And here’s the NY Times fact-checking her book. One highlight:
Glad to see she has her finger on the pulse of today’s problems…
I think you just described our last president…
So, have they sold the movie rights?
“Tina Fey is Sarah Palin in ‘Going Rogue–the Movie’”
She also blames the bailout package on Obama, even though McCain voted for it, she supported it, and Bush signed it.
It will take endless vigilance to prevent the false notion that “everything was fine under Bush, and then immediately went to hell under a spend-happy Obama” from taking root in the dimwitted national consciousness. It will only get worse as time passes beyond our historical attention span (i.e., in a few weeks), and Palin and others realize they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by promulgating and nourishing such an idiotic lie.
It sounds like Dubya all over again; the perfect vessel for the right to fill with their ideas.
Also like Dubya, there’s no way she has the faculties to write a book.
I’ve read excerpts and reviews.
The NY Times fact check is also quite entertaining. This is a woman who never stops creating her own reality.
If I had to choose between reading this book and shoving it up my ass, I wouldn’t even stop to ask for some K-Y.
The sooner we stop taking her seriously, the better.
The AP fact checks Sarah’s book.
Sarah Palin fact checks the AP’s fact checking of Sarah Palin’s book.
That may be what she calls it, but I don’t see any actual facts being checked, there.
She doesn’t actually deny anything the AP said, she just whines about it, and plays the victim card again. Don’t her fans ever get tired of this bitch crying all the time?
One or two?
Finding number two from the Branchflower Report:
The best the Branchflower Report says is that he finds it likely that the refusal to fire was a factor – and even then, not the sole reason. You can hardly call her denial a clearcut and indisputable lie. Not a lie. Lie vs. Total Score: 0-1.
She didn’t campaign for it, but she sure expressed an intention to use the funds. Clearcut lie. Lie vs. Total Score: 1-2.
This seems like Clintonian parsing. She says “'There’s been no meeting, no actual terminations.” But the letter given to the chief, at least, said, “I intend to terminate you…” So she might have been technically right, but to me, if someone says, “I’m going to fire you,” it’s highly disingenuous to claim that I haven’t been fired. Lie. Lie vs. Total Score: 2-3.
I can’t tell.
Every report on this says that Rick Steiner requested and got e-mail correspondence that proves Palin lied when she said that an Alaska study showed polar bears were not in danger. Steiner is an environmental activist, and the e-mails are never quoted. In page after page, it says: “Polar bears are in danger, records show.” It’s very odd that the actual e-mail giving lie to Palin’s claim is never quoted or reproduced. So what this comes down to is Steiner calling Palin a liar, and a zillion anti-Palin source srepeating it uncritically. Not enough to call it a lie. Not a lie. Lie vs. Total Score: 2-4.
She said she begana pipeline. But beginning a project doesn’t mean breaking ground; any project like that must begin with planning and budgeting and securing permits and conducting studies. To say that this is a lie because the actual ground-breaking was years away is absurd. Not a lie. Lie vs. Total Score: 2-5.
And it’s possible she doesn’t pass judgement on them. Obama’s membership in Rev. Wright’s church was not a reason to impute “God damn America” to Obama. Why is Palin’s church different? It’s unclear what she means by “judgement,” in any event. Not a lie. Lie vs. Total Score: 2-6.
Lie. Lie vs. Total Score: 3-7.
I might have said she was simply mistaken, but she was given a chance to clarify and her revision was still off the mark. I’ll give this one a ‘lie’ score. Lie. Lie vs. Total Score: 4-8.
She said: “The teleprompter got messed up, I couldn’t follow it, and I just decided I’d just talk to the people in front of me.” McCain-Palin campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds says no, and Sullivan accepts this as the gospel. But McCain-Palin spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker says yes, “She was off the prompter at points.” I suppose it’s possible that the machien worked fine and she simply got confused, but Sullivan’s point is that the script was followed, and both Palin and Hazelbaker deny this. Why is the word of one campaign source solid and the word of another dismissed? Insufficient evidence to call this a clearcut lie. Not a lie. Lie vs. Total Score: 4-9.
