Sarah Palin's new book full of lies and distortions

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_palin_book_fact_check

is anyone surprised?

I love how she "blames" Obama for the bank bail outs, even though Bush is the one who pushed them through.

this lady is sooooo dead from the neck up.

Run Palin...run!!! Palin 2012!!! Palin 2016!!! Palin 2020!!

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by parky76

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_palin_book_fact_check

is anyone surprised?

I love how she "blames" Obama for the bank bail outs, even though Bush is the one who pushed them through.

this lady is sooooo dead from the neck up.

Run Palin...run!!! Palin 2012!!! Palin 2016!!! Palin 2020!!

I will note that as much as I like to see Palin get a good rake over the coals, the D.C. bureau chief of A.P. is Ron Fournier, who interviewed to be McCain's communications director and could be considered an ally of the Senator. This really looks to me like the McCain people "contracted" a hit piece on Palin as part of their ongoing feud.

Something a bit too harsh about this piece that seems inappropriate for a hard news outfit like A.P.

[a_unique_person]

I can guarantee you she believes every word of it, unlike people such as Anne Coulter.

[Whiplash]

No, you can't guarantee anything of the sort, about either of them. It's that kind of elitist attitude that is so heartwarming and enticing to everyone else. Why doesn't it work better? I'll be damned if I know.

[commandlinegamer]

Originally Posted by parky76

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_palin_book_fact_check

is anyone surprised?

Yeah, I was hoping for some more bikini pics, at least.

[theprestige]

Has anyone actually read the article? 11 AP writers to come up with a list that includes about six facts, plus assorted editorial opinions, "he said/she said" items, and flat-out corroborations of Palin's claims. It adds up to about 1.8333 fact-checkers per actual fact actually checked in the article.

[hgc]

Originally Posted by Whiplash

No, you can't guarantee anything of the sort, about either of them. It's that kind of elitist attitude that is so heartwarming and enticing to everyone else. Why doesn't it work better? I'll be damned if I know.

Be a good soldier -- turn all substantive topics to complaints about "elites" or other cultural war tropes.

[quarky]

Babes are exempt.

Try to focus on her babe-ish-ness.
I predict she'll eventually have her own talk show, and make lots of money.

Yet, I was pretty sure that Monica Lewinsky was going to be a star.

(Its good to be wrong.)

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091114/..._palin_bristol

she also claims she never knew her daughter was having sex.

i wonder if how the father of her grandchild becoming a model for Playgirl will effect her chances at the Presidency.

Palin 2012!!!!

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Has anyone actually read the article? 11 AP writers to come up with a list that includes about six facts, plus assorted editorial opinions, "he said/she said" items, and flat-out corroborations of Palin's claims. It adds up to about 1.8333 fact-checkers per actual fact actually checked in the article.

Well, it generated a jump the gun left wing smear thread, that was the only intent. When I feel not lazy, I might just go down to the bookstore, pick up the book, order a latte, and respond.

In the meantime, it is funny to see people discuss pseudo facts.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Has anyone actually read the article? 11 AP writers to come up with a list that includes about six facts, plus assorted editorial opinions, "he said/she said" items, and flat-out corroborations of Palin's claims. It adds up to about 1.8333 fact-checkers per actual fact actually checked in the article.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you think Palin didn't tell whoppers in her book? Or are you saying that she didn't tell too many?

Or that there weren't enough fact checkers to determine whether or not she told lies?


Here's another one where she claims that the McCain campaign billed her for their costs of vetting her before she was nominated. The McCain campaign people said:

Quote:

"That is one hundred percent untrue," said the McCain official, who would only speak on the condition of anonymity in deference to McCain. "All those bills are from her personal attorney Thomas Van Flein, mostly relating to the Troopergate investigation and other ethics investigations. It is not legal to pay for those investigations out of general election funds, even if the campaign was so inclined."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ercent-untrue/

[Cynic]

This article is fun:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...heck.html?_r=2

It's almost as if someone wrote it for her and she couldn't be bothered to correct the errors.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Cynic

This article is fun:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...heck.html?_r=2

It's almost as if someone wrote it for her and she couldn't be bothered to correct the errors.

now, thats just being mean!!

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Well, it generated a jump the gun left wing smear thread, that was the only intent.

How is this thread jumping the gun. You mean the links cited herein don't exist?

Parky, please confirm hazy's claim that your "only" intent in starting this thread was a smear job.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by SezMe

How is this thread jumping the gun. You mean the links cited herein don't exist?

