Sarah Palin’s Emails
A quick glance provides some insights into Palin's thought processes and leadership style.
When I first saw buzzing that Sarah Palin’s emails from her time as governor had been made public under a Freedom of Information Act request and that the New York Times and other media outlets were attempting to crowdsource reporting on them, I was deeply skeptical. While the public has a right to know what their officials are doing, it’s never been taken to the point of eavesdropping on their everyday conversations. Typically, private correspondence was available years later but even then it wasn’t usually at the level of deliberations with the staff. And I’m not at all sure that it’s a good idea in that 1) it’s likely to cut down on candor and 2) it’s likely to lead to subterranean activity to avoid disclosure (which it seems to have done in Palin’s case).
Still, the information is now public and of interest. MSNBC has a live blog of the releases and has scanned every single email (12,045 docs and 24,361 pages) into searchable form. A quick glance provides some insights into Palin’s thought processes and leadership style.
Troopergate:
6:25 p.m. AT (10:25 ET): When the Alaska Legislature appointed investigator Stephen Branchflower to look into possible ethics violations by Gov. Palin’s role in the “Troopergate” case, the Palin administration’s response was to spread rumors about his wife to attack his credibility. In a series of emails on Aug. 1, 2008, the governor and her aides discussed how to respond to the inquiry. The conversation is heavily censored. The current governor’s office withheld most of the e-mail thread. But the progression is clear. It starts with the subject line, “Fw: Branchflower,” with questions posed by the Anchorage Daily News, which asked whether the Palin administration’s planned to cooperate with the investigation. The content is mostly marked “Privileged or Personal Material Redacted.” Then Palin changed the subject line to “Re: Fairness?: Branchflower.” We can’t see what the governor wrote. Then the governor changed the subject line again, to “Re: MRS.: Fairness?: Branchflower,” with this message from her Blackberry and her Yahoo account go*******@ya***.com: “Just got another call about Mrs. Blanchflower [sic] having retired after working FOR Walt at APD and the conflict involved there.” Walt is apparently Monegan, whom she dismissed in a dispute that began with Palin family difficulties with a state trooper who was Palin’s former brother-in-law. Press aide Sharon Leighow replies, “I dropped all sorts of questions about linda,” referring to Branchflower’s wife, “… license lasping [sic] … Walt association etc.” Palin replied again from her Blackberry, “Thank u.” That email thread is in this PDF file.
Paranoia:
5:54 p.m. AT (9:54 ET): Guess who was in favor of using the public records laws to read emails of state officials and employees? During August 2008, when she was upset about administrationand budgets in the state’s Department of Public Safety, Palin sent this email to Randall Ruaro, her deputy chief of staff: “Very, very concerning the ‘untruths’ coming from them. I am dumbfounded at this, as I have never worked in an organization where these unethical practices seem to go ignored and unanswered. The lack of accountability is appalling in all of this. It is so concerning, the damage that is being done and the public trust that is eroding, that we need to gather as much information as possible, including FOIA-ing emails, tapes, communications in all forms, regarding the untruthful information being spread to the public.” The rest of this email, like so many others, was withheld by the governor’s office.
Strange Priorities:
3:57 p.m. AT (7:57 ET): Gov. Palin’s staff ghost-wrote a newspaper op-ed piece for her ally Kristan Cole in 2007, during the controversy over a dairy called Matanuska Creamery. (This is a well-known controversy in Alaska, where the it’s known as the Mat Maid dairy. You can read a summary here.) In September 2007, Kristan Cole, Palin’s good friend and chairwoman of the creamery’s board, submitted an op-ed piece. Deputy press secretary Sharon Leighow sent around an e-mail: “Folks – This is our final draft of the Mat Maid Op/Ed to be submitted on behalf of Kristan Cole. Thoughts?” Palin responded to the group, “i’m tweaking it.” The conversation continued the rest of the day, with another aid, Bruce Anders, writing, “I edited substantially from the original, and including some major rewrites and deletions.” The public cannot see what was written, or rewritten, because the office of Gov. Parnell, Palin’s former lieutenant governor, deleted that content with the note, “Privileged or Personal Material Redacted.” What could be privileged or personal about a rewritten ghostwritten op-ed column?
