Another Palin Lie?
Here's what Sarah Palin told Sean Hannity just now about her decision to accept the offer to be John McCain's running mate:
"It was a time of asking the girls to vote on it, anyway. And they voted unanimously, yes. Didn't bother asking my son because, you know, he's going to be off doing his thing anyway, so he wouldn't be so impacted by, at least, the campaign period here. So ask the girls what they thought and they're like, absolutely. Let's do this, mom."But here's what was reported by the Anchorage Daily News on August 30:
Her staff went to bed thinking Friday would be just another day running the state. Her kids thought they were going to Ohio to celebrate a wedding anniversary. . . .So when exactly did this family vote occur? Just asking.
"At approximately 11:00 a.m. Thursday August 28, 2008, John McCain formally invited Governor Sarah Palin to join the Republican ticket as the vice presidential nominee on the deck of the McCain family home.
"Later that morning, John McCain departed for Phoenix and Governor Palin departed with staff to Flagstaff, Arizona. Governor Palin, Kris Perry, Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter proceeded to the Manchester Inn and Conference Center in Middletown, Ohio. They were checked into the hotel as the Upton Family. While there, Governor Palin's children, who had been told they were going to Ohio to celebrate their parents' wedding anniversary, were told for the first time that their mother would be a nominee for Vice President of the United States of America.
posted by A.L. at 5:24 PM
16 Comments:
"Didn't bother asking my son because, you know, he's..."
not around to be coached on the latest lie?
You're kidding on this one, right? Is there an actual point? This is a lie? How?
You're kidding on this one, right? Is there an actual point? This is a lie? How?
The way a lie works, you deliberately say something you know not to be true. In this case, Gov. Palin has made two conflicting statements about the same event. Both cannot be true. Therefore, one of them is a lie.
It's pretty basic stuff, actually.
How the hell do they conflict? One was taken from an email sent by a McCain spokesman that says they were in a hotel in Ohio on Thursday and then they were told. It doesn't mention a "vote" by the family, probably because the spokesman didn't know about it. The other is an excerpt of an interview that mentions a family "vote"; it doesn't say exactly when it took place, it doesn't say where it took place, it doesn't even say the family "vote" took place after Palin accepted, none of that. Nowhere does it say that maybe she was trying to get a feel for how the family would react. Again, how do these two statements conflict?
Wow!!! You might have well said she was the 2nd (or is it 3rd) shooter on the grassy knoll. Wow!!!
Speaking of lies, Obama's latest ad, in Spanish no less, tries to tie McCain to Rush Limbaugh on illegal immigrants. Uh, anyone who's bothered to look into that knows Limbaugh is not a McCain fan, especially on that. In addition, the ad opens "They want us to forget the insults we've put up with, the intolerance." Who is "us"? Limbaugh, and especially McCain, has never had a problem with legal immigrants, especially the ones who are citizens, the ones who can actually vote. So the only people who would be insulted are illegal immigrants, who aren't allowed to vote anyway, that is unless the Obama-supporting ACORN racket managed some illegal voter registrations for them.
I should have realized. This came from he-who-lies-about-being-a-conservative Sullivan, didn't it?
Stevell, chill out, dude. It's quite clear from the two versions that Palin lied about that "chat with the girls" story. Go back, "my friend", read the accounts again, and look for these words:
" ... McCain formally invited Governor Sarah Palin to join the Republican ticket as the vice presidential nominee on the deck of the McCain family home."
Okay, stay with us here ... that was in Arizona, got it?
Now this:
"Governor Palin ... proceeded to the Manchester Inn and Conference Center in Middletown, Ohio. They were checked into the hotel as the Upton Family. While there, Governor Palin's children, who had been told they were going to Ohio to celebrate their parents' wedding anniversary, were told for the first time that their mother would be a nominee for Vice President of the United States of America."
Okay, so you know she accepted in Arizona, and the kids were told in Ohio. So, the original question still stands. Where, exactly, did this little family discussion take place? The answer is nowhere, "my friend". It is not possible, it did not happen, Palin SAID it happened, which makes her a liar. (But we already knew that, didn't we?)
