Saturday, November 14, 2009

FACT CHECK: Palin's book goes rogue on some facts.

Why am I not remotely surprised by this? AP have studied Palin's new book and found lies like this all over it:

PALIN: Rails against taxpayer-financed bailouts, which she attributes to Obama. She recounts telling daughter Bristol that to succeed in business, "you'll have to be brave enough to fail."

THE FACTS: Palin is blurring the lines between Obama's stimulus plan — a $787 billion package of tax cuts, state aid, social programs and government contracts — and the federal bailout that Republican presidential candidate John McCain voted for and President George W. Bush signed.

Palin's views on bailouts appeared to evolve as McCain's vice presidential running mate. In September 2008, she said "taxpayers cannot be looked to as the bailout, as the solution, to the problems on Wall Street." A week later, she said "ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy."

During the vice presidential debate in October, Palin praised McCain for being "instrumental in bringing folks together" to pass the $700 billion bailout. After that, she said "it is a time of crisis and government did have to step in."

That's only one of the twelve examples which AP have found of Palin simply re-inventing what happened to suit the needs of her tea party audience.

This is what we witnessed her do throughout the election. Andrew Sullivan compiled a list of the many, many lies she told when running for VP, so we shouldn't be remotely surprised that her new book continues to promote them as if they are true.

Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed to have said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere; in fact, she openly campaigned for the federal project when running for governor.

Palin lied when she denied that Wasilla's police chief and librarian had been fired; in fact, both were given letters of termination the previous day.

Palin lied when she wrote in the NYT that a comprehensive review by Alaska wildlife officials showed that polar bears were not endangered; in fact, email correspondence between those scientists showed the opposite.

Palin lied when she claimed in her convention speech that an oil gas pipeline "began" under her guidance; in fact, the pipeline was years from breaking ground, if at all.

Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy.

Palin lied when she denied having said that humans do not contribute to climate change; in fact, she had previously proclaimed that human activity was not to blame.

Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska produces 20 percent of the country's domestic energy supply; in fact, the actual figures, based on any interpretation of her words, are much, much lower.

Palin lied when she told voters she improvised her convention speech when her teleprompter stopped working properly; in fact, all reports showed that the machine had functioned perfectly and that her speech had closely followed the script.

The list goes on and on and on.

But, Palin's audience don't care about what is true. That's the saddest thing. They care that she is against abortion. As long as that's true, nothing else matters.

During last years campaign I was astonished at just how many lies the McCain-Palin ticket were telling. It was the least honest campaign I have seen in my lifetime. Indeed, eventually the lying became so prolific that even the MSM couldn't ignore it any longer.

But, despite eventually being called on it, Palin's book continues her casual relationship with the truth. I can only presume that she doesn't care because her audience doesn't.

Click here for full article.


daveawayfromhome said...

Years ago I suggested (to an indifferent blogosphere) that the best way to destroy the Republican Party was to simply agree to ban Abortion. It is the glue that holds the obstructionists together, and would perhaps be a small price to pay for the end of the influence of the Social Conservatives in American politics (and it would take out the power base of the Neocons).
Plus, considering the numbers, it might not be long before we find opposition to abortion (once it is no longer available) melt away among a big chunk of that crowd anyway.

Kel said...

That's hysterical Dave.

Although I suspect they would simply regroup to oppose gay rights and other "sins" which offend their sensibilities. They have an almost infinite capacity for offence.

daveawayfromhome said...

True, but none of them have the moral cachet of abortion.

Kel said...

No, they don't. I take your point.

But I bet that's where they'd go if we gave up abortion rights.

I think their list is possibly endless.