More Paranoia:
3:24 p.m. AT (7:24 ET): Gov. Palin had more than the Yahoo accounts. Not only did she use go*******@ya***.com and go*******@ya***.com to conduct state business, but she also used **@hs***.com, an address set up for her by an aide. Very little of her official business went through her official email accounts. Remember, under the state’s policy so far, citizens of Alaska are still not able to see emails sent between her private accounts and the private accounts of her staff and department heads. There’s more about those holes in the document release, in our main story on msnbc.com.
Unintentional Irony:
2:45 p.m. AT (6:45 ET): After she was named as Sen. John McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin started getting e-mails from citizens asking whether her attentions were still focused on the state. One citizen asked whether taxpayers still had to pay her salary, now that she was working for the McCain campaign. The governor replied by asking her staff make sure that she appeared to be involved in state issues every day. After an announcement on the state Permanent Fund dividend went out under the name of Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, Palin wrote to deputy Michael Nizich on Sept. 6, 2008, “As often as possible we’ll need to have the announcements come under my name in these next few weeks. Pls let Comm (Communications) know that we need to do that. Thanks. Also – is there anything else to announce soon? Remember we talked about having almost daily annoucements coming from our office w my name on it so alaskans know that still my #1 priority is serving them as Gov.”
UPDATE: The above was a quick take in the wee hours fueled by a bout of toddler-aided insomnia. Some additional thoughts spring to mind after more sleep:
1. Palin comes across poorly because her composition style is that of a teenager. I don’t mean that insultingly: She’s dashing off quick thoughts, using incomplete sentences and and abbreviations, as if she were texting. It’s very efficient and makes perfect sense for someone with a hectic schedule but it’s a practice I’ve never adopted– even on Twitter and other forms where space is limited. Out of the context of the rapid flow of a workday, it comes across as unprofessional and insipid. But, of course, they weren’t intended for public dissection.
2. We don’t have any point of comparison here, making it easier to confirm pre-existing biases on Palin. We don’t have similar access to the daily communications of governors and presidents thought to be highly intelligent, competent, and self-confident. What comes across to me as obsession about public image to the point of paranoia may well be par for the course. My sense from the outside is that it’s usually staffs, not the executives themselves, who spend their days worrying over such things. But that could be a function of successful orchestration of image management that would be dispelled if we were privy to their emails.
3. Moving official correspondence off of public servers to email accounts set up precisely to avoid transparency is problematic. But recall that both George W. Bush and Barack Obama almost instantly stopped using their BlackBerrys and keeping personal journals upon taking office, under the similar rationale that they didn’t want them to become public records. Not recording things for the purposes of evading transparency goes further than conducting public business on private accounts; but they spirit is the same. Which, again, is why I’m leery of having these things subject to FOIA requests.
How is being concerned that someone is spreading disinformation “paranoia”?
And why is it a “strange priority” to work on an op-ed regarding a “well-known controversy”? Without further elaboration, I’m finding your commentary rather nonsensical.
Mataconis must be really bummed-nothing sensational, no smoking gun and his friends in the liberal media left with even more egg on their faces. Also the Reuters poll showing Palin ahead of Romney goes against his theme-a bad week for the PDS afflicted.
If Palin runs the lib’s and Mataconis will have zip to say as everything possible from her past has been given the fine tooth comb treatment-unlike Obama of course.
It’s good to see that the Palinistas are scanning the blogosphere looking for chances to leap to the protection of their matron saint faster than you can say “lamestream media.”
On the other hand, from what I’ve seen so far, there’s a lot of smoke but not much light or heat. It turns out, she’s just another self-serving pol.
To the Palinistas out there: you’ve got to stop drinking that Kool-ade; it’s affecting your judgement really, really big time.
Who cares? Sarah Palin will never hold public office again, has zero influence on policy or governance, and is politically irrelevant.
for the left, talking about Palin has replaced thinking about policy, politics, demographics, or the future. Any writer, pundit, and wonk who obsesses about Plain is just demonstrating that no one would pay attention to them.
