Sarah Palin Playing Sock Puppet On Her Own Facebook Account?
If true, this is just weird:
So we’ve been reading this leaked Palin book. Interesting read! But this manuscript doesn’t seem quite ready to be published, despite it being leaked around to the entire Internet. Frank Bailey and his co-authors excerpt a bunch of Sarah Palin’s e-mails, and one page of these excerpts shows Palin’s personal Gmail address. We searched for this address on Facebook, the way millions of people search for people on Facebook every day, and it appears that Palin keeps a second Facebook account. Besides staying in touch with Sarah Palin’s father Chuck Heath, what does “Lou Sarah” use Facebook for? Saying “amen” to her own Facebook fan page missives, in the guise of a completely different person. “Lou Sarah” also really “LIkes” Bristol Palin’s Dancing With the Stars photos.
“Lou Sarah” is also friends with some of Sarah Palin’s political appointees. Still, “Lou” has only 12 total friends on Facebook.
“Lou” is a fan of Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, Mark Ballas (Bristol Palin’s gorilla-costumed dancing partner on Dancing With the Stars), and the Wasilla-based Edge Fitness.
Like I said, weird
Since Doug covered all the important facts, let me help fill in some of the background that he didn’t have time to write up.
Frank Bailey is a deeply religious person who is vehemently anti-abortion. He is associated with the Alaska Family Council and its leader, Jim Minnery. The AFC devotes most of their effort opposing abortion rights.
When Bailey joined Palin’s ’06 campaign for governor, he stated he was impressed that she had blown the whistle on Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich and also that she apparently shared his values. In his leaked book, he states “Sarah Palin had God’s blessing and people’s love and faith”.
Bailey’s admiration for Palin seems to have faded when she made an appointment to the Alaska Supreme Court. Palin picked Judge Morgan Christen after taking the unusual step of asking the Judicial Council to provide her with all information they had on the finalists. Larry Cohn, Judicial Council executive director, said no governor had ever made such a sweeping request. Judge Cristen was known as a pro-choice supporter and had previously been on the board of Planned Parenthood. The Alaska Family Council had advocated for different candidate that they described as “more conservative”. Bailey, commenting on the appointment said: “When Sarah turned on Jim Minnery and his/their cause, for the sole purposes of making money and causing him embarrassment, I saw how blind I’d become. Finally, Sarah Louise Palin’s petty ways and butchered priorities would set me free,” Bailey wrote.
Apparently, Bailey felt betrayed by Palin because she had appointed who she believed to the best qualified candidate over an anti-abortion judge, even though Palin herself is unapologetically pro-life. Aside from these few facts, Doug provided rich context.
Uh, mr west, how does anything you say disprove the sock-puppetry alleged?
I think it makes sense for a lot of people to have multiple Facebook accounts, a public one and a private one with an assumed identity. Especially for someone as high profile as Sarah Palin, it allows personal birthday wishes, complaining about evil muslim Kenyan communists and what not to remain out of the public eye.
The liking of her daughter’s stuff isn’t weird at all from that perspective.
It seems a little weird that she then uses this account to sock-puppet her own account, but frankly she always seems a little weird. (Or is there a perfectly reasonable reason? I’m not up on all my facebook crap, but this might be being used to point out her political posts for her private-account friends, as a lot of her private-account’s actions are likely visible to her private-account’s friends)
Now, if she were arguing with herself, that would be very weird.
I realize there were a lot of words in my comment, some of them rather big.
What I did here is combine a bit of sarcasm (that’s where I alluded to Doug covering the “important facts”) with sourced information that gives the reader background context to the “tell all” book referred to in the article. I used this technique to shame Doug into writing honest articles about Palin even though he hates her with a passion – while maintaining a lighthearted sarcastic humor.
Don’t feel bad about having to have things explained. If you don’t ask, you’ll never learn.
What I did here is combine a bit of sarcasm (that’s where I alluded to Doug covering the “important facts”) with sourced information that gives the reader background context to the “tell all” book referred to in the article.
The post isn’t about the book, but Palin’s sock puppetry.
My response is “who cares?” either way, but still, you missed the point. Not surprising; you usually do.
“Don’t feel bad about having to have things explained. If you don’t ask, you’ll never learn.”
Golly, we’re fortunate to have you here. But if I could impose on you a bit more. If I understand your comment, you seem to be implying (is that the right word?) that Mr. Baily, though deeply religious, is not to be trusted in his book because he is angry with former Governor Palin over an Alaska Supreme Court appointment. Do I understand that correctly?
Say, if she does this on Facebook, do you think it’s possible that Palin is also Smooth Jazz? It sure would explain a lot…
Yes, you are correct. And yes, Doug’s article is about sockpuppets in a Facebook account, but it was brought up in the context of a Wonkette article that references the leaked book.
I apologize for the snark directed at you in the last comment, but I tend to take an enormous amount of incoming on any pro-Palin material.
When the opportunity presents itself, I do like to disseminate information that would give a reader a better understanding of the situation, particularly when it contrasts with something the author is saying to form a different impression.
Tell me, was the information new to you? Was it interesting? Did it give you a better frame of reference on past Palin stories? I would like to know.
“Tell me, was the information new to you? Was it interesting? Did it give you a better frame of reference on past Palin stories? I would like to know.”
It was a hitherto unknown to me factoid that I’ll keep in mind. (As for Doug’s animus towards Palin — well, yeah — but so what?) I have to say though, that my first impression was that you were doing something not terribly different from what Dodd, quite correctly, rounded on Crooks & Liars for doing in the doctors’ excuse story: Brietbart’s a shit, therefore anything he writes is not to be trusted. Well, I personally think Brietbart is a shit, but his being so or not has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the allegations (which other reporting showed to be true).
Thanks for the honest response. Although I’m admittedly pro-Palin, I am more pro-fairness. Since information like this will never see the light of day on left wing blogs, the NY Times, MSNBC or a number of other outlets, I think it helps to get it out on slightly left of center blogs like this.
One day, one of the authors might choose to write something that helps expand the facts.
is not to be trusted in his book because he is angry with former Governor Palin_______________________________________________________
Well, he certainly didn’t make up the fake account of LOU SARAH, lol
Where does $arah find the time…………..?