FactCheck.Org on Sarah Palin

[Sam_Stone]

This is a pretty good summary of the state of the various stories going around about Palin.

According to Factcheck.Org:

*  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.

* 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.

* 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.

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

* 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."

All fully sourced.

Can we now stop repeating these myths?

[Sampiro]

Honestly I hadn’t heard most of those (just the library one). I’m aware that she herself is a creationist, but never heard (the according to FactCheck erroneous) “promoted it in schools” one, and it’s not rumor that her husband was a member of the AIP and that Sarah addressed them as governor, but I haven’t read that she herself was a member. FactCheck also tears apart her convention speech.
What’s the debate?

[GIGObuster]

As mentioned before, regarding Creationism, the point made was that demanding that we “debate both sides” is the **current **tactic of ID’rs or Creationists.
Because creationists are prevented now from pushing full creationism thanks to judicial decisions the prospect if to have 4 or 8 more years of selecting judges that will seek to allow more than just a debate in the future.

“debate both sides” are code words for this effort.

[Sam_Stone]

@GIGObuster

As mentioned before, regarding Creationism, the point made was that demanding that we “debate both sides” is the **current **tactic of ID’rs or Creationists.
Because creationists are prevented now from pushing full creationism thanks to judicial decisions the prospect if to have 4 or 8 more years of selecting judges that will seek to allow more than just a debate in the future.

“debate both sides” are code words for this effort.

No. Creationists want to FORCE teachers to teach both sides. They want creationism added to curriculum. They want errata added to textbooks saying that evolution is only a theory.

Palin agrees with none of that. All she’s saying is that if a kid asks about it in class, the teacher should be able to answer. She’s not even saying what the answer has to be.

She has never said or done anything as Governor to remotely push creationism on anyone. Her own children are in public school, and she has never asked the school to teach creationism, or complained that it didn’t. There is simply no evidence that Palin wants to put creationism in schools.

[GIGObuster]

And looking at FactCheck.org:

Palin claimed to have stood up to Congress on the subject of the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” the Gravina Island bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska, about which we wrote last November.

Palin: I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that bridge to nowhere.

This is not the first time Palin has cited her choice to kill the bridge in 2007 as an example of her anti-waste stance. It’s true that she did eventually nix the project. But the bridge was nearly dead already – Congress had removed the earmark, giving the requested money to the state but not marking it for any specific use. Palin unplugged its life support, declaring in 2007 that the funds would not be used for the Gravina bridge.

When she was running for governor, however, Palin expressed a different position. In 2006, the Ketchikan Daily News quoted her expressing optimism and support for the bridge at a Ketchikan campaign stop.

Palin, 2006: "People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,” said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth. … Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she “would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.”

Palin also answered “yes” to an Anchorage Daily News poll question about whether she would continue to support state funding for the Gravina Island bridge if elected governor. “The window is now,” she wrote, “while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.” It was only after she won the governorship that Palin shifted her position. And even then, it’s inaccurate to say that she “told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks.’” Palin accepted non-earmarked money from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation purposes doesn’t qualify as standing up to Congress.

The bridge reversal is not the only matter throwing doubt on Palin’s credentials as a government waste reformer. Watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has reported that the small town of Wasilla, Alaska, which had not previously received significant federal funds, hauled in almost $27 million in earmarks while Palin was mayor. (McCain has explicitly criticized several of the Wasilla earmarks in recent years.) To help obtain these earmarks, Palin had hired Steven Silver, the former chief of staff for recently indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, as Wasilla’s lobbyist.

And Palin continued to solicit federal funds as governor. A request form on Stevens’ Web site shows that she requested $160.5 million in earmarks for the state in 2008, and almost $198 million for 2009.

Sure we can stop with the myths, when the truth is not better for Palin. When I mentioned the AIP flap I concentrated on the fact that it was the husband the member and the secretary of the AIP mentioned Palin was a member in a video, this is a fact, now if he got confused it was easy since it is obvious that she was well known in the group and her video praising the Alaskan Independence Party was made this year.

[treis]

@Sam_Stone

No. Creationists want to FORCE teachers to teach both sides. They want creationism added to curriculum. They want errata added to textbooks saying that evolution is only a theory.

Palin agrees with none of that. All she’s saying is that if a kid asks about it in class, the teacher should be able to answer. She’s not even saying what the answer has to be.

She has never said or done anything as Governor to remotely push creationism on anyone. Her own children are in public school, and she has never asked the school to teach creationism, or complained that it didn’t. There is simply no evidence that Palin wants to put creationism in schools.