I guess if there’s nothing there (and there won’t be since her attorney’s already reviewed all of this) the left has nothing to do but invent things, like calling more than one email address “paranoia”, I guess most of us have a pretty bad case of “paranoia”.
Let’s see: Palin and her aides seemed concerned that their foes would do pretty much anything to destroy them, would lie about them, fabricate accusations, go through every detail of their lives public and private in order to find dirt to use, would use anyone and anything they could to make their lives a living hell.
And how do we know all this?
It ain’t paranoia if they are out to get you.
J.
So, we’re basically seeing….. a politician at work. This is surprising how, exactly? This is what Doug would call a distraction from the real issues. But, I can understand why you Palin haters would think this is a big deal: I’ve spent enough time watching the BDS, and now PDS, and it is all about the politics of personal destruction. You Palin haters never focus on actual substance or policy, you just go after her personally.
Good thing there’s a “Conservative” blog around that attacks Republicans but mostly gives Democrats a pass.
James, I understand you sort of had to bring this up, but I agree with William Teach. Compared to many of the cretins in DC, she hasn’t registered anything near the score on the sleaze scale that so many in DC have.
Paranoia is digging through 24k pages of email messages looking for shit on her.
When is Comrade Obama going to release his Email?
Someone must care for some reason. The press and others are spending a lot of time attacking her.
I believe that I remember the same outrage on these message boards when the emails of certain “left leaning” university professors were FOIAed. Oh wait, never mind.
The concerning thing to me is the extent to which private emails were used to conduct public business. I understand that no public officials want to have their emails rifled through, but this is a blatant bend run around the law. (And Palin is certainly not the only offender.).
Concerning the Bridge to Nowhere:
“The nation needs to be spending $ on fixing what we have – Minnesota needs “bridge money” today more than we need a few Alaskans to perpetuate the nonsensicle notion that our Gravina earmark is more important than fixing aged infrastructure.
We would gain so much if we get that message out there – that the nation can pull, and work, together and make wise decisions on federal priorities… we should see that earmark redirected to Minnesota’s tragedy be the Gravina bridge isn’t going to happen on our watch anyway.”
How could anyone support a woman who thinks like this?
For those who missed this article, Joshua Green of The Atlantic magazine was on Real Time with Bill Maher last night.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/06/the-tragedy-of-sarah-palin/8492
What is refreshing about this piece is that even though Green is an avowed Palin hater, he maintains a semblance of intellectual honesty so lacking in the liberal press and certain websites with pseudo libertarian and conservative authors.
“Still, the information is now public and of interest. MSNBC has a live blog of the releases and has scanned every single email (12,045 docs and 24,361 pages) into searchable form. A quick glance provides some insights into Palin’s thought processes and leadership style.”
The fact that you are going to MSNBC for your info tells me all I need to know about where you guys were coming from. I guess OTB has thrown its lot in completely with the Obamedia and far left. I mean, you have the Wash Post, MSNBC, NY Times and every major left wing entity out there parsing through 24,000 pages of stuff and what you quoted above is the best you could come up with??? Look at the bright side: There are still a couple hundred boxes to go through, so you and your far left cohorts shouldn’t give up hope yet that you will find that nail to close her coffin. My hunch is, however, that what you & MSDNC have above is the best you’re going to get.
Meanwhile, there is a narrative that is emerging from the Emails, which Liberal blogs and Obama sychophants could never acknowledge, that Gov Palin was a hard working, engaged Gov who was down to earth and cared a lot about her constituents. That grinding of teeth I hear is the sound of Doug Mataconis and the other hard left liberals on here recoiling in horror at that thought. I can only imagine how sick they are going to feel when her movie comes out in a few weeks and provides a perspective on her the Obamedia blocked from the masses for 2+ years.
A couple tidbits for you to digest that you would NEVER find on MSNBC: 1) A Liberal CNN reporter, Drew Griffin, painfully admitting she was a hard working and effective Gov, and 2) An Email whereby Gov Palin is asking a school dropout to call her so she could convince the student to stay in school. I think the latter demonstrates a human touch many Americans never knew about her:
http://www.therightscoop.com/cnn-finding-that-palin-was-harding-working-governor/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/10/sarah-palin-emails-sarahpalin43#zoomed-picture
The NY Times, Wash Post & other Palin Haters went into this looking for the final knockout, but what is emerging from the Email dump is a competent and people oriented Gov. I’m sure you and other Liberals will not be happy if the Emails reveal a side of her the Obamedia prevented from getting out and perceptions of her change as a result.