Ok jerry, I've humored you and read your "analysis". Now go back read both items again and again until you get it right. Because, "my friend", your "analysis" is wrong. First off, her kids were in Ohio when she first told them. So she obviously did tell them. That part is in the Anchorage Daily News piece. Second, there's no indication anywhere that said she talked to her kids first, not even in the excerpt provided in the post. But she did tell them, in Ohio. So this family "vote" would have taken place in Ohio. Your mistake is assuming that Palin told her kids first before accepting. Nothing in either piece indicates that at all. Therefore, she isn't lying, and it probably all went down like the way she told Hannity, in Ohio.
So continuing to say she's a liar on this is, in fact, perpetuating a lie.
So the family vote took place in Ohio-
now that's after she had told McCain yes, right?
So what if the kids voted had no? Tough titty?
Liar/dictator, your choice
Ah, yes; liberals can justify any talking point, can't they? Did Sullivan tell you to say that one too?
don't feed the trolls folks
SteveIL, it's a lie.
It's a pretty innocuous one, for sure, and I doubt anyone would bother with it normally. I sure wouldn't. But this is from a campaign that's been delivering lies, big lies and whoppers for some time now - all while pretending to be the 'straight talk express'. In that context, the little lies matter.
I'm sure you'll pull out one of your complicated Rube Goldberg contortions to make this into a Liberal Plot - but it's still a lie.
But this is from a campaign that's been delivering lies, big lies and whoppers for some time now - all while pretending to be the 'straight talk express'.
Actually, the only thing I've seen from the McCain campaign that constitutes a "whopper" was when McCain said recently that Palin was opposed to the "bridge to nowhere". But in fact, she did kill the project and told her congressional delegation to stop trying to get bucks for it. The McCain campaign overreached on the "lipstick on a pig" comment. Beyond that however, they've been pretty much spot on, and it is the liberals who have been getting nailed on telling whoppers:
That sex-ed bill McCain referenced in an ad was accurate if one wants to look into the back story on it.
Troopergate was a nothing local political investigation when Obama-supporting Alaska Democrats turned it into a witch-hunt.
Charles Gibson didn't nail Palin on the "Bush doctrine" since Gibson himself only put out one example of what it could be. And his own opinion of it has changed over the years.
She never banned a book.
She never tried to ban a book.
Bristol Palin did not give birth to Trig Palin.
Palin didn't cut spending on special needs kids; she increased it 300% over three years.
Palin wasn't part of the Alaskan Independence Party.
Palin never supported Pat Buchanan for President.
Palin never pushed teaching creationism.
Campaign spokespeople initially claimed Palin went to Iraq, then corrected themselves. She's never said she's been there. I believe the same occurred regarding a trip to Ireland, although I do understand there was a stopover there. It's only a lie unless and until a correction is issued, which did occur.
Anything put out by the media needs to be taken with a grain of salt since they have been famously putting things in that are completely out of context. The Washington Post did this by claiming Palin supports the position that Saddam was part of 9/11, even though all she said was that her son was going into Iraq to help stop those who attacked us, Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Even the Post put in a CYA sentence that said that.
Since liberals began these lies about Palin, and added the only questionable item, her support of the "bridge to nowhere" (which she did cancel) to all the other ones I listed, and doing so without subtracting out those outright lies, I would say that it isn't the McCain campaign adding the little lies on top of the whoppers.
See Stevil, you can't get away with that here, because people who read this blog have more than a junior-high intellect.
What you're intentionally attempting (and what McCain's lies are intentionally attempting) is to make people believe things that aren't true. That's called intentional lying, and it is (and you are) dishonorable and vile (and evil, if one believes in evil). Then, when called out, you feign indignation and try to wiggle out on some real or concocted technicality as you have just done in your post. Your squirming, however, changes nothing about your initial intent to convince others of something that is false.
"That sex-ed bill McCain referenced in an ad was accurate if one wants to look into the back story on it."
