Debunking Myths about Palin

[firedupdem]

This is the 3rd time CNN has had this piece on saying that she never banned books, never cut funding for special needs education etc. Who is factcheck.org? They have run this piece 3 times since last night. Wow.

[gateley]

1. Well people keep spreading it around. In fact, it was just posted again

here at DU (the list) --

[MidwestTransplant]

2. You mean the myth about her being a "Mavrick" and against the bridge to nowhere

[CitizenPatriot]

3. my take on it

I just had this talk with a friend. I don't what factcheck's deal is. They seem reaosnable, however, they over-simplify things. I am no expert, but I've tried to make sense of it and here is what I came up with:

Fact Check.org is a great objective source, but I have to say it's not very good at perspective and context and sometimes those things are important. the truth is, there is so much we don't know right now. she is new to us and many of these things can't be determined.

SPECIAL NEEDS

The original assessment that she cut funding by 62% is inaccurate. It was an honest mistake compounded by misleading budget reports and no access to the candidate for comments: I read the budget in the actual PDF files of the gov (as seen below) before I repeated it.

What we didn't know then, but they straightened out later was that a school had been moved into a separate line item, therefore the special needs budget was CUT by 62%, however, that money went into a new category (the school was moved to new category and apparently it took up a lot of the budget). So, yes the special needs budget was cut by 62%, but that doesn't tell the whole picture. I assume the woman writing the email made the same mistake I did, which was going by the actual budget reports. I know many reporters also made that error initially (normally they would interview her to get her side; had she been willing to do press, at least some of this could have been avoided).

The fact that things like this got out there is now being used as a further excuse for her to not do interviews. In reality, some of these things could have been avoided if she had been out there facing questions everyday.

LIBRARIAN

I have read the OLD papers from Alaska, and court documents and I can see how they CAN say she didn't fire the librarian over the banning of the books conversation because she did wait a few months. However the citizens felt it was related to the book issue (the librarian not supporting her, to use her words) and it was part of the recall they initiated.

to me, this is not black and white like the budget item is. I don't think it tells the whole story to say she didn't fire her over this. Did she ask a "rhetorical" question about banning books and get upset when the woman showed no cooperation? Palin says it was rhetorical, the librarian says it was not. Who should we believe?

Was the librarian soon after fired for not supporting her? yes. did the citizens then come together to recall Palin, citing this and other people she had recently fired? yes. Does this make her guilty of banning books? No.

But since these same themes are being repeated in the new investigation and since we found out this am that the judge had issued a court order to stop palin and her family from harassing her ex-brother-in-law and she continued, I find the librarian's firing a legitimate question. It speaks of a theme of demanding loyalty to her way, even when it is wrong (the suggestions are: fire my brother in law or you are fired, discuss the banning of books or you are gone, etc).

It is my conclusion at this point that we do not know what really happened between her and the librarian. It along with Troopergate repeating the same themes tells me there may be something here we shouldn't overlook. These are, after all, abuses of power. I don't know when we got so jaded about all of this, but I wish we could go back in time a bit and have ethics and intent matter.

AIP

yes, she was never a card carrying member of the AIP, so it is accurate to say she was never a "member". but she attended their meetings for over 6 years and her husband was a member. Is the story over because she was never a card carrying member? I have seen her address them and heard their leader in videos referring to her "membership". I have watched as the leader referred to her as a prior member who had to leave to "infiltrate the Republican party". Now, he may be bat-shit crazy, but he said these words. This fact, combined with the fact that her husband was a member and she attended with him, at least BEGS the question: "what is her involvement with them?"

Accurate to say she is not a member, but that statement leaves a lot out.

If this had been Biden or Leiberman or Romney, it would be all over the news -- but again, it's the newness of her, her refusal to be interviewed, etc that are only helping to create a frenzy. People want to know who she is and what she stands for. Is this relevant at all? Technically, it's treasonous to want to secede. Are they serious about this? I'm guessing probably not (but I don't know that and I should). But what does it say about her judgment that she was involved with these folks? If this were any other candidate, questions would be being asked and indeed, their career might be over due to this one alone.

It's all coming so FAST and we have no time to vet and again, given the lack of access the press has, we have very little to go on to determine who this person is.

CREATIONISM

Yes, I have read that she hasn't pushed for creationism in schools there. She believes it should be taught, but she hasn't pushed it there. And that is what I said about her-- she WANTED it taught in schools. I know she hasn't pushed for it. That's great, I guess. I have a problem with the disconnect with science and I'd like to hear what she thinks and why. Well, actually, I'd rather not....but I feel like I need to since she is so close to being a heartbeat away and all.