I think that the point is that she didn’t mention any specific books. Palin was fishing to find out of the librarian would ban books. That speaks volumes. Palin was ready to fire a librarian, and did fire her, when she wasn’t a book-burner. This two-step about naming book titles when that wasn’t the question asked it typical right wing pettifogging. Palin wanted a book burner to start a culture war and fired the librarian for insufficient loyalty after getting the answer. Next the usual furious right wingers will try to blame Clinton.
But the party line is apparently to demand the names of books from this witness (the librarian) who is certain that no specific books were mentioned. This kind of non-sequitar response shows how utterly intellectually dishonest the right is and why they screw up so much when they are in charge. It’s like Peggy Noonan praising Palin in her column, but telling the truth about what an inadequate choice she is when she doesn’t know the mic is on. It’s all a bunch of lies.
The current crop of wide-stance Republicans will furiously fight for book burning because they got their spam emails to hit their message boards and perpetually promote Palin’s palimpsest pyrotechnics. They do it without thinking and keep on doing it until everyone gets the message: Republicans think book banning is just swell. Do you guys really think that? Really?
This and her using her office to settle a divorce court score with her wacko brother-in-law demonstrate to me that if elected she would be more corrupt that either Angew or Cheney as VP and if she were to succeed McCain, she would be stupider and more arrogant than Bush.
I’m not taking a letter to the editor itself as adequate documentation, but if some feisty journalist researches and verifies this (never mind her tax/borrow/spendspendspend management style) , it’s pretty much explains why cronyism is no way to run a town.
I don’t know about your experiences in small-to-medium towns, but in my experience, it is not routine for police chiefs and librarians to be fired when a new mayor comes to office. Such offices are generally treated more in the manner of civil service jobs, not political appointments. In fact, in many towns, the mayor doesn’t even get to fill a vacancy in the office of the police chief or fire chief or other department heads. Any vacancy is filled according to which applicant scores highest on a civil service exam.
Sheriffs are elected, constitutional officers and Sheriff’s departments operate independently of other local authorities.
Police departments are almost always integrated into the municipal government, often falling under the aegis of the “Law Department” or the “Safety Department,” or somesuch. However, the police chief rarely serves “at the whim of the mayor.” That’s simply not how it works. Very often there are civil service protections.
Again, in most towns it’s not common for police chiefs, head librarians, and other department directors to be replaced en masse when a new mayor comes to office.
For what it’s worth, I personally knew the public works director, Jack Felton, and worked for him for two years at another location. Jack was a nice guy (he died a few years ago) and a very competent engineer. Everybody liked and respected him, and he seldom had a bad word about anybody. That said, he referred to Palin as “that psychotic bitch”, and wouldn’t discuss it further.
No one but Kilkenny remembers anything about the “banning” being brought up. There are no minutes, memos, emails or anything that mention this. As far as we know, Kilkenny, an avowed opponent of Palin, made up the whole “banning” thing.
Emmons was not the “town librarian”. She was an *appointed politician *who oversaw the “real” MLS Librarian, who was a Civil Servant.
Emmons and the Cheif of Police were loud and outspoken political foes of Palin and openly supported Palin’s opponent in the mayorial election. As soon as Palin was elected, she gave those two appointees (who served at the will of the mayor)- a letter of intent to fire. Emmons then met with Palin and agreed on a compromise regarding the merging of the library and museum dep’t., thus Palin rescinded the letter. Emmons was not fired.
Since this was one of the first things Palin did after taking office, it could not have been due to any debate about “book banning” between her and Emmons.
No books were banned, Palin did not attempt to have any books banned. There seems to have been a hypothetical question asked by Palin about the process. Even there we aren’t sure of the timing, context or wording.
""Palin said she asked Emmons if she would support efforts to merge the library and museum operations. Emmons said she would, according to Palin…
While both Stambaugh and Emmons serve at the mayor’s pleasure, Stambaugh said he has a contract that prohibits the city from firing him without cause.
Both Stambaugh and Emmons publicly supported Palin’s opponent, long-time mayor John Stein during the campaign last fall. When she was elected, Palin questioned their loyalty and initially asked for their resignations. But Stambaugh said he thought any questions had been resolved.
Emmons, who has been the city’s library director for seven years, would not comment about the affair…“Palin said Friday she now feels Emmons supports her but does not feel the same about Stambaugh. As to what prompted the change, Palin said she now has Emmons’ assurance that she is behind her.”
Not a local woman so much as an avowed politcal opponent of Palin. She is the one who swiftboated Palin by her lies
“While Sarah was mayor of Wasilla, she tried to fire our highly respected city librarian (1) because the librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed (2). 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 (3).”
Not the city Librarian, the *city’s library director *,an appointed politcal position that served at the will of the mayor.
No one but Kilkenny seems to remember this- it isn’t in any local papers from that time, no memos, no minutes, nothing. The local paper who wrote about the firings (and the paper is clearly not all that happy with what happened) does nopt mention “censorship” or “book bannings” *at all. *
No rally, no censorship, no backing down. Palin met with Emmons and worked out a compromise as regards merging museum and library depts.
Kilkenny either is misremembering or is a big fat liar.
Except that you’re forgetting that Palin admitted to it. She characterized it as “rhetorical,” but that’s really enough of admission to conclude that she isn’t the kind of person I want holding a position of authority.
Palin asked at least three times about removing books during the library, once during a public meeting, and when asked about it at the time, admitted that it had happened.
Q: Did she upend a little Alaskan town with all kinds of apparent administrative lunacy?
A: Yes.
Q: Did that apparent lunacy work?
A: It seems to have, she went from mayor to Governor to VP candidate (though I admit she was likely only a choice because McNutty was facing obvious defeat if he picked another older, whiter guy)
Q: Did she actually have any books banned?
A: No.
Therefore.
She’s not a book banner, even though she talked about it.
She’s waaaay out there on the right. She’s tough as nails and takes no crap. All of those things scare people.
Her family life is no one’s business but hers. if she took money form the coffers, if she was obviously and patently incompetent, if she was corrupt, if she is a bigot if she has been reputably quoted making racist/homophobic/anti-semitic etc. remarks, hate her until your head falls off. You cannot hate her reasonably and be a thinking person for something she did not do.
3a. Please stop making me defend the Republican
3b. I don’t care what anybody says, nutty as she is, DAMN she’s hot.