Your own cite contradicts you:

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

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. 

She wants both taught in school. She made a political calculation and decided that pushing for teaching creationism wasn’t prudent, but she clearly thinks it should be taught in schools.

[GIGObuster]

@Sam_Stone

No. Creationists want to FORCE teachers to teach both sides. They want creationism added to curriculum. They want errata added to textbooks saying that evolution is only a theory.

Palin agrees with none of that. All she’s saying is that if a kid asks about it in class, the teacher should be able to answer. She’s not even saying what the answer has to be.

She has never said or done anything as Governor to remotely push creationism on anyone. Her own children are in public school, and she has never asked the school to teach creationism, or complained that it didn’t. There is simply no evidence that Palin wants to put creationism in schools.

Sorry, but you are once again setting the straw, I’m not mentioning that Paling is FORCING anyone now. As I mentioned before: even giving creationists the time of the day with the “debate both sides” is bananas and you can not deny that she said that. The current **default **tactic creationists is to “debate both sides” the future is to influence McCain into stuffing more judges with her opinion for 4 or 8 years and seek a different decision in the courts, only then we can talk about forcing. And I prefer not to give them that opportunity by voting for Obama.

[Sam_Stone]

@treis

Your own cite contradicts you:

She wants both taught in school. She made a political calculation and decided that pushing for teaching creationism wasn’t prudent, but she clearly thinks it should be taught in schools.

She clarified herself immediately thereafter, stating that it didn’t have to be part of the curriculum, and that she just wanted it to be a valid subject for debate if children ask about it.

[Polerius]

@Sam Stone

• 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.

This is misleading

• According to your link: “It’s true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla’s librarian, on at least two occasions.”.
  Come on, why would someone “raise the issue” at least two times, if this is not something they wanted to do, given enough support

• Also, “the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin’s first term” is misleading because Palin did fire her on Kan 30 1997, but had to re-hire her the next day due to overwhelming opposition from the townspeople. Even if this incident was related to book banning, the story told in this link from the Factcheck link you provided shows some shady practices on Palin’s part.

• 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.”

She has not “pushed for teaching creationism”, but, according to your link “Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That’s true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution”.

So, yes, she did not push it as governor, but that’s maybe because she saw that she would not have enough support to make it happen. Since this is something she wants, it’s pretty clear that she will push for it if she can get enough support.

Also, the fact that she said: “both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution” is interesting.

If you accept “creationism” as something worthy of discussion alongside evolution, then you must also discuss other religions’ cosmogony myths, and maybe even discuss the argument that we are living in a computer simulation of sorts (I don’t remember the official name of this theory), so all “evidence” found by scientists in support of evolution was put there by the programmer before he switched on the program five minutes ago.

The fact that she said “*both *sides of the subject” shows a serious lack of understanding that there are many more theories/myths out there. And, that, since evolution is the only one that is scientifically backed, it should be the only one discussed in science classes, and if you want to debate all the other theories/myths, then that belongs in a religion/philosophy class.

[GIGObuster]

@Sam_Stone

She clarified herself immediately thereafter, stating that it didn’t have to be part of the curriculum, and that she just wanted it to be a valid subject for debate if children ask about it.

As pointed before even that is bananas.

As a teacher I have already seen what “debate both sides” means, it is to teach creationism in disguise.

[elucidator]

As well, the spherical Earth theory should not be the only interpretation allowed in our public schools, children have a right to know all the facts about a uniplanar Earth hypothesis, so than they can make an informed decision.

[Polerius]

@Sam_Stone

She clarified herself immediately thereafter, stating that it didn’t have to be part of the curriculum, and that she just wanted it to be a valid subject for debate if children ask about it.

She didn’t “clarify” herself. If you read those statements, it’s clear that she contradicted herself, most likely backpedaling because her original statement didn’t go over so well.

Statement 1: “Teach both”
Statement 2: “It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum”

Anyway, from her two statements, it’s clear that she would like creationism taught, but she doesn’t think it absolutely has to be taught, which is why she didn’t push for it in an unfriendly environment.

[Sam_Stone]

@Polerius

She didn’t “clarify” herself. If you read those statements, it’s clear that she contradicted herself, most likely backpedaling because her original statement didn’t go over so well.

Statement 1: “Teach both”
Statement 2: “It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum”

Anyway, from her two statements, it’s clear that she would like creationism taught, but she doesn’t think it absolutely has to be taught, which is why she didn’t push for it in an unfriendly environment.