The lie's intent was to convince people that Obama would like to teach orthodox "sex-ed" to young children. This is false and you know it.
You are a liar, because you are still trying to convince people that "the ad is accurate." You are still trying to perpetuate the original, intentional, lie.
Troopergate was a nothing local political investigation when Obama-supporting Alaska Democrats turned it into a witch-hunt.
You lie here, in telling us that Troopergate is partisan, and by implication that the investigation is unfounded. Since it is an ongoing, unresolved investigation, we know you are being false, and crassly partisan yourself. Your statement is pure propaganda, that is, an attempt to convince us of something that is untrue. It is universally known that Palin is now stonewalling the investigation, which objectively begs the question of having something to hide.
Charles Gibson didn't nail Palin on the "Bush doctrine" since Gibson himself only put out one example of what it could be. And his own opinion of it has changed over the years.
You lie here, in trying to convince us that Palin didn’t flub this question and consequently doesn’t deserve the diminishment in confidence that you fear the flub created. The fact of the matter is different. It has been widely, widely written that everyone agreed on what is meant by the Bush Doctrine (a broad interpretation of “preemptive self-defense”) until conservative commentators rushed in to try to save Palin from her gaffe. A good roundup here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/14/bush_doctrine/
Got a problem with any of those documented facts?
She never banned a book.
She never tried to ban a book.
Oh yes, she went there, she sure did. She specifically expressed her intent, propensity and willingness to ban books in her dialogue with the librarian. You lie by trying to erase this item from the discourse as if it is something made up. That’s the “something false” that you want us to believe.
Bristol Palin did not give birth to Trig Palin.
Yeh we know. Show us one known liberal writer who has suggested otherwise. This was rumor all over Alaska going back months before Palin was tapped. Yet you lie by attributing it to liberals, in trying to discredit liberals, as you say at the conclusion of your post, “Since liberals began these lies about Palin,”. More propaganda.
Palin didn't cut spending on special needs kids; she increased it 300% over three years.
Palin wasn't part of the Alaskan Independence Party.
Palin never supported Pat Buchanan for President.
I saw these stories appear and their retraction or clarification, which I accept in the case of special needs and Buchanan. I don’t know who “started” these rumors. I saw with my own eyes a ranking member of the Alaska Independence Party (AIP) on TV saying Palin was a member. I have heard it reported widely (and I take as true, until shown otherwise) that she attended the Party’s conventions with her husband who IS a long time member. Whether she is (and when she became) a “registered republican” is wholly beside the point – she could easily also support the AIP.
Palin never pushed teaching creationism.
Your dishonest intent here is to paper over and hide the fact that Palin is on record as wanting Creationism and Evolution to be taught – in science class – side by side and debated as competing equally valid scientific theories. I would want to hide that too, if I were a Republican propagandist. I still want to hear Palin asked how old the Earth is. I want to hear if she believes dinosaurs existed simultaneously with humans on Earth. I want to hear her asked if she believes God created men and animals in their present shapes, and whether the fossil record is a trick placed in the ground by God to test our faith. I don’t know how she’ll answer these questions. Don’t accuse me of using your tactics, of trying to convince you she believes these things when she doesn’t. I don’t know what she believes, but I want to know, because I have heard she is a Creationist. Let’s clear the air.
It's only a lie unless and until a correction is issued, which did occur.
You say this now, but it doesn’t apply to much of the above. And you don’t give credit to the corrections of the special needs kids and Pat Buchanan errors. So you’re a hypocrite (but that goes without saying).
Anything put out by the media needs to be taken with a grain of salt since they have been famously putting things in that are completely out of context. The Washington Post did this by claiming Palin supports the position that Saddam was part of 9/11, even though all she said was that her son was going into Iraq to help stop those who attacked us, Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Even the Post put in a CYA sentence that said that.
I am intellectually honest enough to have seen this immediately and wondered what the fuss was. If the shoe was on the other foot, however, you and your ilk have proved repeatedly you would not be (intellectually honest).
