Palin rumors galore

[beth_leonard]

Someone in motleypolitico's journal posted a comment to his recent entry that contained a link to this page of collected Palin rumors and debunkings. I found it a good read. Of course, you never know how true the truth-claimer's website is, but much of it seemed to be backed up with references.

Page 2 (linked above) is more juicy, but Page 1 was interesting too.

--Beth

Comments

[feuervogel]

Pajamas Media is a right-wing site. http://factcheck.org/ is an unbiased source. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html

[feuervogel]

Man, even the WaPo is getting on: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/palin_on_energy.html

[blimix.livejournal.com]

Factcheck.org isn't entirely unbiased, either: They are quick to deny Palin's book-banning transgression, using a straw man argument (refuting charges that aren't what were actually claimed).

[feuervogel]

True, but they're reputedly non-partisan, and decidedly less partisan than the right-wing propagandists at Pajamas Media. Right now FC has more front-page stories refuting McC/P claims than O/B ones.

[corpsefairy.livejournal.com]

Palin is scary enough without the rumors.

Here are things that are true:

She asked the librarian in Wasilla if she could ban books, and when she was denied, she threatened to fire the librarian. That indicates a very controlling mindset; if you don't fall in line with her, she will threaten your livelihood.

She supports the aerial hunting of wolves. This is a brutal, barbaric practice, and not one that is supported by any sort of science. Even hunters think it's gross, because it means that you can't get a clean kill; often, you chase the wolf until it's exhausted, and then shoot it once and leave it to bleed to death. (There is video of this on YouTube. I couldn't watch it; it made me ill.)

She belongs to a Dominionist church, which believes in theocracy for the United States. They actually want to insert Biblical beliefs in the Constitution.

As governor, she made it so that rape survivors would have to pay for their own rape kits. I can't even begin to say how sick that is.

Anyway, she's a big reason I'm going to Nevada this weekend to canvass for Obama. :)

[nemene.livejournal.com]

She asked the librarian in Wasilla if she could ban books, and when she was denied, she threatened to fire the librarian. That indicates a very controlling mindset; if you don't fall in line with her, she will threaten your livelihood.
This claim has been denied by the LIBRARIAN, both beth's link and the other show this claim to be false.

She supports the aerial hunting of wolves. This is a brutal, barbaric practice, and not one that is supported by any sort of science. Even hunters think it's gross, because it means that you can't get a clean kill; often, you chase the wolf until it's exhausted, and then shoot it once and leave it to bleed to death. (There is video of this on YouTube. I couldn't watch it; it made me ill.)
Wow, I guess you aren't going for the unbiased journalist award ;) Seriously, just because it makes you ill doesn't necessarily make it evil, you should really look at the arguments for it, before you jusdge so harshly, it may not change your mind, but you will see it is not so black and white.


She belongs to a Dominionist church, which believes in theocracy for the United States. They actually want to insert Biblical beliefs in the Constitution.
Could you substantiate this please? What specific agendas are there that demonstrate this?


As governor, she made it so that rape survivors would have to pay for their own rape kits. I can't even begin to say how sick that is.
I would really like to see actual documentation of this. I mean is that even within a governors power? Or is legislative? Any proof it actually happened and is not just another rumor? I mean if it is real I would expect her to be massively smeared on this, and as she isn't it sounds unfounded.

[corpsefairy.livejournal.com]

Did you read the factcheck account? The claim was never denied by the librarian.

It is true that Palin did not ask for specific books, and that she didn't have anything to do with the list that's circulating. (The list in question is simply a list of commonly banned books.) What is also true is that she asked the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, how she could ban books. She later claimed that her question was "rhetorical," but really, what does that mean? Why would you even ask that question? It's obviously totally inappropriate.

It is also true that Palin asked Emmons to resign. She sent Emmons a letter requesting her resignation. It didn't work. Palin later claimed that the request (which she sent to the police chief and several other city officials) was a "test of loyalty." Can you think of an actual valid reason for issuing such a disrespectful, arbitrary test? Because I can't.

I can't believe you're defending the aerial hunting of wolves. I'm not trying to be an unbiased journalist; I am free to say that it is unquestionably evil. There are no arguments that could reasonably defend cruel killings like that.

I was mistaken about the rape kit issue; she didn't do it while she was governor, she did it while she was mayor of Wasilla. You can confirm it by looking directly at the city budgets for that time period. She now claims that she does not support this practice, but the fact is that she, and the police chief she installed, did it while she was mayor, and signed off on the budget that included it. Either this means she knew exactly what she was doing when she signed the budget, or she didn't read her own city's budget carefully enough to know what was in it. (It is worth noting that the previous police chief included a line item excepting rape victims from paying for their kits, so it's not like she shouldn't have noticed.) It illustrates either deep callousness or incompetence; take your pick. This is not an unfounded rumor; this is what she did as mayor.

There are a ton of links on Sarah Palin and dominionism, although I'm having trouble wading through them all. Her church, the Wasilla Assembly of God, is extremely conservative and linked to Joel's Army, which is inarguably Dominionist.

[nemene.livejournal.com]

What if your choice is between cruel killing of animals and allowing human beings to die a cruel death of starvation? Is it not possible that under those circumstances that the cruel killing of animals might not just be morally okay but morally required?

[corpsefairy.livejournal.com]

Um...

That is really not the issue we're talking about. Nobody is shooting wolves from helicopters because they are about to die of starvation.

Some people want to shoot wolves from helicopters to cull the wolf population so that there are more moose and caribou for people to hunt for sport. That's it, that's the whole reason, and not only is there no science to back up the practice, there are plenty of hunters out there who don't support it. Nobody out there is dying of starvation because there are "too many wolves." I really don't see where you're coming from on this comment.

[nemene.livejournal.com]

I quote:
There are no arguments that could reasonably defend cruel killings like that.

I proposed a what if. For the moment it was purely hypothetical. "If this were the case, would it be REASONABLE to support such a course of action?"

And the hunting in question is not just for sport, it is to feed their families in many cases in the backwoods of Alaska. Also arguments could be made that the current wolf population is causing environmental damage, that their population is higher then can reasonably be sustained without damaging other species populations. I am not saying that I 100% believe this to be true, but I consider it possible. But there are people like Palin who do belive this to be true and that is why they support the wolf cullings using the most expediant methods available.

Feel free to disagree with whether the cullings are necessary or not, that is not my point. My point is that if such a circumstance is concievable then supporting the cullings is not a morally repugnant and evil position but rather a differnce of opinion and interpretation of the facts of the impacts of the current wolf population levels.