and jjohnsen see here. The Proclamation doesn’t say we should withhold political support from people whose personal lives aren’t up to the Proclamation’s ideal so I can’t see enthusiastically supporting Palin’s candidacy as a failure to champion the Proclamation. Now, if a Mormon holds up Palin’s family arrangement as a model to emulate, that could be considered hypocritical if that same person touts the Proclamation in other contexts. But if a Mormon just defends Palin’s family arrangement as acceptable in a candidate, there is no contradiction. From what we know of Palin’s family arrangement, it is honorable and decent even if it isn’t up to the Lord’s standard. She definitely has her own party’s (adulterous) presidential nominee beat on that front.
September 9, 2008 at 5:57 am
Since substance has already gone the way of juvenile sniping with your use of “Governess”, why should I stoop to being substantive?
You know, tit for tat and all. Ardis and Julie made the substantive point.
Reasonable people can differ on the issues raised in the Kilkenny email, but why should anybody take you seriously when your comments about Gov. Palin arrive at the same level as Bill Maher’s?
September 9, 2008 at 6:15 am
“but simply repeating true accounts of a person’s past behavior is not character assassination.”
True. But there is a pattern of the press not telling all of the facts, deliberately or otherwise. There are several cases.
1. Palin is for abstinence-only curriculum.
It was a poorly worded survey she answered and her biggest objection was to “explicit” sex education. Asked two weeks later to explian her position and she said she was for a combination of abstinene education but also for teaching about birth control since most kids would probably not get that info from home.
2. Palin cut funding for pregnant teens.
The WP ran the story after finding Palin’s 2008 state budget. They discovered that Palin used her line-item veto to change the 2008 budget for programs assisting pregnant teens from $5MM to $3.9MM. Now I only wrote for my high school newspaper but even I could come up with a logical question to ask about this. What was the 2007 budget? It turned out to be $1.2MM. So instead of quadrupling the budget, she more than tripled it. The horror.
And then we get all of the stories about her banning books (false), joining an Alaskan secession party (false), supporting Pat Buchanan (false), pushing for creationism on school curriculum (false), not interested in climate change (false0she created sub-cabinet positions to address the issue), etc., etc.
And note the whole troopergate “scandal” has died down. The more I read about it the more it sounds like petty local politics.
The funny thing is that if she was a terrible mayor, how did she get reelected? And how did she become elected governor and in turn become the most popular governor in the country?
September 9, 2008 at 6:20 am
Also note what Palin’s Wasilla earmarks were for, which we don’t really hear about:
A Youth Shelter
Transportation Hub
Sewer Repairs
Rail Project
It’s not like she asked for a million dollars to go to her spouse’s place of employment after said spouse has their salary nearly tripled or anything.
September 9, 2008 at 6:23 am
#28 Aluwid,
Sorry, I don’t see it that way. I don’t think I’ve criticized her for multiplying and replenishing the earth. In fact, if I can same something nice about Sarah Palin is that I admire her choice to take on the challenge of a special needs child. Where I question her judgment is abdicating her divinely inspired role as a “mother” to further a political career–a questionable choice, from a practical standpoint, reinforced by principles outlined in the Proclamation.
Thanks for your comments on the genderless marriage issues.
#30 Bill,
Nicely said.
#31 Radical
Thanks for the link.
#32 tsfiles,
As I said earlier, I have a higher expectation for what candidates or elected officials say. All I can say to you is that our respective expectations apparently differ.
#33 Tom,
I agree with this; but, all I’m saying is that there is nothing wrong with using the guidelines in the proclamation, particularly the section I quoted in holding candidates’ lifestyle choices up to scrutiny. Palin’s disregard of the Proclamation doesn’t disqualify her technically from office. But, it helps evaluate the choices she has made, and allows individuals to determine whether to support or not support them politically.
We’re also in agreement here, Tom.
September 9, 2008 at 6:29 am
#34 Mark,
Still venting?
#35 Tim J,
Don’t forget this gem.
September 9, 2008 at 6:35 am
Guy,
That’s unfotunately not as uncommon as we’d like to believe. Doesn’t make it right mind you, but it’s not uncommon. I believe Illinois Gov., Blagojevich(sp?) flies from his home in Chicago to Springfield often and charges the state for his travel.
Again, I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s not uncommon. Like I said, we almost always don’t get all of the facts.