Parky, please confirm hazy's claim that your "only" intent in starting this thread was a smear job.

um....i dont understand. i believe, based on a review of the book, that Palin's book is based on lies and distortions.

if the review was not written, my thread would not exist.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It adds up to about 1.8333 fact-checkers per actual fact actually checked in the article.

Is there some quotient of facts:checkers that has to be filled before an article has merit? I've read other articles by a single author that make many of the same points. So, for example, if the ratio is 10:1 would that be better? Would that change your reaction?

[Pardalis]

It's so much easier to criticize a book when it's someone else who has read it for you.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

It's so much easier to criticize a book when it's someone else who has read it for you.

If this were about subjective opinions, you'd have a point. It's not. It's about whether or not Palin's book is chock full of mistatements and outright lies. It is.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by parky76

Run Palin...run!!! Palin 2012!!! Palin 2016!!! Palin 2020!!

If there's a god with a sense of humor. One can only pray.

[Brainster]

First fact checked: Palin stayed one night at a fancy NY hotel (probably for the free robes and slippers). But of course they do note that "travel records indicate she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor".

Fact check #2:

PALIN: Boasts that she ran her campaign for governor on small donations, mostly from first-time givers, and turned back large checks from big donors if her campaign perceived a conflict of interest.

Quote:

THE FACTS: Of the roughly $1.3 million she raised for her primary and general election campaigns for governor, more than half came from people and political action committees giving at least $500, according to an AP analysis of her campaign finance reports. The maximum that individual donors could give was $1,000; $2,000 for a PAC.

Of the rest, about $76,000 came from Republican Party committees.

She accepted $1,000 each from a state senator and his wife in the weeks after the two Republican lawmakers' offices were raided by the FBI as part of an investigation into a powerful Alaska oilfield services company. After AP reported those donations during the presidential campaign, she said she would give a comparative sum to charity after the general election in 2010, a date set by state election laws.

Do I have to point out that if "more than half her money came from donors giving more than $500, then somewhere near half came from donors giving less than $500, and that the number of those donors must necessarily be much larger than the number giving more than $500. And note that there is no indication that there was any conflict of interest in her receiving the donation from two Republican lawmakers, so AP has not refuted that "fact" even though a cursory reading might confuse readers.

The rest is pretty weak beer at best. Consider:

Quote:

PALIN: Says Ronald Reagan faced an even worse recession than the one that appears to be ending now, and "showed us how to get out of one. If you want real job growth, cut capital gains taxes and slay the death tax once and for all."

THE FACTS: The estate tax, which some call the death tax, was not repealed under Reagan and capital gains taxes are lower now than when Reagan was president.

AP misses that Palin is going from the history lesson to a current prescription. And Reagan did cut capital gains taxes; that they have since been cut further is not a refutation of her point.

Anyway, all this publicity about her new book seems to be working. Guess what's the #1 bestseller on Amazon right now?

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by Brainster

AP misses that Palin is going from the history lesson to a current prescription. And Reagan did cut capital gains taxes; that they have since been cut further is not a refutation of her point.

Anyway, all this publicity about her new book seems to be working. Guess what's the #1 bestseller on Amazon right now?

Apparently Sarah Palin thinks you can slay the death tax "once and for all" more than once !!!@11eleventy

[Hindmost]

I am surprised she finished the book, she usually quits.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Whiplash

No, you can't guarantee anything of the sort, about either of them. It's that kind of elitist attitude that is so heartwarming and enticing to everyone else. Why doesn't it work better? I'll be damned if I know.

It seems to work well enough. The Republicans spent the election season whining about how the Democrats were "elitist", and I can't help but remember who won. But perhaps the Democrats' "elitism" prevented them from winning a superdupermegamajority. The elitist fools!

Incidentally, would it be equally "elitist" for a conservative to opine that Palin sincerely believes what she says, or is it only "elitist" when liberals do it?

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by parky76

um....i dont understand. i believe, based on a review of the book, that Palin's book is based on lies and distortions.

if the review was not written, my thread would not exist.

Hey go for it! Basically, stay ignorant. I'll be happy to discuss book ABC with someone else, given that both people have book ABC in their hand and can go to a page etc.

Otherwise, you are excelling at arguing from ignorance.

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by parky76

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091114/..._palin_bristol

she also claims she never knew her daughter was having sex.

Are you suggesting this is a lie or distortion?

[SezMe]

I claim it is an after-the-fact denial of what was known at the time. I don't think Bristol said, "Hey mom, a good bang is sure fun, isn't it?" but I suspect Sarah knew they were well beyond the mash-mouth stage.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by parky76

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_palin_book_fact_check

I love how she "blames" Obama for the bank bail outs, even though Bush is the one who pushed them through.

this lady is sooooo dead from the neck up.