Since liberals began these lies about Palin, and added the only questionable item, her support of the "bridge to nowhere" (which she did cancel) to all the other ones I listed, and doing so without subtracting out those outright lies, I would say that it isn't the McCain campaign adding the little lies on top of the whoppers.
Still trying to wiggle out of the Bridge to Nowhere on a technicality. That whopper was designed to convince people that Palin was against wasteful spending. When the truth is she supported the bridge until it became politically expedient not to (then kept the money). Stop defending the lie.
But that’s like asking a fish to stop swimming. You don’t post here in good faith. You are – rather, you aspire to be – a “political operator.” You are of course the smallest of fish and do it quite badly, but that is your aspiration and intent – to deceive by disseminating propaganda, NOT to have a fact-based discussion about issues.
You litter the comments with virtual feces, the verbal equivalents of physical assaults – which is your exact intent – such as your Pamela Anderson reference the other day telling the liberals here to “suck it.” You add nothing, you sully everything, and I can assure A.L. that many are less likely to read these comments and/or actually comment because of you and your fellow trolls. If I wanted to be told to Suck It, I could go post on conservative blogs, and it would be expected.
I’m as in favor of free speech as the next liberal, but your dishonest, bad faith assaults-masquerading-as-speech is not valuable or valid political speech and serves no purpose here. I am not sure why A.L. continues to allow you to gleefully sully his blog. My patience would have run out long ago.
Anyway, don't think you have any credibility with anyone here. We understand what you are: a willful peddler of lies.
@whatsyourevidence -
Ok, respect. I type a formula troll warning (which is lazy, and not quite accurate concerning steveil). By contrast, you completely pwn the poor fellow using exactly the kind of clear thinking and factual rigor that we need to win the broader political battle. Trolls may starve if you do not feed them, but they choke if you feed them facts. I hope you are on the phones getting out the vote this November.
It has been widely, widely written that everyone agreed on what is meant by the Bush Doctrine (a broad interpretation of “preemptive self-defense”) until conservative commentators rushed in to try to save Palin from her gaffe.
You expect me to buy that garbage? A broad interpretation? Why don't you apply the extremely narrow one that Gibson provided? Maybe you should look at this source and then you tell me what the "Bush Doctrine" is. Hell, even Wikipedia, which I almost never link to on my blog unless I have to, has a better definition of what it's been interpreted to have been.
By the way, Greenwald isn't very reliable if one wants to find facts. The link you provided is a perfect example of that.
You can't get this right, and you call me a liar? Spare me the "outrage".
Let's see... anyone objective who reads your link vs the Greenwald link would see that your's is no contradiction to his specific citations to people (including both presidential candidates) who had no trouble discussing the Bush Doctrine. Palin could not discuss it AT ALL, and had obviously never heard the term. Your elementary lie is in trying to cover up her fundamental failure with some ambiguous technicality, as I said.
As to reliability of facts, Greenwald's link is a perfect example of indisputable facts: the people really said what he says they said: they know what the Bush Doctrine is - and his links and quotations prove it. Being a wingnut, you obviously disagree with Greenwald's politics, but it is very difficult to dispute his carefully cited facts. And he is intellectually honest enough that if he's wrong, he'd post a correction. Your accusing him of falsehoods is laughably ironic considering your own lies-only methodology as illustrated by my post above.
Your link, from Conservative mouthpiece The Weekly Standard (obviously trying to cover up for Palin) describes the Bush doctrine variously as (1) wanting to spread democracy to the middle east, (2)attacking regimes that harbor terrorists, and (3) preimptive self-defense when we "feel threatened."
In fact, it's all one big sticky slime ball. They're all lesser-included pieces of the whole: When we preimptively attack a non-democratic regime because they supposedly harbor terrorists who we say we feel threatened by and install a democratic puppet regime, well... that's the Bush Doctrine: "preimptive self defense" (beyond previously accepted norms) being the foundation. The rest is just lipstick on the pig.
So yeh, for the record, you are a willful liar. You, and those like you, you're what's wrong with America.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home