“Good thing there’s a “Conservative” blog around that attacks Republicans but mostly gives Democrats a pass.”
Great point William Teach: The cat is out the bag now. These guys can’t put up this “Conservative Blog” facade any longer. They have clearly moved far left. And it’s not just their psychotic attachment to Palin either; It’s their contant hit jobs on everything Repub, while giving Dems a pass. They are also very one sided and are always slow to correct the record. For example, a few days ago they reported with glee that former British PM Thatcher had “snubbed” Gov Palin and hinted she was nuts. Now it comes out that Thatcher’s Foundation never said those things about Gov Palin:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/06/breaking-thatcher-foundation-responds-to-palin-snubbing-reports-saying-the-guardian-has-minimal-credibility/
I remember first visiting James Joyner’s blogs years ago. The blog “used” to be fairly balanced if slightly right of center. Previously, they certainly never robo posted about Rep politicians they didn’t like, ala left wing blogs and certainly never posted day after day, sometimes multiple times a day, the left wings narratives being hived up by the Obamedia. The “ferocity” and robo posting (ie posting hundreds of repetitive posts which attack Repub women & politicians) is what convinced me things chnaged here. That and the fact that the overwhelming majority of their commenters are far left KOS kids types. I think the turning point occurred when posters Doug M and Dr Taylor joined a year or so ago. They seemed to have swung this blog far left even if they are incapable of acknowledging it.
Physician, heal thyself.
I don’t know Jay, it’s really hard to see “nonsensicle” in plain type. 😉
But really, I don’t see anything terribly interesting in this whole thing.
@jwest:
“[Josh] Green is an avowed Palin hater”
What is your basis for this claim? He recently wrote a very positively-spun article about her for the Atlantic.
She’s paranoid, always a victim, vindictive, and a pathological liar. There’s nothing new here. Just more of the above.
I think there is merit in a review and distillation of these emails, if only to show *still* that the vetting of executive branch candidates is woefully inadequate….There was a significant delay in releasing the emails that were supposed to be available for FOIA in a timely fashion. It took them 3 years to do so.
If there is significantly revelatory information in the emails to demonstrate/confirm that she was corrupt, unethical, or unqualified for the office, then we might never have know until she had a chance to do some real damage to the country and our reputation.
Any partisan who claimed that another candidate (from the winner’s side of the election) wasn’t properly vetted (school transcripts, publications, etc.) has no leg to stand on that these emails represent a vendetta-driven crusade, and a waste of time.
There is merit in this review. I only hope that in the future that local/state/federal governments, or the people via referendums and messages to the elected officials, start to enforce existing laws and regulations about correspondance, or that the rules are tightened and loopholes closed…
@ smooth jazz
To use a link to a letter in which the writer says up front he has no knowledge of the matter in order to discount the matter is just unflippingbelievable. Why listen to anything you don’t agree with…just get someone with no knowledge of the subject to tell you what you want to hear…your world will then be perfect.
You might want to try to learn about epistemological closure and think about how it is rendering your thought process impotent.
Hey Norm, if there is a liar afoot, look in the mirror (wipe the drugs off first) James, Doug posted an article stating Margret Thatcher refused a visit from Sarah Palins planned visit to Europe. Seems he must have gotten that information from a less than reliable source. I just wonder if you publish what you know may be a lie, does that make you a liar? The Guardian? I know you are not interested in redeaming the credibility of your blog know as Outside the Beltway because there will not be a retraction or anything acknowledging the errors. However a quick visit to Gateway Pundit will allow one to avail themselves of the truth. I cut and pasted a copy of what they posted. The original letter copy is there.
Margaret Thatcher Foundation
To: ————
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 4:51 PM
Subject: Mrs Palin
Dear Mr ——-,
Thank you for your message.
I have no inside knowledge of this business to offer I am afraid and certainly am not in a position to make any kind of statement on Lady Thatcher’s behalf. I’m happy though to give you my personal view.