September 9, 2008 at 7:13 am
Guy, Nancy Pelosi became the chair of the northern section of the California Democratic Party in 1977, her oldest (of 5)children at the time would have been approximately 14, youngest would have been 8 (all under 18 at the time).
http://www.notablebiographies.com/news/Ow-Sh/Pelosi-Nancy.html
September 9, 2008 at 7:25 am
What about Obama? Is it right for him to run for President when he has a 9 and 6-year-old? How much is he going to be able to help his wife nurture their children as an equal partner?
September 9, 2008 at 7:35 am
The funny thing is that if she was a terrible mayor, how did she get reelected? And how did she become elected governor and in turn become the most popular governor in the country?
I have wondered that myself since the 2004 general election. I suppose the only answer is that the best (wo)man always wins, right?
September 9, 2008 at 7:42 am
Bush’s approval rating was never 80%.
But, yeah, I wonder the same thing about the 2004 election.
September 9, 2008 at 9:26 am
Guy,
I’m glad to see more critical response to the unbridled enthusiasm of Palin from many Latter-day Saints.
We have talked about Palin a bit on the Thinking in a Marrow Bone blog, including the many variations of Internet searches for Palin and Mormonism. Click here.
September 9, 2008 at 9:31 am
What is her stand on polygamy?
September 10, 2008 at 7:37 am
I suppose that when political discourse is reduced to name-calling, it’s better to imply that Gov. Palin is a caregiver for young children than to simply call her a pig.
The pier isn’t any higher today, but the tide has surely gone out.
September 10, 2008 at 8:04 am
#39 Tim J,
And given the tone and tenor of the McCain campaign, it doesn’t appear we will be discussing facts anytime soon.
#40 WillF
Which is still not anything remotely similar to Sarah Palin’s circumstances, either in the family or facing the country.
#41 WillF
Yes. Again, not a similar comparison.
#42. Peter LLC
It will be interesting to see how popular she will remain after this election. She’s extremely popular right now. Let’s see how the act plays down the road.
#44 Dennis,
Thanks for the link.
#46 Mark B
I don’t know anyone who has called her a pig–but I would agree with you that the tide has gone out–I wonder why?
September 10, 2008 at 8:18 am
#47 Guy
I don’t know Barack either.
As to your question, re-read the first line of your post.
September 10, 2008 at 11:01 am
So are you arguing that there is set of standards that have to be met for a child before they really need their parents to be around?
September 10, 2008 at 3:27 pm
#48 Mark B
I can only assume you are in denial. My assertions that Sarah Palin is lying to the American public have now echoed so loudly throughout the entire media and political blogs, it is simply deafening–this includes the nonsense you repeated here about the pig remark. My post has not set the tone for the McCain/Palin campaign of lies.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/09/10/the-best-thing-about-all-the-lipstick-absurdity.aspx
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/10/halperin-on-palin-stop-th_n_125336.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/09/does_the_truth_matter_anymore.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/margaret_talev/story/52169.html
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/apology_not_accepted.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/09/eveningnews/main4433129.shtml?source=mostpop_story
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/a-piggish-debat.html
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccains-integri.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/sarah-palin-bridge-to-now_n_125209.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/the-mccain-palin-lies-and_b_125240.html
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ici5RhMkh6-9V07yckpLBEEjzf6QD932MU100
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2008/09/the-campaign-gets-ridiculousan.html
http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/bookman/entries/2008/09/09/palin_lies_could_lead_to_bridg.html
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=28378
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/mccain_plays_dirty_on_obama_se.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2199738/
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/The_race_descends.html?showall
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/09/the_pig_takes_the_cake.html
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=09&year=2008&base_name=every_four_years_this_is_what
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/mccain-plays-gender-card_b_125231.html
# 49 WillF
No, actually all I’m trying to say, is that in Sarah Palin’s set of circumstances, both common sense, reinforced by the principles of the Proclamation, her job is to be at home with those children–not doing what she’s doing. I think your example of Speaker Pelosi is factually dissimilar to that of Sarah Palin–by quite a bit.
September 10, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Oh, I certainly don’t think that Obama meant to call Gov. Palin a pig. But the crowd whooped and hollered as if they understood it that way. And it was a lousy choice of words by Obama, given the recent entry of lipstick into the public discourse.
And I haven’t said anything about the truth or falsity of the claims that Gov. Palin has made. My primary complaint with your post was the demeaning “Governess,” which you justify with a reference to a second-rate online dictionary.
The OED lists all meanings for “governess” other than the “caregiver/teacher for young children” as Obsolete, and doesn’t show any uses as “female governor” after the first decade of the 19th century. If you continue to maintain that your use of the term wasn’t intended as a denigrating cheap shot, I would suggest that you’re the one in denial.
