Go Back   WAHM Forums - WAHM.com >

Welcome to the WAHM Forums - WAHM.com.

Welcome to WAHM Forums

Already registered? Login above 

OR

To take advantage of all the site's features, become a member of the largest community of Work-At-Home Moms.

The advertising to the left will not show if you are a registered user.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-09-2008, 08:04 AM
starviolet's Avatar
WAHM Regular
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 182
Default

Apparently Palin is not just inexperienced. She's a liar. [img]smileys/smiley36.gif[/img]
<br style="clear: right;">(Political Animal)Factchecking Palin

I
thought Palin's speech was quite good: well-written, well delivered.
And, as I said earlier, I think she's a genuinely engaging person, and
comes across very well. There were just a couple of problems. One,
which I have seen people notice, but which I suspect won't be a big
deal for a lot of voters, is that it had very little substance. The
other, which the commenters I saw on TV for some reason neglected to
mention, was that she told a lot of lies. A few that stood out for me,
or that I spotted in my quick run-through of some blogs:
<blockquote>Palin:
"To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I
have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming
place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are
elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House."</blockquote>

Sarah
Palin might have changed her mind on this one recently. However, a
comment here notes that Palin actually slashed funding for schools for
special needs kids by 62%. Budgets: FY 2007 (pre-Palin), 2008, 2009 (all pdfs).
<blockquote>Palin: "As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man."</blockquote>

Steve's list of McCain flip-flops is here. See for yourself whether constancy is, in fact, John McCain's middle name.
<blockquote>Palin:
"I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to
Nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves."</blockquote>

Just to reiterate what others have said: Congress' requirement that funds be spent on that bridge (aka the 'earmark') were removed
before Sarah Palin became governor. She was therefore in no position to
tell Congress anything about the bridge, one way or the other. During
her campaign, she said she supported funding for the bridge. Brad Plumer, citing the Anchorage Dialy News via Nexis:
<blockquote>"5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?

Yes.
I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner
rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional
delegation is in a strong position to assist."</blockquote>

Later, she accepted the money -- now not restricted by an earmark -- and used it for other infrastructure projects. Here's her statement
about why she wasn't building the bridge (also via Plumer.) Decide for
yourselves what role a principled opposition to earmark funding plays
in it. Hint: here's what residents of Ketchikan AK said when they heard her recent remarks:
<blockquote>"In
the city Ketchikan, the planned site of the so-called "Bridge to
Nowhere," political leaders of both parties said the claim was false
and a betrayal of their community, because she had supported the bridge
and the earmark for it secured by Alaska's Congressional delegation
during her run for governor. (..)

"People are learning that she
pandered to us by saying, I'm for this' ... and then when she found it
was politically advantageous for her nationally, abruptly she starts
using the very term that she said was insulting," Weinstein said."</blockquote>
<blockquote>Palin:
"But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who
has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not
even in the state senate."</blockquote>

Ha, ha, ha. I gave a rundown of Obama's accomplishments in the Senate here. They include the Lugar-Obama bill on nonproliferation, and an ethics reform package that the Washington Post called "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet." Ruth Marcus summarizes his record on reform:
<blockquote>"He
helped pass a far-reaching ethics and campaign finance bill in the
Illinois state Senate and made the issue a priority on arriving in
Washington. Much to the displeasure of his colleagues, Obama promoted
an outside commission to handle Senate ethics complaints. He
co-authored the lobbying reform bill awaiting President Bush's
signature and pushed -- again to the dismay of some colleagues -- to
include a provision requiring lawmakers to report the names of their
lobbyist-bundlers. He has co-sponsored bills to overhaul the
presidential public financing system and public financing of Senate
campaigns."</blockquote>

Not a single major law or reform, indeed.

And
I wasn't aware that writing memoirs was something to be ashamed of.
Obama has, in fact, written only one. McCain (with Mark Salter) has
written at least two.
<blockquote>Palin: "America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it."</blockquote>

No -- he plans to develop a lot more energy than John McCain does. It's just that a lot of it is renewable, not carbon-based. Moreover, Obama hasn't skipped the last eight votes on renewable energy.
<blockquote>Palin:
"The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income
taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ...
raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax
burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My
sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that's
now opened for business - like millions of others who run small
businesses. How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up?"</blockquote>

Well,
it all depends whose taxes go up, doesn't it? If Heather and her
husband make less than $250,000, their taxes will not go up. Most Americans will pay less in taxes under Obama's plan than under McCain's. So they might well be better off.

Those are just the falsehoods that leapt to mind. I'm sure there are others.

Whether
or not Sarah Palin's engaging personality matters more than the fact
that she tells lies depends a lot on the media, and whether they allow
her to say that she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere, or that Obama has
neer authored a major law or reform, without calling her on it. I hope
they do. But I'm not holding my breath.