The Guardian, of course, is not a newspaper at all sympathetic to Lady Thatcher (or to Mrs. Palin), so reports on this topic, from that source, have minimal credibility. If nothing else, would Lady Thatcher have ever described a prominent US conservative politician as ‘nuts’, or approved an ‘ally’ who used the description? I would hope that question answers itself.
Of course, sadly, Lady Thatcher’s health is not good these days and such considerations naturally dominate her schedule. That much is true. Someone once said that if you plaster together the true and the false you thereby manufacture the plausible, but in this case I don’t think even that much has been achieved by the Guardian.
On the ‘Malvinas’, the OAS never learns and the State Department endlessly seeks to curry favour with it for the sake of the a quiet life. The question is a closed one as far as we in Britain are concerned, as it is in the Falklands themselves where opinion is undivided.
Best wishes,
Christopher Collins
Margaret Thatcher Foundation
osted an article a little while ago which stated Margret That
Robert, then when do we get to read what Illinois Senator Obama had to say in his emails, or how about a peek at this college transcripts or how about the LA Times releasing the audio of Obama speaking to a member of the PLO? You and others seem facinated by the acts of of private individual who is not and has not stated she is running for public office, however the man who currently is President of the United States gets a pass on his past. And we get an America hating radical leftist for President.
Norm, the dude is just a manic hack, for Sara Palin no less. You want him to explore “epistemological closure”???
@Wiley Stoner:
So you see my point exactly then! Thanks…I was worried it would go over too many people’s heads.
She was a candidate when she was running (duh) and when these emails that she was using during her officials duties were requested. It just took them supposedly this long to have them ready.
As for your assumptions about me, especially,
See my earlier point in this very comment about the timing and scope….and my first post saying that this situation demonstrates the issues I have with the vetting process and methods…(this comment may elaborate a little on my earlier comment).
And just to cover the bases, President Obama is not a radical, a leftist, not a leftist, and certainly doesn’t seem to hate America.
Wow. the Palinistas must be terrified that something really bad is going to come out of these heavily scrubbed emails — look how frantic they are to change the subject.
“To use a link to a letter in which the writer says up front he has no knowledge of the matter in order to discount the matter is just unflippingbelievable.”
Spare me the BS. I assume you are referring the representative from the Thatcher Foundation who indicated “he has no knowledge of the matter”, ie the matter in which far left cranks at left wing Guardian were quoted as saying “Thatcher believed Palin was a nut”. How does this bolster your position. It seems to me the Thatcher Foundation Rep is saying the report that Thatcher didn’t want to see Palin because the thought she was nuts was a fraud, perpetrated by the lying hucksters at the Guardian blog.
Here is OTB’s post when the story came out. How does Doug M or OTB know this as fact, when it clearly thrid hand information from a left wing blog:
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/margaret-thatcher-to-sarah-palin-dont-bother-dropping-by-when-youre-in-town/
More significant is why OTB and other left wing blogs ran with the “Thatcher Didn’t want to see Palin because She was nuts and beneath her” storyline and got a post up before verifying. I guess they “wanted” to believe it so it didn’t matter if it was true or not. No need to verify if it fits into their preconceived bias about Palin. Your post adds nothing to the discussion except what you are programmed to believe.
His only executive experience was with William Ayers on the CAC, where 150 million dollars of funds destined for the Chicago schools were misplaced, FOIA requests for his Senate papers
have totally exempted under executive privilege, which is odd because he wasn’t an executive
at the Time. Branchflower’s affiliations are important, as to determine the purpose of the October Surprise report that was contradicted by Petumenous’s report..
Furthermore, isn’t it curious how one of those who commissioned the report, Kim Elton, was rewarded with overseeing Alaskan affairs at the Obama Interior Department, just like another
detractor, Larry Persilly was given control of the AGIA pipeline project,
He has layers of editors, like the Guardian, don’t you know, smooth jazz.
Gee, James. Looks like Narcisco has done some research as opposed to the bias opinions available here.
When Palin was running for governor.
“While running for governor in September 2006, Palin assured the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce she was all for the bridge.