Did you read the book?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you think Palin didn't tell whoppers in her book? Or are you saying that she didn't tell too many?

Or that there weren't enough fact checkers to determine whether or not she told lies?

I thought I was pretty clear. I asked if anybody [in the thread up to that point] had actually read the article cited in the OP. Then I made some allegations about the quality of the article, the number of contributors, the number of actual facts checked, and the variety of other things masquerading as "fact checks" in the article.

Have you read the article? Are you able to address my allegations?

Quote:

Here's another one where she claims that the McCain campaign billed her for their costs of vetting her before she was nominated. The McCain campaign people said:

Ironically, one of the allegations I made about the article was that it included unsubstantiated "he said/she said" masquerading as actual fact checks. Kind of like what you just did. A real fact check would have been to dig up the documents in question and present them to debunk the original claim. I don't blame you for not bothering, but it's not really something you'd expect to see a lot of in an article written by no less than 11 AP reporters.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by SezMe

I claim it is an after-the-fact denial of what was known at the time. I don't think Bristol said, "Hey mom, a good bang is sure fun, isn't it?" but I suspect Sarah knew they were well beyond the mash-mouth stage.

On what do you base this suspicion?

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Anyway, all this publicity about her new book seems to be working. Guess what's the #1 bestseller on Amazon right now?

That's fine with me. I don't begrudge the poor girl her money. It is obviously more important to her than anything else, and I'm sure she is not nearly as wealthy as many politicians.

And I would love for the book to get as much publicity as possible. I want it to be read and dissected by every pundit on the circuit. I want it to propel her to goddess status among the far right and win her the Republican nomination for president. You go girl!

Heck, I might even buy a copy myself. My copy of Uncle John's Bathroom Reader is getting a little ragged.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Did you read the book?

It's not released yet. ETA: Release date is Nov. 17th.

Originally Posted by theprestige

I thought I was pretty clear. I asked if anybody [in the thread up to that point] had actually read the article cited in the OP. Then I made some allegations about the quality of the article, the number of contributors, the number of actual facts checked, and the variety of other things masquerading as "fact checks" in the article.

Have you read the article? Are you able to address my allegations?

Yes I read that article and several others about Palin's book.

I guess I still don't understand your allegations--especially the significance of the number of checkers compared to the number of facts checked.

[GanipGnop]

Originally Posted by Brainster

AP misses that Palin is going from the history lesson to a current prescription. And Reagan did cut capital gains taxes; that they have since been cut further is not a refutation of her point.

Anyway, all this publicity about her new book seems to be working. Guess what's the #1 bestseller on Amazon right now?

To the best of my knowledge Reagan's 1981 cut in the Capital gains tax cut (28% > 20%) was short lived The Tax Reform Act of 1986 repealed the exclusion of long-term gains, raising the maximum rate to 28 percent again at the beginning of his second term in office. Under Bush I the rate stayed the same The rate wasn't lowered again until 1997 with the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 under Clinton.

I'm not surprised Palin's book is #1 on amazon.com but that doesn't mean all these purchases are out of admiration. I'm sure just as many people want to hear what this BalloonHead has to say for the entertainment value. If you look closely her book originally listed for $28 but now it can be had for the low low price of $9 that is quite a fall for a book that isn't even on sale yet.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's another article about someone else claiming Palin lied in her book:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...on-palin-book/

Originally Posted by theprestige

Ironically, one of the allegations I made about the article was that it included unsubstantiated "he said/she said" masquerading as actual fact checks.

Trouble is, it's not a matter of one person's word against another's (which is what "he said/she said" means, I believe).

It's the case of many people making credible claims that she is lying and the fact that many of Palin's claims don't sound credible.

And there's the fact that she's been known to lie. In fact, her first introduction to the nation (that she's an anti-pork maverick who said "No thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere) turned out to be a big fat lie.

So even if it were a he said/she said situation, she's lost the benefit of the doubt.

[MattusMaximus]

It seems that some folks in the moderate/McCain wing of the GOP are calling out Palin on her claims in this book...

McCain camp: Palin account 'all fiction'

Quote:

Top aides to Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign hit back at Sarah Palin Friday and Saturday, calling the former vice presidential nominee’s soon-to-be-released book “revisionist and self serving” “fiction.”

Campaign manager Steve Schmidt, who emerges as Palin’s nemesis in the advance excerpts that have surfaced from her forthcoming account of the campaign, “Going Rogue,” told POLITICO Saturday that Palin's charges about him were made up.