Lie. Lie vs. Total Score: 5-9.
Not a lie. Her comment: "“As mayor I took a voluntary pay cut, which didn’t thrill my husband; and then as governor I cut the personal chef position from the budget, and that didn’t thrill my hungry kids.”
The actual truth: “As a Council member she voted against hiking the mayor’s salary from $64,000 to $68,000, but it passed anyway. When she came in as mayor, she passed the ordinance which brought her salary down to $61,200. But that may not actually have taken effect, and Council-mandated raises brought her actual salary up to $68,000.” She cut the salary. It’s true that subsequenty, cost-of-living and other raises brought it back up. But she clearly took a cut which she initiated. Not a lie. Lie vs. Total Score: 5-10.
I’m going to stop here, unless someone believes that the remainder of the “lies list” will produce a much different ratio.
Now, don’t get me wrong… 50% lies is an abysmal ratio to find in a collection of statements. At the same time, the claim that the vast majority are clearcut is… well, let’s put it thsi way. If Palin had made that claim about that list, it would BE on that list.
If the book is to be shoved up anyones ass, (buttered or dry) it should be John McCain’s, for inflicting Sarah Palin on the rest of us, all because he wanted to get his wrinkled mitts and shriveled member in her gaping, stretched-out poozle…
(And I am somewhat serious—I fully believe that McCain, a serial adulterer, was actually hopeful that he would get to tapp Palin’s ass if he brought her on the ticket. I realize that there was more to her nomination than just the pathetic, senile fantasy of an old letcher like John McCain, but I am convinced that he was sexually smitten by Sarah Palin, and that it played a significant part in his ill concieved decision)
I would also bet some serious $$$ that he was indeed fucking the 40-something year old bonde lobbiest whose relationship with McCain was hushed up early on in his campaign. I dont completely blame him, what with that cryptkeeper ex-junkie wife of his, but he clearly is drawn to older, ex-cheerleader types, and former glamour girls with some serious ruff-trade milage on them.
What kills me though, is that while I truly believe all of the above, I STILL cant help but respect John McCain for his service to his country, if not as a politician then certainly as a member of the military and as a POW.
WSJ (now a Murdoch owned right wing tabloid) has a soft as butter “overview” of the book on its website. They don’t bother to comment on factual accuracy.
The word “smeared” connotes unfairness by definition.
But I agree that the criticism of her was not remotely fair.
The stuff about her family was mostly garbage, that was unfair. The stuff about her character also did not hit hard enough to be truly fair.
What stuff about her family? What exactly are these attacks on her family that I keep hearing about? I haven’t seen them.
I’m quoting a quote you quoted, for brevity’s sake. I don’t know if she fired them or not, but I do know her public works director (a friend of mine, and a Republican) flat out quit rather than work for her.
On people’s blogs and such. You’re right, though, that little of the family silliness really got into the mainstream media.
I just heard on NBC Nightly News that 60% of American voters recently polled dont think that Sarah Palin is qualified to be President.
That means that there is a sizeable population who must feel that she IS qualified. I realise that it dosent necessarily mean that the remaining 40% feel that way, but it has to (I would guess) make at least 20% of voters be OK with a Palin Presidency…
Does this blow anybody else away, that anyone, (other than a tiny minority of fringe partisans) would actually deem Palin a worthy prospect for POTUS?
Often when this question comes up, some pedant will respond to the effect that of course she’s qualified, she’s a natural-born citizen who’s over 35. Although the percentage of deliberately obtuse pedants is surely lower in the general population than among SDMB posters, it is probably greater than 0.
Anywhere between 0 and 40 percent of voters may have responded “no opinion.” You can’t just split the difference and take it as a meaningful result. Besides, we don’t know what the poll question really was (“Would Sarah Palin make a good president?” is much different from “Does Sarah Palin meet the minimum qualifications to run for the presidency?”). We also don’t know who the respondents were. There is no such thing as a purely random selection, but some surveys are better randomized than others.