“The money that’s been appropriated for the project, it should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done,” Palin said then, according to a story in the Ketchikan Daily News . “This link is a commitment to help Ketchikan expand its access, to help this community prosper.”
“I think we’re going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project,” she told the audience.
And in a written questionnaire for the Anchorage Daily News the following month, October of 2006, Palin was asked directly, “Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?”
Her answer: “Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now — while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/01/sarah-palin/as-candidate-yes-as-governor-no/
Pretty standard pandering while running for office, then switching to a broader approach once elected. She did keep the money.
Steve
“I remember first visiting James Joyner’s blogs years ago. The blog “used” to be fairly balanced if slightly right of center.”
Exactly. This blog was pretty good for years but now it’s garbage.
Actually it’s not that clear cut,:
http://www.crivellawest.net/palin2011/pdf/18852.pdf
This is freaking crazy, and very sad. But whats new with lefty coward Idoit scumbags!
The emails just contain more proof of what we already know: Palin’s a liar.
Several times in July and August 2008, Palin complained that the press was reporting that the custody battle between her sister and Wooten was ongoing. Palin instructed her aides to tell the press that the custody battle was over. Trouble is, that’s false. The custody battle and other divorce issues weren’t settled until 8/5/09.
The falsehood is material, because Palin wants to claim the divorce battle did not influence her behavior regarding Wooten and Monegan.
The legal history, showing that a settlement wasn’t reached until 8/5/09, is here.
Palin’s false statements on this matter can be found on the following pages:
pdf, p. 643
PRA_GSP01_0021736
7/23/08
“she [Heath] is NOT going through a divorce or custody battle.”
pdf, p. 808
PRA_GSP01_0022941
8/14/08
“Past tense [custody battle]. She has the majority – she won that.”
pdf, p. 852
PRA_GSP01_0022985
8/15/08
“custody battle should be past tense”
pdf, p. 854
PRA_GSP01_0022987
8/15/08
“and that my sister wasn’t in the midst of a divorce, that’s been over for a few years. And even the custody battle is past tense.”
Palin has made a number of other false statements regarding the divorce, which have been largely overlooked. I detailed some of those statements here. As far as I know, no one else has pointed out those falsehoods.
=================
Another transparent falsehood regarding Troopergate. Palin wrote: “there have been NO complaints [regarding Wooten] filed by the Heath or Palin family.”
pdf, p. 54
PRA_GSP01_0021147
7/17/08
Also see here: Palin said “neither the Palin or Heath family ever filed even a single complaint against Trooper Wooten.”
pdf, p. 49
PRA_GSP01_0021142
7/17/08
That’s false. On 8/10/05, Palin wrote a 3-page email (pdf) to Col. Julia Grimes, chief of the Alaska state police, urging that Wooten be dismissed. More details about this email are described on the wiki Troopergate page. Most of the accusations made by Palin in that email were ultimately rejected.
Also, on 10/10/05, Heath wrote a 2-page email to Grimes, complaining about Wooten. I have the document, but not a current working link for it.
=================
Another falsehood from Palin regarding Troopergate. See mail from Palin, PRA_GSP01_0021952, 7/27/08, pdf, p. 859. Palin says “And after the hunt Wooten told Chuck Heath that Molly DID shoot that moose.”
See here (police pdf). See p. 31. Heath was interviewed by police on 9/4/05: “Heath stated that Wooten later told him that he had shot the moose.” Also see p. 28. Molly was interviewed by police on 8/18/05: “McCann stated that Mike bragged to her dad about how fast he got the moose.” Also see p. 22. Sarah Palin herself was interviewed by police on 8/18/05: “Palin was not sure if Wooten had told her father that he had shot the moose or not but believed he probably had.”
Another falsehood by Palin (also p. 859): “except for his illegal moose hunt in question he [Wooten] has never hunted moose or caribou with family.”
See the police pdf, p. 31. Paragraph beginning “Heath stated that he had gone on a moose hunt during February 2004.” According to Heath, Wooten was with him.
As we already know (link, link, link): Palin is a pathological liar.
“Narcisso: He has layers of editors, like the Guardian, don’t you know, smooth jazz.”