"It's all fiction," he said.

With a laugh, the shaved-headed political operative asked: "Why is the bald guy always the villain?"

Schmidt, Palin writes, was “grim-faced” and “cool,” and tried to pin the campaign’s troubles on what he claimed was Palin’s post-partum depression, and even went to so far as to try and dictate her diet.

According to excerpts published on the Huffington Post, Palin “took in his rotund physique and noted that he used nicotine to keep his own cognitive connections humming along.” ...

[dudalb]

What is amusing is that Palin's main feud in the book seems to be not with the Liberals, but with other conservatives.
And I could point of plenty of books by politicians both left and right that are full of lies and distortions.
THis thread has become a fine display of partisan blinders on both sides of the political spectrum.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Brainster

On what do you base this suspicion?

Levi.

Yes, I know, he's hardly one to hang my hat on but what he said seemed, well, reasonable and SOP for their age. To me, his assertion is more believable than hers. That's all.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by dudalb

THis thread has become a fine display of partisan blinders on both sides of the political spectrum.

dudalb, standing firmly on a high hill in the very middle, affording him a clear, untainted view of the cesspool valleys to his left and right.

[Peephole]

Lol:

Quote:

...

The Huffington Post has obtained internal McCain campaign emails -- addressed to and by the former vice presidential candidate -- that directly contradict or cast serious doubt on several of Palin's assertions. The emails were passed along by a mid-level staffer who called early excerpts of "Going Rogue", a serious mixing of truth and imagination."

In one email thread, dated October 14, 2008, Palin says she is "not thrilled" with the idea of going on Saturday Night Live as a way of marginalizing the show's unflattering impersonations of her.

"Not after seeing clips of what they've been playing re: my family," Palin writes to campaign manager Steve Schmidt, as well as top strategists Rick Davis; and Nicolle Wallace. "I had no idea how gross 'celebrities' on that show and in other celebrity venues could get when it comes to family and other aspects of my life that have nothing to do with seeking the vp slot. These folks are whack - didn't know it was as bad as it is... what's the upside in giving them any celebrity venue a ratings boost? That's Todd's input also," she concludes, in reference to her husband.

...

Palin would ultimately make a guest appearance on Saturday Night Live days later. But in her upcoming book she describes the deliberations about whether or not to go on the show much differently than the emails suggest. In "Going Rogue", the vice presidential candidate writes that "from the beginning, I liked the idea that John and I might appear on the show."

The SNL episode isn't the only instance where "Going Rogue" seems to venture away from documented campaign material. On the condition that it could be quoted but not re-published, the McCain staffer also provided the email that Schmidt sent to Palin and her staff after she was prank called by someone pretending to be French President Nicolas Sarkozy

"Who set this up? Are you kidding me? Did it occur to anyone that the french president wouldn't be looking to have a conversation with the vicepresidential candidate 3 days before the election," Schmidt writes. "From this moment forward, no interview occurs without my direct signoff. Nothing. I want to know the exact details of this. I want to know who is responsible."

In "Going Rogue", the anecdote is painted in a drastically different setting and context. For starters, Palin writes that Schmidt called her, something that two McCain aides (including the one who provided the email) insist never happened. "He never called screaming at her," said one of the aides, who was traveling with Palin at the time. "There was no phone call."

Moreover, in Going Rogue, Palin recalls Schmidt screaming directly at her, so much so that it "blew my hair back." In actuality, the irritation was directed at the staffers, the aide said. "He was expressing his anger to staff. And did it over email."

Finally, the McCain aide sends over a third email that shows a late-in-the-campaign Palin grateful for the work done by Schmidt and others and cognizant of her "blundered-up" media appearances. The occasion was a sit-down interview that the vice presidential candidate had done with ABC's Elizabeth Vargas on October 29, in which it was reported (widely out of context) that Palin was already thinking about running for president in 2012.

"I am very sorry," Palin writes to Nicolle Wallace, Steve Schmidt, and Rick Davis, with her husband, Todd, cc:ed. "u guys are working double-triple time on this blundered-up stuff that they spin bc of my visits w press - while I apologize I say I love you guys!!!"

...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_358124.html

[varwoche]

I can't wait to read this truly great book. From the first paragraph, at least according to the NY Times "news"paper:

Originally Posted by Palin's ghost writer

I breathed in an autumn bouquet that combined everything small-town America with rugged splashes of the Last Frontier.

<laughing dog goes here>

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by varwoche

I can't wait to read this truly great book. From the first paragraph, at least according to the NY Times "news"paper: <laughing dog goes here>

Oh my. Is this an entry in the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest?