FactCheck.Org on Sarah Palin

I just got sent this article from the online version of the WSJ. it seems apt for this thread. Here is the portion having to do with Palin:

(all of what follows should be in a quote box, but it’s not working)

The book-banner tale seems to have originated in a widely circulated Aug. 31 email from Anne Kilkenny, who is not a “South Park” character but a Wasilla resident and harsh Palin critic:

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.
On Sept. 2, Time magazine repeated the tale, attributing it to John Stein, Palin’s predecessor as mayor, whom she defeated in the 1996 election:

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. “She asked the library how she could go about banning books,” he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. “The librarian was aghast.” That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn’t be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving “full support” to the mayor.
The same day, Blogress Jessamyn West, a Vermont librarian, posted the Time story to her site, Librarian.net, and added that “Mary Ellen Baker resigned from her library director job in 1999.”

A reader of the blog named Andrew AuCoin then posted “the list of books Palin tried to have banned”–90 of them in all. Another reader, Charlie Brown, noticed that the list actually seemed to originate at this page–where it appears under the headline “Books Banned at One Time or Another in the United States.” But the phony list was already making its way around the Internet. On Sept. 6, a reader forwarded it to us, having received it from a friend, who received it from another friend, who received it from her mother, a librarian.

As it turns out, not only was the list a fake, but when the Anchorage Daily News investigated the story, it found no evidence that Palin had ever sought to remove books from the library. Baker (who was then named Emmons) did tell the local paper back in 1996 that Palin asked her, in the Daily News’s words, “about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose.” Emmons “flatly refused to consider any kind of censorship.”

Kilkenny makes an appearance in the Daily News story, quoting Palin as asking Baker at a City Council meeting, " ‘What would be your response if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?’ " Baker’s response was firm and negative, according to Kilkenny, who acknowledges that Palin did not cite any specific books for removal.

The chairman of the Alaska Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Committee tells the Daily News that there is no evidence in her files of any censorship at the Wasilla library. As for Baker’s resignation, it appears to be unrelated to the putative censorship:

Palin told the Daily News back then the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor’s job, which she’d won from three-term mayor John Stein in a hard-fought election. Stein had hired many of the department heads. Both Emmons [i.e., Baker] and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin.
Emmons survived the loyalty test and a second one a few months later. She resigned in August 1999, two months before Palin was voted in for a second mayoral term.
Yet the myth that Sarah Palin is a “book banner” has taken hold, at least on the left. It shows up, for instance, in two Salon articles (here and here) today.

Blogger Jim Lindgren notes another example, a CNN report from yesterday:

[Palin] also talked to church members about “being saved” at the Assembly of God and suggested to them that the war in Iraq is a mission from God. Palin said, “our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
But this quote turns out to be a dowdification. Here’s what Palin actually said:

“Pray for our military. He’s [Palin’s son Track] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country–that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
“I find it hard to believe that Anderson Cooper does not understand the difference between praying for something you hope is true and stating that it is true,” Lindgren writes. (The article with the misleading quote actually is written by a correspondent for Cooper’s show, not Cooper himself.) It’s all too easy, however, to believe that journalists would be sloppy at best when reporting stories that fit their stereotypes about Palin in particular and conservative Christians in general.

On PBS’s “Washington Week in Review” Friday, hostess Gwen Ifill reported encountering hostility on the floor of the Republican Convention: “There was a genuine grievance underneath all of that, this idea that she had been a victim and a victim of sexism and a victim of media bias.” Jeanne Cummings of Politico disagreed:

Well, I don’t have any sympathy for them. I don’t think there is any grievance that matters. John McCain put this woman–and she accepted–in a position to become president of the United States in the next 60 days. We don’t have enough time to mess around with this. We need to know a lot more about this woman. And it’s our job to find out everything we can about her, so the voters can make an educated decision about whether they want her that close to the presidency.
Even if “this woman” has nothing to complain about, don’t readers and viewers have a right to expect that journalists report what they “find out” only if it is true?