***

UPDATE: Mark Kleiman posts an Obama campaign rebuttal, which is more thorough than I was.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-09-2008, 08:07 AM
starviolet's Avatar
WAHM Regular
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 182
Default

I don't think that there's any doubt left among honest and thinking people that Palin is both a liar and less experienced than Obama. If you want to vote for her then please do. But vote with your eyes open. *waits for someone to come in here and ignore the facts about Palin in their rush to criticize Obama. *
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 09-09-2008, 09:04 AM
kamie3535's Avatar
WAHM Master
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7,222
Default

<div ="article_er">http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

Sliming Palin</span><div ="article_date">September 8, 2008</span><div ="article_suber">False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate. </span><div ="article_section_er">Summary</span><div ="article_section">We’ve
been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet
postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running
mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.

</font>
<ul>[*]Palin did not cut funding for
special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at
all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.</font>[/list]<ul>[*]She did not demand that books
be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely
circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has
said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in
her job through most of Palin's first term.

</font>[/list]<ul>[*]She was never a member of the
Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on
whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been
registered as a Republican since May 1982.



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



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



Correction: In our original story, we incorrectly said that a few
of the claims we examine here were included in the e-mail by Kilkenny.
Only one of the claims– about the librarian's firing– was similar to
an item in that e-mail. We regret the error.
</font> </font></font> </font><div ="article_section_er">Analysis</span>
<div align="left">

<div align="left">
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
<div align="left">
<div align="left">
<div align="center">
<div align="left">Since Republican
presidential nominee John McCain tapped Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be
his running mate, information about Palin's past has been zipping
around the Internet. Several claims are not true, and other rumors are
misleading. </font>




No Cut for "Special Needs" Kids

</font></font></font>
<div align="left">

It's not true, as widely reported in mass
e-mails, Web postings and at least one mainstream news source, that
Palin slashed the special education budget in Alaska by 62 percent. </font>CNN's Soledad O'Brien made the claim on Sept. 4 in an interview with Nicolle Wallace, a senior adviser to the McCain campaign:

</font><blockquote>O'Brien, Sept. 4:
One are that has gotten certainly people sending to me a lot of e-mails
is the question about as governor what she did with the special needs
budget, which I'm sure you're aware, she cut significantly, 62 percent
I think is the number from when she came into office. As a woman who is
now a mother to a special needs child, and I think she actually has a
nephew which is autistic as well. How much of a problem is this going
to be as she tries to navigate both sides of that issue?</font>

</blockquote>Such a move might have made
Palin look heartless or hypocritical in view of her convention-speech
pledge to be an advocate for special needs children and their families.
But in fact, she increased special needs funding so dramatically that a
representative of local school boards described the jump as "historic."



</font>According to an April 2008 article in Education Week, Palin signed legislation
in March 2008 that would increase public school funding considerably,
including special needs funding. It would increase spending on what
Alaska calls "intensive needs" students (students with high-cost
special requirements) from $26,900 per student in 2008 to $73,840 per
student in 2011. That almost triples the per-student spending in three
fiscal years. Palin's original proposal, according to the Anchorage Daily News, would have increased funds slightly more, giving intensive needs students a $77,740 allotment by 2011.

</font><blockquote>Education Week:
A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special
needs to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student
in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and
Early Development.</font>



</font>Unlike many other states,
Alaska has relatively flush budget coffers, thanks to a rise in oil and
gas revenues. Funding for schools will remain fairly level next year,
however. Overall per-pupil funding across the state will rise by $100,
to $5,480, in fiscal 2009. ...</font>



</font>Carl Rose, the executive
director of the Association of Alaska School Boards, praised the
changes in funding for rural schools and students with special needs as
a "historic event," and said the finance overhaul would bring more
stability to district budgets.</font>

</blockquote> According to Eddy Jeans at
the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, funding for
special needs and intensive needs students has increased every year
since Palin entered office, from a total of $203 million in 2006 to a
projected $276 million in 2009.



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



And in any case, the decrease in funding for special schools is illusory. Palin moved</font></font>the Alaska Military Youth Academy's ChalleNGe program, a residential military school program that teaches job and life skills to students under 20,</font></font>
out of the budget line for "special schools" and into its own line.
This resulted in an apparent drop of more than $5 million in the
special schools budget with no actual decrease in funding for the
programs. </font></font>


</font></font></font>
Not a Book Burner</font></font></font>

</font>


One false rumor accuses then-Mayor Palin of threatening to fire
Wasilla’s librarian for refusing to ban books from the town library.
Some versions of the rumor come complete with a list of the books that
Palin allegedly attempted to ban. The story is false on several fronts:
Palin never asked that books be banned; the librarian continued to
serve in that position; no books were actually banned; and many of the
books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even
in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication.



It’s true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons,
Wasilla’s librarian, on at least two occasions. Emmons flatly stated
her opposition both times. But, as the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman (Wasilla’s local paper) reported at the time, Palin asked general questions about what Emmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned. According to Emmons, Palin </font></font></font> "was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library."</font> Emmons
reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons' position
would change if residents were picketing the library. Wasilla resident
Anne Kilkenny, who was at the meeting, corroborates Emmons' story, telling the Chicago Tribune that </font></font>"Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' "</font>



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



Moreover, although Palin fired Emmons as part of a "loyalty" purge, she
rehired Emmons the next day, and Emmons remained at her job for
two-and-a-half more years. Actually, Palin initially requested Emmons’
resignation in October 1996, four days before the
public discussion of censorship. That was at the same time she
requested that all four of Wasilla’s department heads resign. Palin
described the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all four
department heads to retain their positions. But on Jan. 30, 1997, three
months after the censorship discussion, Palin informed Emmons and
Wasilla’s police chief, Irv Stambaugh, that they would be fired. According to the Chicago Tribune, Palin did not list censorship as a reason for Emmons’ firing. Palin rehired Emmons the following day. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned.



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

</font>

</font> </font>
<div align="center">Closet Secessionist?</font>

</font>


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



The party's chair originally told reporters that Palin had been a
member, but the official later retracted that statement. Chairwoman
Lynette Clark told the New York Times that false information had been given to her by another member of the party after she first told the Times and others that Palin joined the AIP in 1994. Clark issued an apology on the AIP Web site.

</font>

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



There is still some dispute as to whether Sarah Palin also attended the AIP’s 1994 convention, held in Wasilla. Clark and another AIP official told
ABC News’ Jake Tapper that both Palins were there. Palin was elected
mayor of Wasilla two years later. The McCain campaign says Sarah Palin
went to the 2000 AIP convention, also held in Wasilla, “as a courtesy
since she was mayor.” As governor, Palin sent a video message to the 2008 convention, which is available on YouTube, and the AIP says she attended in 2006 when she was campaigning.



</font></font>
Didn't Endorse Pat Buchanan

</font> </font>
<div align="left">

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



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



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

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



Though no
reporter interviewed me for the Associated Press article on the recent
visit by a presidential candidate (Metro, July 17), the article may
have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this
candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla. As mayor, I
will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla.

</font></font></font></font></blockquote>Palin
actually worked for Forbes. Less than a month after being spotted
wearing the "courtesy" button for Buchanan, she was named to the state
leadership committee of the Forbes effort. The Associated Press reported on Aug. 7, 1999:

</font></font><blockquote>The Associated Press, Aug. 7 1999:
State Sen. Mike Miller of Fairbanks will head the Alaska campaign
chairman for Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes, campaign
officials said. Joining the Fairbanks Republican on the leadership
committee will be Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin, and former state GOP
chairman Pete Hallgren, who will serve as co-chairs.

</font></font></font></blockquote>Still, after nine years, the truth has yet to catch up completely.</font>



</font></font>
No Creationism in Schools</font>

</font></font>


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



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

</font></font><blockquote> Palin, Oct. 25, 2006:
Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is
so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of
teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a
science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be
given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject–
creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But
don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.</font>

</font></font></blockquote>A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying:</font>

</font></font></font><blockquote> Palin, Oct. 2006:
I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes
up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.</font>

</font></font></blockquote>After her election, Palin let the matter drop. The Associated Press
reported Sept 3: "Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has
made no push to have creationism taught in them. ... It reflects a
hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most
Alaskans." The article was headlined, "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." It was written by Dan Joling, who reports from Anchorage and has covered Alaska for 30 years.


</font></font></font></font></font></font></font>
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 09-09-2008, 09:07 AM
Bailey4's Avatar
WAHM Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 5,484
Default

It is funny how people refuse to do even basic fact checking and then have the stupidity to call the thread fact checking.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 09-09-2008, 09:08 AM
Kim's Avatar
Kim Kim is offline
WAHM Master
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 6,139
Default

Thank you Kamie.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 09-09-2008, 09:21 AM
starviolet's Avatar
WAHM Regular
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 182
Default

So she asked nicely about removing the books and changed her mind about the creationism thing a few days later? Spin spin spin. The smilies are moving too slowly right now. Pretend that I inserted the laughing one.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 09-09-2008, 09:22 AM
Bailey4's Avatar
WAHM Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 5,484
Default

Again no personal responsiblity. Can't even admit you didn't fact check a thread title fact check. Good Lord how amusing can you be. Full of insults but again no ability to actually discuss and debate issues.

Was the DNC letter a bit thin today?
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 09-09-2008, 11:16 AM
kamie3535's Avatar
WAHM Master
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7,222
Default



Quote:
Originally Posted by starviolet
So she asked nicely about removing the books and changed her mind about the creationism thing a few days later? Spin spin spin. The smilies are moving too slowly right now. Pretend that I inserted the laughing one.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp


She did not demand that books
be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely
circulated list were not even in print at the time. </font>

Edited by: kamie3535
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 09-09-2008, 11:43 AM
cre8tivgurl's Avatar
WAHM Fanatic
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1,672
Default



Good Lord, how much more of this do we have to endure?
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 09-09-2008, 11:51 AM
Haroldpl's Avatar
Super WAHM
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 228
Default

I am not an Obama fan or a Pallin supporter, I don't trust either one of them.

But good Lord SV at least lay off the kool-aid long enough to use Google to verify the trash you post first. You want people to accept what you post, but you don't use the common sense God gave you to not look like a brain washed idiot before posting.

W-E-W-L
Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off