September 10, 2008 at 9:30 pm
#51 Mark B
Well that’s not what you wrote up in #46 when you said:
Nonsense. It was Sarah Palin who injected “lipstick” into the campaign. All this talk of sexism is nonsense as well.
My use of “governess” was, as I have already explained, humor–nothing more. It’s not an offensive term, and no dictionary anywhere suggests it is remotely offensive–so relax man. It might be obsolete–but it’s certainly not offensive.
September 11, 2008 at 7:32 am
I’m perfectly relaxed, Guy. And I’m not complaining about sexism. I know it was Gov. Palin who brought up lipstick–and that’s what made Obama’s use of the metaphor infelicitous.
And thanks for explaining that what you said wasn’t offensive. That clarifies things for me. 🙂
September 11, 2008 at 7:47 am
Hey Mark,
I’ll confess, I had to look up infelicitous on one of those second rate online dictionaries (though I did/do know the meanings of governess) to put your comment into it’s proper context. I don’t use my OED much anymore because it’s one of those two volume very small print publications, and I hate getting out the magnifying glass.
Anyway, I’m the one who probably needs to relax–so I will. Thanks for your comments.
September 11, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Besides, even if she were a pig, she is, as Charlotte wrote “Some Pig”.
Maybe even “Radiant”.
And the Obama campaign and its hangers-on are skeert. S**tless. To wit:
September 13, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Guy, Where do I start? I’ll keep this short!
First of all you are judging a woman who is not LDS by LDS standards. I think she doing a pretty good with the knowledge she has.
I can’t believe you are quoting and getting you information for the Huffington Post and the MSM. Talk about a bunch of liberals and hatemongers. They will say and do anything to discredit MS Palin because they are all for BHO and she is a real threat. Talking about BHO, He has very little substance, can’t speak without a telepromter, shady past and some scary friends.
McCain and Palin are a much better choice just for the fact that they are pro-life, against same sex marriage, want to fight terrorist, and want smaller government. No, they are not perfect just a better choice.
September 14, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Guy wrote,
If bloggers and media types repeat something loudly enough it must mean . . . what?
September 14, 2008 at 10:50 pm
#55 Mark B
Radiant would not the be adjective I would use to describe Ms. Palin–perhaps untruthful or one of its many synonyms.
#56 jfc
These standards are not unique to the LDS Church–as I have already pointed out. They are reinforced by the Proclamation. There are many others who have voiced concern that Ms. Palin’s priorities should rest in her own house–not the White House.
#57 PK Andersen
If Sarah Palin and John McCain repeat a lie loudly enough, it must mean . . . what?
September 15, 2008 at 6:21 am
Guy,
I think perhaps you have missed the point of my post.
I do not post here to defend or promote any candidate. My personal policy is not to discuss partisan politics with church members. That way, I can continue to work with them without resentment on the things that matter most.
What I found surprising is that you cite the volume of criticism by the press and the blogs as support that your position must be correct. Really, you should know better. All you have to do is consider how often the news media misreport stories about the LDS Church to realize how unreliable they can be.
Too many reporters and bloggers know little about the subjects they write about. Nor do they conduct their own research, relying instead on press releases, the AP, New York Times, and the major networks as their sources of information.
So if a hundred newspapers and cable channels say the same thing, you are probably not seeing a hundred independent stories but rather one story echoed a hundred times.
It is especially bad during political season, when “gotcha” is the game. Nuance, fairness, and even accuracy are out; scandal and character assassination are in. Any smear will do, even if it turns out not to be true.
Are Palin and McCain lying? It would not surprise me if they were. But you cannot judge that based on how many times the news media (or bloggers) repeat the accusation.
And that’s as close as I am willing to come to discussing partisan politics with other Mormons.
October 1, 2008 at 9:49 am
Guy, after reading all the comments posted, and considering the information offered, I find myself more confused than ever. I really don’t think a vice-president is very important, in the overall political picture. If I decide to hate Sarah Palin, does that mean I love Joe Biden (shuddering in horror). Perish the thought.
October 1, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I, for one, will not be voting for Sarah Palin. It is an insult to the intelligence of the American public by Mr. McCain to choose (if indeed he was the one who made the choice) her as his VP candidate. Never, have I seen a “babe” who is so ill prepared to potentially step into the oval office. Can you imagine her facing off with Putin over a table? She is so ignorant of what’s going on that they are having to “primp” her and prep her so that she can actually answer a pertinant question without sounding like a complete moron. Heaven help us if she were elected.