I just don’t think social issues are a big deal to her whatsoever. She, like Ron Paul, sees faith as a more personal matter. The only time it seems to dovetail with her governing philosophy is when it intersects with her tendency towards smaller government, such as her support for vouchers.

In this interview when she was running for governor, she was asked a few questions having to do with social policy. Here’s what she said:

6. If Roe v. Wade were overturned and states could once again prohibit abortion, in your view, to what extent should abortion be prohibited in Alaska?

Under this hypothetical scenario, it would not be up to the governor to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values.

7. Do you support or oppose the use of public funds for abortion (e.g., paying for abortion, promoting abortion, subsidizing organizations that provide or refer for abortion)?

I oppose the use of public funds for elective abortions.

8. Would you introduce - or, if introduced by a legislator, would you support - a bill to adopt the death penalty in Alaska? If yes, which crimes should it apply to?

If the Legislature were to pass a bill that established a death penalty on adults who murder children, I would sign it.

11. Do you support an increase in state-funded, faith-based initiatives?

We see an adequate level of funding for faith-based initiatives today.

She just doesn’t come across as a female Jerry Falwell. In fact, she appears to be to the left of McCain on a number of social issues, including her support for instructing kids in how to use condoms and other birth control in sex ed class. She sounds like a moderate-to-right wing typical Republican of the more libertarian persuasion.

Actually, who she sounds most like is John Danforth - the ex-Senator who officiated at Reagan’s funeral. Despite being a man of the cloth, he HATED the moral majority and the Congress’s focus on social issues. He mocked them recently and said that back in the day, they had more pressing things to worry about than whether the 10 commandments was on display or some religious litmus test was adhered to. Palin seems to be more in that camp.

Or for that matter, Joe Biden’s. He’s a religious catholic and personally pro-life. He just doesn’t think he has the right to tell others. I’m personally to the left of Biden. I’m pro-choice. But Palin certainly doesn’t seem to be out of the mainstream on most issues. Maybe her strong pro-life position is furtther out there than most Republicans, but even there she doesn’t seem to be of a coercive mindset.

[elucidator]

…Palin characterized the exchange differently, initially volunteering the episode as an example of discussions with city employees about following her administration’s agenda. …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… Palin described the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all four department heads to retain their positions…

Gee, thanks, Sam, this is all so reassuring. Loyalty tests. Oh, goody! Yes, that’s the sort of civic-mindedness we need in America. Land of the free.

What books was she thinking about anyway, in these casual, offhand discussion with a subordinate? Perhaps the *Left Behind *series, perhaps because its dime store Christianity and creamed corn prose, Stephen King meets Aime Semple McPherson…

But anyway, it was just a loyalty test. Good catch, Sam, we might have gotten the wrong idea about this,

[GIGObuster]

@Sam_Stone

I just don’t think social issues are a big deal to her whatsoever. She, like Ron Paul, sees faith as a more personal matter. The only time it seems to dovetail with her governing philosophy is when it intersects with her tendency towards smaller government, such as her support for vouchers.

[…]

She just doesn’t come across as a female Jerry Falwell…

Sure… lets pretend her selection for VP by McCain was not to get the confidence back from the right wing evangelicals:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08251/910146-470.stm

Sandy Usher is three things just now: Christian, Republican and on the fence about Sen. John McCain.

“As a Christian I see everything through a Christian lens, because I see that lens as clear-eyed. And everything else is foggy,” said Mrs. Usher, of Oakmont, a former Allegheny County GOP official.

Mrs. Usher is emblematic of a group of conservative Christian voters Mr. McCain has been slowly winning over. The question is whether he can win them fully by Nov. 4.

With Mrs. Usher, at least, he made some progress last week.

“I’d say I moved a lot just to get to the fence,” she said in a telephone interview the day after Mr. McCain gave his acceptance speech.

Some leaders on the Christian right have vowed never to forgive Mr. McCain his stands on embryonic stem cell research, or the McCain-Feingold bill that tried to limit their ability to intervene in political contests. Even his stand on global warming dismays many of them – one of the crossover issues that appeals to the conservative part of the Christian conservative equation.

Now, even though some of them doubt the globe is warming, Christian conservatives are warming to Mr. McCain.

Mrs. Usher entered the week impressed with Mr. McCain’s choice of evangelical Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a running mate but still troubled by many of his stands that she sees as unacceptable compromises on core values.

Initially she had leaned toward Chuck Baldwin, the nominee of the hard-right Constitution Party, but she said she was impressed with Mr. McCain’s reference in his acceptance speech to changing what he characterized as the “selfish life” of his youth.

The speech, she said, “reached out not only to people of faith but also to people who have gained a little maturity in their life.”

Winning over conservatives such as Mrs. Usher could spell the difference in Mr. McCain’s support in crucial states like Pennsylvania, home to a large contingent of evangelical Protestants and anti-abortion Catholics.

The tepidness toward Mr. McCain has been steadily receding, say evangelical leaders, but some worry that even if it vanishes altogether, the long wait might have damaged the nominee’s chances.
Suspicions remain

“He’s not someone that related well. He didn’t play very well in the sandbox with religious conservatives. There was a lot of suspicion,” said former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who built much of his political base within the religious right.

Mr. McCain’s conservative credentials would have seemed relatively solid. He opposes abortion. His hawkish foreign policy dovetails with that of most conservatives. His religious beliefs are evangelical, having left the Episcopalian church for the Baptists.

But all the while, he has avoided the kind of rhetoric to which evangelical voters are attuned.

“He voted pretty much the right way,” said Mr. Santorum, “but he would not come out and speak to those issues.”

Richard Land, who heads the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, said religious conservatives began softening their position as the two major party candidates became clear.

"Up until about three weeks ago what I had a lot of evangelicals saying to me was a variation of this: ‘He wasn’t my first choice, he wasn’t my second choice, but I’d rather have a third-class fireman than a first-class arsonist,’ " Mr. Land said. “They looked at Sen. Obama as a first-class arsonist.”

The enthusiasm, say evangelical leaders, followed Mr. McCain’s performance in a televised presidential forum from Saddleback Church in California, moderated by Rick Warren, a prominent evangelical pastor. It was there that Mr. McCain publicly discussed his religious beliefs in detail and strengthened his standing among opponents of legalized abortion.

He followed that appearance with the selection of Ms. Palin, an abortion foe who opted to give birth to a child with Down syndrome. Conservative Christian voters were swayed.

[Jackmannii]

@Sam Stone

I just don’t think social issues are a big deal to her whatsoever. She, like Ron Paul, sees faith as a more personal matter.

Except when she’s pushing a war as something God wants us to undertake.

As noted, her “opposition” to the Bridge To Nowhere reeks of political calculation, as the handwriting was on the wall for that particular project. Clearly she was for it before she was against it, a positively Kerryite stance.

And “teach the controversy” is a favorite tactic of creationists. When you have the governor saying this, it’s a form of pressure on teachers to have a “debate” whenever someone brings up creationism. This opens the door to ministers and other creationism advocates pushing kids to turn scientific teaching into a referendum on the Bible, not to mention some teachers themselves feeling they now have a license to bring their religious views into a science classroom. We’ve already seen this happen in my home state without any state mandate to teach creationism.

The above issues are an embarassment to Palin, no matter what spin G.O.P operatives want to put on them. Palin-drones are better off yammering about
how wonderfully fresh and vibrant she is, how she can do the bossa nova and clean a moose at the same time etc. etc.

[Whiteknight]

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.

You mean like with sex education? :dubious:

[CairoCarol]

From the cited website:
Several claims are not true, and other rumors are misleading.

So, some rumors are true but misleading?

Honestly, this was all very entertaining for a few days, but I’m ready to move on to questions of policy, both foreign and domestic. When is the press going to be allowed to interview her so we can get a true grasp of her current policy positions and the scope/sophistication of her knowledge and conceptualizations about the world? Has she given ANY substantive interviews since McCain picked her? If not, is this typical for a VP candidate at this stage in the game? I really don’t know, can someone enlighten me?

[magellan01]

@Jackmannii

As noted, her “opposition” to the Bridge To Nowhere reeks of political calculation, as the handwriting was on the wall for that particular project. Clearly she was for it before she was against it, a positively Kerryite stance.

For what it’s worth, on Hardball last night, someone speaking for her made the point that she was for “a bridge” when it was discussed within the state. But never supported the super-expensive one that Stevens got earmarked. That the idea of a bridge was something she initially favored, but after it went through Washington and turned into a bazillion dollar bridge and earmark, she was not in favor of it.

I’d like to see some substantiation for that at some point. I’d like to know the full story.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@magellan01

For what it’s worth, on Hardball last night, someone speaking for her made the point that she was for “a bridge” when it was discussed within the state. But never supported the super-expensive one that Stevens got earmarked. That the idea of a bridge was something she initially favored, but after it went through Washington and turned into a bazillion dollar bridge and earmark, she was not in favor of it.

I’d like to see some substantiation for that at some point. I’d like to know the full story.

That story is even less consistent with the facts, since she ended up keeping the money and not getting a bridge.