I am glad that my fellow Americans are coming around to the idea that character-assassination-by-media-curiosity might not be such a good idea. But the timing is, how you say, convenient.

As they said when Obama was being sandblasted, them’s the breaks. If you can’t stand the moose, get out of the tundra. I am sure that a few candid sit-downs and a thoughtful speech or two will clear the air surrounding Sarah Palin, just like they did for Obama.

I am so distressed that the press has refused to meet with Sarah Palin to hear her side of each story.

In theory, I agree with you that such a response would be ideal.

Realistically, teachers can stir up a nest of hornets by saying that what they are taught at home is wrong. We can say that it is not a sound scientific theory and approach it with some of the evidence that way. But at the same time we have to remember that creationism is religious belief and in pubic schools teachers don’t have a right to tell students their beliefs are wrong. It’s tricky.

Believe it or not, some do manage to grow up believing in both. I think I was in a state of “suspended judgment” until I was seventeen and felt okay about seeing Old Testament stories as myths used for teaching.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158265/output/print

Next…

It’s not clear to me how much main stream media and real journalists have been reporting things as factual that weren’t factual.

Saying she banned books is not factual. Saying she attempted to ban books is arguably true. Accounts I’ve read said she spoke to the librarian more than once about banning books and then either fired her or asked for her resignation, which caused a backlash from the general public causing Palin to recant. Are you claiming that isn’t true?

Her quotes from church are subject to interpretation. Saying In that same clip she also asks for prayers about a pipeline which is evidently God’s plan.

It sure sounds like she believes the pipeline is God’s will. Then, since it was reasonable to examine the sermons of Obama’s pastor and look for objectionable phrases as an insight into Obama’s beliefs perhaps we can now do the same for her. His sermons are recorded as well. Seem fair?

I’d like to see some real cited research for claims about Palin’s behavior as Mayor and governor. The bridge to nowhere claim seems to be a lie she repeated over and over and I have serous doubts about her claim to be a reformer since she actively sought millions in earmarks for her tiny town. That doesn’t mean she can’t change her attitude. It seems to mean she and those grooming her for the campaign are not being genuine about who she really is.

It isn’t true.

  1. Emmons was not “the librarian”. Emmons was a political appointee, serving at the will of the Mayor, the Dep’t head of Library and Museums.

  2. Palin asked for all Dept heads resignations. This was her right under City Charter. I think this is weird and arguably a power-play on Palins part, sure. But the “firing” of Emmons had nothing to with book bannings. Not even Emmons claims so. Emmons was “fired” as Emmons actively supported Palin’s opponent in the campaign, and Emmons also refused to merge the Library and Museum dept. Palin and Emmons met the next day and Emmons agreed to the merge. Emmons wasn’t fired after all. Or maybe she was for a single day. That’s unclear.

  3. No backlash from the public, either. Or rather there was, but it was after Emmons was “rehired” and it was about the entire firing incident.

  4. Palin did ask Emmons several times about censorship, even after the “firing”. Although I admit Palin’s motives are suspect, we don’t really know what they were. Thus, I suppose it could have been a hypothetical situation, as Palin claimed (actualy, Palin used the word “rhetorical” but clearly she’s confused as to what “rhetorical” means.)

It’s weird and it’s hardly in Palins favor, but most of this is a swiftboating attempt from Kilkenny, an admitted political opponent of Palin’s, who only came forward after Palin was nominated.

An utterly specious, semantic distinction with no difference whatsoever,.

That’s supposed to make it better?

It was her right to fire people for just cause, not to demand resignations as loyalty insurance.

I think it’s pretty obvious she was feeling the old bird out to she how she would react if Palin wanted to start purging the library of Harry Potter and Anne Rice books, when she didn’t react in a way that would show abject subservience to Palin (something she apparently feels entitled to not only from anyone who works for her but the media as well), she fired her. Something that appears to be a pattern for her.

“Sometimes, the majority just means all the fools are on the same side.”

–Will Rogers

So if she outlaws abortion, who would she put to death for those who were desperate enough, or disgusted enough, to have it done anyway? The mother? The doctor?

No elected politician in a western democracy can do whatever they want. All they can do is push in a particular direction. The fact that Palin might not be able to implement or veto the implementation of a particular policy on her own doesn’t mean it isn’t worth considering which way she’d throw her weight.

But what they have learned in recent years is that they can’t openly say this: it’s not (yet) politically acceptable. They haven instead learned to humbly suggest that “both” sides should be discussed, because it sounds reasonable on the surface, and not fundamentalist. Doesn’t mean it isn’t part of a long term plan with stronger goals.

Cite? She may have been both, but isn’t it true she had been the librarian for quite some time.

again, cite? Yes she fired department heads for supporting her opponent. Any evidence she fired Emmons for that reason. IMO if she asked her at least twice about banning books before she fired her then it’s hard to say they weren’t connected.

Has Emmons claimed that isn’t the case? All I’ve seen is “no comment”

What isn’t clear to me is that if she planned on firing her along with other dept heads then why ask her about book banning at all? There may indeed have been other factors but the fact that she asked her at all, and more than once, seems to indicate, if you’ll support me and my ideas then you get to keep your job. {those ideas included book banning}
Again, cites please.

Then explain why she was rehired. Yes there was a backlash about all the firing. This was a small town that had not played hard ball partisan politics before SP.

Sure, that’s the politically safe way to deny it later if you need to. She can honestly say she never called for books to be banned. She has to honestly admit she was thinking about it, and it was likely public opinion that stopped her, not her own conscience. That’s good to know in a potential president.

I call bullshit. I’ve read Kilkenny’s letter. The fact that she’s a political opponent means her opinions should be considered with a grain of salt but until you have real evidence she is lying intentionally lets leave that term out. If Kilkenny sincerely believes Palin would be a lousy VP and/or president then it’s her civic duty to inform others about what she’s observed first hand. Simply opposing her doesn’t make it “swiftboating” That involves intentional lies and distortions of the facts for malicious purposes. Like the whole Wright and Ayers BS.

Jayjay moose-alini very funny, and the nick name

El Douche {pronounced Doo-Shay }

She was elected on a summers eve :wink:
I’m so ashamed:o

It’s easy to say that we don’t know that they’re connected, though - I find it entirely possible that she just wanted to fire anyone who seemed inclined to opposed her in anyway, including by having supported her political opponent, 'cause what’s absolute power if you can’t fire the people who don’t suck up adequetely?

Regardless, I’d suggest you stop trying to tie the book banning business to the firing. It’s best to stick to known facts for stuff like this because when you start wildly speculating it allows your opponents to discard the entire issue.

It could have been two separate issues - Palin might have been fixed on cleaning house before it even occured to her to entertain any theocon fantasies.

Personally I think that this “loyalty test” business and the “hypothetical” probing about book banning are each dubious enough issues on their own that there’s no reason to conflate them, especially as it’s making you argue from a position of weakness. So maybe Palin didn’t toy with firing the librarian over book banning; maybe she merely toyed with firing her for no even vaguely decent reason at all, and she also was starting casual conversations about book banning. Together or split, it’s still quite disturbing.

It is an imporatant difference. We consider “the librarian” to be a dedicated civil servant professional, not a politician, not a mamaner. Emmons position was that of a political appointee.

It does and it doesn’t. Yes, it does make it look like some sort of “power play”, but it also makes is obvious that Emmon’s 'firing" had nothing whatsoever to do with censorship.

Yes, I concede it’s obvious to you. But again, Emmons firing had had nothing whatsoever to do with censorship. Even Emmons does not make that claim.

I dunno. There was a MLS Civil Servant “Librarian” and several assistants under Emmons dept. Not to mention museum employees, etc. Note that Emmons was actively campaigning for Emmons’ opponent in the election.

She fired everyone. Got that- everyone, all at the same time with the same letter. She also “fired” them on the day she took office, before she had the continued discussions with Emmons about censorship. Did she fire the Police Cheif over censorship? Did she fire the Museum Dept head over censorship? She issued a mass letter to all dept heads. It could not have anything to do with censorship. Most of the discussions about censorship came after the mass firing.

Emmons did make several statements at that time ot the local paper. In none of them do she even hint her firing had anything to do with censorship. True, since the Kilkenny swiftboating came out, Emmons has made no public statements.

Palin did not have time to even know about a “backlash” as the article reporting the incident didn’t even get printed until after Palin met with Emmons (which was the next day after the letters went out). It was clearly stated in the period article that Emmons was rehired after she agreed to the dept merge. Note that the article that generated the backlash is the article that reported that Palin met withh Emmons and rehired her. Thus, Emmons “rehiring” could not have been due to any backlash.

Admittedly there was a backlash about the “hard ball partisan politics”. The whole firing thing seems to have been a mistake of judgement on Palin’s part. But she does have an excuse- many of her 'new" staff had been actively and loudly campaigning against Palin. So yes, we can examine the firing incident and I agree it could have been better handled. But Emmon’s firing had nothing to do with censorship- only Kilkenny makes that claim. Emmons was rehired becuase she agreed to merge the library and museum depts. It’s right there in the article.

Kilkennys letter was swiftboating becuase she lied her ass off.

You keep going on about this but do you know it is true?

My sense of it is while she may have been a political appointee and served at the pleasure of the mayor in an administrative role she was also the head librarian. If she was just an administrator why would Palin ask her about banning books on several occasions?

At the least I think she may have wore more than one hat and in such a small town the inclusion of head librarian and administrator makes sense.

Nevertheless she HAD to have been librarian enough to oversee book selections and be the person to ask about banning books (IIRC there were 2-3 other librarians there as well and seemed subordinate to Emmons). We also know that Emmons served has President of the Alaska Library Association. While I do not know the qualifications for that job I’d be willing to bet you need to be a lilbrarian with the appropriate Masters degree at least to be considered.

Also, numerous news stories refer to her as the “librarian” in Wasilla. POssible they all started repeating what they thought to be true but by now if it was in error I think someone (besides you) would be pointing out she was just an administrator and not the librarian.

In short…Emmons is almost certainly a librarian till you provide something that says she was just the bean counter for the library and nothing else.

I didn’t say Emmons wasn’t *a *librarian. She may well have been and there’s some evidence she had a MLS degree. But at the time she was serving as a political appointee, a dept head. Not as a civil servant Librarian. True, her dept included the library, but it also included the museum. Should we call her the Curator? Curator/Librarian? Her title was dep’t head, not Librarian. The connnotation of Librarian is a civil service professional, not a political appointee dept head. This is exactly why Palin’s foes use the term “the librarian” to refer to Emmons, and not “Ms Emmons” or “Head of the Library and Museum Departments”. “Librarian” just sounds so more innocent than “Head of the Library and Museum Departments”.

The connotations of words are as important as their literal meaning.

I think you are making a distinction without an important distinction.

Her title was “Library Director” (cite). Whether that encompassed the museum or she had another title for that or what I do not know.

There is no doubt the Mayor had hire/fire control over that job. For whatever reason thta is how they did that there.

At the end of the day though Emmons was the one Palin asked about banning books, more than once. Presumably Emmons was asked, and not one of the other librarians, because Emmons controlled that aspect of running the library. Call her Grand Poobah for all it matters. She was the librarian in charge of selecting books making it relevant that Palin asked her rather than just some random conversation with someone who had zero influence on the books.

I was the President of the Library Board in a town much larger than Wasilla. We had a library director who was also the head of museums. She was the head librarian, worked 40+ hours a week in the library, her office was inthe library and she made all the executive decisions for the library.

I can’t honestly believe that you think a town of 7,000 actually has a ful time executive position overseeing the library and museums. Maybe I should say that it does - it’s called “Mayor”.