Yeah, That’s the ticket; The dog ate my homework defense. Who needs layers of editors when left wing blogs can post unverifiable trash bashing Gov Palin based on unsupportable info provided by other far left hant mongers. Please spare me. OTB knew exactly they were doing: “Margaret Thatcher Thinks Gov Palin is an idiot & nutcase” is par the course for this blog and reflects their editorial policy. Who needs to verify anything when another anti-Palin hit piece is there to be posted, even if it isn’t verified.
JBG, Only idiots, and I use that term gererously to include you, have ever found Palin to be a liar. To counter you point, I was going to find some instances where Obama lied. That is too easy. Every time he opens his mouth lies come out. What he has not lied about is his agenda, when he is speaking with like minded individuals (radicals). He intends to fundamentally change America, from a capitalistic free state to God only knows what. The price of gas. He has managed to do exactly what he intended to do. Some of us feel as though he is operating like he attended a hate filled church that preached anti American ideology, but maybe he was there as a teacher. After all he was mentored by Frank M. Davis, Bill Ayers and sought the most radical instructors during his education (his own words) so Juke old boy, you are either a fool or the enemy of America and all it stands for.
Wiley, I’ve dealt with Juke’s type before. Way too many times.
To him the most important thing is that he thinks he’s caught someone he hates in a lie. This means that the person has said something that was not, to him, 100% accurate, and is THE GREATEST SIN IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE.
The best thing about this is it lets him turn the discussion away from more awkward matters — such as the guy here being discussed is a child-tasing, moose-jacking, drunk-driving while on duty, wife-beating, corrupt cop who has threatened to kill the father of the sitting governor. No, that all gets swept under the rug because SARAH PALIN LIED!!!!!!!!
That’s all irrelevant. His sins are forgiven, because he can somehow help bring down The Greatest Satan.
Oh, and you’ll NEVER see
Weejuke ever, ever, EVER support someone or something. That’s because he has just one mode — attack, attack, attack! Were he to support something, he might have to defend it — and he is utterly incapable of that.There’s an old saying — it’s always easier to destroy than create. Juke and his ilk are the embodiments of that philosophy — they live to try to destroy. They can’t stand their own nature, so they project it on others and try to show how “righteous” they are by tearing them down.
They’re the rabid animals of the internet. Fortunately, most of them are rabid moles, little more than an annoyance than an actual hazard. The worst thing you can do is fight them on their terms — that validates them, and gives them more “evil-doers” and “lying liars” they can denounce and assail.
Instead, if you must acknowledge them at all, mock them and refuse to engage them seriously.
But if you must, try to manipulate them into taking a defensive stance.
For example, this could be entertaining:
“juke, what do you know about Wooten?”
“SARAH PALIN LIED ABOUT HIM TO GET HIM FIRED!!!!”
“Did he deserve to be fired?”
“SHE LIED ABOUT HIM, AND HER LIES MUST BE EXPOSED!!!! AND SHE’S A STINKING HYPOCRITE!!!!!”
“So, should he get his job back?”
“SHE LIED ABOUT HIM! SHE’S A LYING LIAR!”
After a few rounds, it becomes clear to most everyone that the guy’s a frothing loon and not to be taken seriously.
The absolute worst thing you can do? Give them even the slightest amount of power or authority.
J.
stoner:
I cited numerous examples proving that Palin lied. I can’t find the part of your comment where you address those examples. Ignoring them doesn’t make them go away. It only proves that you’re doing this.
If Obama lied, that proves that Palin didn’t? Huh? What? How does that work, exactly? And I noticed you’ve proven this many instances of Obama lying: zero.
jay tea:
At the time, the family treated that incident as a joke. Maybe you can explain why the family said nothing to anyone about the Taser incident until two years after it happened. They had no problem with it, at the time. They only brought it up after the divorce got started:
They brought it up “because of the divorce.” Those are Bristol’s own words.
Do you know what that means? He went hunting with Palin’s sister, and he shot the moose, instead of her, even though the license was in her name. And this was fine with her (she didn’t want to do it herself, and she didn’t bring her own gun, and she had never fired his gun), and it was fine with Palin’s dad, who ate the meat. This is something else that was fine with the family, at the time. They only made an issue out of it years later, after the divorce started.
