So, did the Magic Eight Ball or the Voices in Your Head inform you of what her secret agenda was?:rolleyes::dubious:
It’s a swiftboat attack. *You were taken in by it. *
You can’t find a less American bunch than the folks who defend anything as long as it’s done by a Republican.
My one minute of fame: After Murkowski bought the jet over the objections of…well…everybody, the local liberal radio station ran a Name The Jet contest. I won. My entry: Bald Ego, as a play on Bald Eagle. I won a plastic model of a MarkAir Jet and got to be on radio for about 30 seconds. Yay me.
She asked three times about censoring books in the library and then when she was asked about it, she confirmed it. What more does anyone with a brain need to know?
I don’t need to know her secret agenda. I know what she did in public. And that’s what I base my conclusions on. No one who expresses such interest in censoring books in a library should be trusted with authority of any kind.
And why do you keep saying “swiftboat”? Do you think that just repeating those words has any meaning whatsoever?
Actually, no. More than one source, including Palin herself.
Hey! Hey, Chefguy, get over to Who Is Sarah Palin, would you? I got a question over there maybe you could answer. “Who are Sarah Palin’s allies and supporters?” I figure if we see who she stands with, we can see who she is. Because right now, all we see are people who seem very unhappy with her.
Nope, no one but Kilkenny has said that Palin was actually attempting to censor or ban books. Palin most definate did not say that.
This is true. Without a direct admission from Palin that those were her intentions, how can we possibly deduce them? She might’ve simply wanted to remove moldy books, and have them replaced with shiny new copies. Or perhaps it was to be a test of the librarian’s problem solving abilities: given a set of books with dimensions A x B x C, what is the total volume of free space created by removing N of them from the library? (Please show your work.) There are an infinite number of possibilities, each one more reasonable and likely than the last.
lmao…
DrDeth, play devil’s advocate for a minute.
Say you’re a committed book banner, who believes that a whole long list of books, from Catcher in the Rye to the *Koran *should not be available in a public library. Say you get elected mayor. Say you want to begin implementing your plan of cleaning up the library. Who would you need on your side to make this work? Probly, first and foremost, the librarian. So what do you do? You approach her discreetly, feel her out carefully, because people can be so silly about a thing like banning books. You wouldn’t just send over in an interdepartmental envelope a list of books and a note, “please burn these at midnight during a full moon.” No, you’d try to determine if she’s a likely ally in your righteous campaign. So you contrive to “bump into her,” say at communist party meeting, and lightly say, “Love the outfit. How would you feel about removing some inappropriate titles from the library? Is that your real hair?” Then you’d sit back and gauge her reaction. If she goes, “Awesome, I keep a list of everyone who’s ever checked out *Ulysses *for when the revolution comes!” then you slip her your list. But if she suddenly thrusts a crucifix in your face, and screeches, “Book banner! Unclean! Unclean! Unclean!” you’ve left yourself a twig of deniability to cling to. “What? I was just making conversation, you know, an abstract discussion about book banning. What, did you think–? Wait, you thought I–?!? I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!”
Seriously, OK?
Her allies and supporters are the christian right, the pro-lifers, and 82% of Alaskans, apparently, who are too stupid to see through her bullshit.
Right, and that’s why I said “Mind you, I am still a little suspicious, but given as that was 12 years ago, I think this is the best we could come up with” In other words, 12 years ago, and no overt attempt to ban books, and only a small amount of period info and cites so nothing certain can be said. Thus I think we have to concede that those that think Palin is eviiil will conclude that of course she wanted to start the bock-burnings and Palin’s supporters would say “she was just making sure the librarian was not pro-banning” and the rest of us will go “err, OK, I think we’ll have to give this one a pass as the evidence is sparse and old, and the motives of Kilkenny are obvious” but then we’ll watch Palin a tad more carefully, just in case.
Don’t get me wrong, we have plenty of reasons to not join the Palin fan club. This one is just whaaay too feeble.
It’s only to feeble to someone who really really really really really really doesn’t want to be believe that she meant what was obvious that she meant to the rest of the world. seriously. It’s denial to an absurd level to think that she wasn’t intending to ban given the evidence. It’s the reasonable conclusion to draw. I just got back from a house full of Mccain supporters and they all conclude she was wanting to ban, from the evidence, and made a few feeble excuses as to why it was ok, or maybe she was just over zealous…NONE of them were in such a state of denial. You’re backwards on this thing.
Back to the OP: Did you know that this assertion was deemed “false” by Snopes?
Before drinking of the kool aid perhaps you should visit a site called Palin rumors.
Main site: http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/05/palin-rumors/
Backup site: http://sarahpalinrumors.blogspot.com/
I’m a Palin supporter & technically what Snopes deemed false is this list of books she supposedly wanted banned, especially the Harry Potter ones which didn’t even start publication till a year after the librarian incident. It does question how far her speculation into banning books went, however.
What Friar Ted sed.
What we have are a few posters, and esp. Dr. Deth throwing whatever comes to mind up to defend these inquiries by Palin, pointing out that Palin did not succeed in banning a single book, but rather being stopped in her outrageous power grab by a mild mannered librarian and her local friends. Had Palin managed to win this confrontation against a mere librarian, we wouldn’t be talking about it here in Sept 08. But Palin lost to the librarian, as indeed, she will lose to anyone she confronts who has even the slightest platform.
She may want to compare herself to a pit bull, but she only bullies her own daughters, arugula eaters, Chardonnay drinkers and San Franciscans. Come the VP debate when she doesn’t have a teleprompter, then let’s see how she does against Smokin’ Joe Biden. Just yesterday she babbled something about how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were failing government institutions that wouldn’t happen to a private corp. Being Gov of Alaska, she should already know about her Alaskan citizens problems with the mortgage crisis and about both Freddie and Fannie.
Unless the questions are terribly dumbed down for the VP debate, she can at best hope to be pleasant, charming and humorous. Even if she does study quite a bit between now and then, everyone will know it is from book studying and give her grades on that basis. All Biden has to do is relax, debate her just as he would a man, and he will look far more qualified. (Obama has a best 2 out of 3 with McCain, and it is hard to imagine that the old man will do more than constantly refer to his military service.)
But she is a book banner. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and leads around five ducklings, it’s a duck. You don’t actually have to serve it with plum sauce to know that it was Peking into the possibility of removing the right wing’s most hated books. Removing any books from a municipal library is retarded, and the people defending Palin on this look pretty damn retarded themselves. They can declare victory for themselves all they want, but they sound like loud retards denying reality.
I just posted this in GD, confusing all the Palin threads:
(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?
No, the book banner “tale” originated with Palin asking the librarian about banning books and then firing her when she refused (then re-hiring her after the citizens got pissed). The list of banned books was a myth, the asking about banning and then firing the librarian was not.
-
Emmons wasn’t really “the Librarian” she was the politically appointed serving at the will of the mayor dep’t. head.
-
Emmons wasn’t really fired. Every member of the senior staff was given the same letter. Emmons and Palin met the next day, Emmons compromised by agreeing that the Library and Museum dept be joined, and so *wasn’t *fired. Maybe one can argue she was “fired” for a day. Maybe.:dubious:
-
The firing was a mass action given to every single dep’t head. Only two were really fired- the Police Chief (who had campaigned for and supported Palin’s political rival during the election) and Museum dept head (whose dept was merged with Emmon’s). It had nothing whatsoever to do with Palins discussions with Emmons about censorship. Not even Emmons makes that claim, it was made up entirely by Kilkenny.