This is techically a violation of the hunting license, but this is a big deal to you? Really?
Wrong. This is one of many accusations made against him by Palin and Palin’s family, but a police investigation found that the accusation could not be substantiated. Along with a bunch of other accusations they made against him.
Palin has told this lie many times. If you followed the links I already provided, you would know that this is a lie. Palin’s sister (Wooten’s wife, at the time) told police Wooten “has never physically abused her.”
Now you’re really going off the deep end, because even Palin never made that accusation. So are you going to show some proof to support it?
Do you really think that happened? No one outside the family ever heard such a threat. And maybe you can explain this:
If it was a serious threat, then why wait a month to warn the father? Why didn’t Palin take the threat seriously, if it actually happened?
A hell of a lot more than you, obviously. For example, I’m pretty you didn’t know that he was once described as follows (pdf):
Three guesses who said that.
Yup. That’s a documented fact.
A police investigation decided he should be suspended, and he was. Palin came along years later and decided that wasn’t good enough, even though there was no further wrongdoing, and no new evidence. Are you familiar with the concept of double jeopardy? I guess not. Neither is Palin.
Yup. Making false, defamatory claims about someone is pretty serious. Especially when the claims include false accusations of physical abuse. And this would be a serious problem even if the person falsely accused was not a veteran and a cop.
You’re so painfully ignorant about this whole matter that you don’t even realize that Wooten doesn’t need to “get his job back,” because he never lost his job. He’s still on the job. Palin’s efforts to get him fired failed.
Yup. I think you’re starting to catch on.
“Frothing loon” would be a good way to describe someone who ignores facts that have already been documented and makes a bunch of phony, ignorant claims that are contrary to those facts. That would be you.
Juke, you been juked. You are getting your info about third hand, after it has been through the bias of the left and filtered by your, what passes for brain, which is in default. If Palin lied, why is it you and a few on the left are the only ones who think so? No inquiry or investigation has shown she lies, lied or is a liar. Those are facts, not some BS you say is a lie. You are proof you cannot fixs stupid.
stoner:
Wrong. I’m getting my information from primary documents. I realize you probably have no idea what that term means.
Do you know how to click on a link? Try this one. That’s an official police document, written by Sergeant Burke Waldron, an investigator in the Alaska State Police. Do his statements represent “the bias of the left?”
Can you read the third paragraph? Waldron describes a conversation he had with Molly Wooten (Palin’s sister) on 4/11/05. According to Waldron, Molly said Wooten “acts very intimidating,” but “he has never physically abused her.” And this is what Palin’s father told police: “Wooten had not physically assaulted his daughter” (pdf, p. 1).
This is just one example. All the other claims I made are also backed by primary documents, just like these. And this is all information I’ve already linked, either directly or indirectly, but in your case obviously spoonfeeding is required.
If you were deliberating trying to provide a vivid demonstration of how you are deeply determined to ignore all inconvenient facts, you could hardly do a better job.
More details about this (i.e., Palin falsely accusing Wooten of physical abuse) can be found via here.
jay tea, still waiting for you to tell us why you accused Wooten of “wife-beating.” Because you know more about Molly’s life than Molly does? Because you know more than her father? Because Molly made a private statement to you, explaining that she had lied to the police, and lied to her father?
Or because you’re inclined to regurgitate any lie you hear Palin say, without lifting a finger to verify it? It’s obviously the latter. What a good little Palinist you are.
And what a surprise to find one liar defending another liar. If you had any integrity, you would withdraw your false accusations against Wooten. But of course you won’t, just like Palin won’t. I guess you want to make it clear that your statements are worthless. Only a fool would take you seriously.
A fusion of the global warming and Palin email posts
BLOG COMMENT OF THE DAY:
You, Glenn Reynolds and lots of other people don’t understand that college professors do not and should not have the same disclosure obligations as elected officials.
Not a surprise that those already predisposed to dislike Sarah Palin will find all those supposedly revelatory nuggets that allow them to continue to dislike her. What is far more revealing than anything is all those emails is nothing in the emails themselves, rather the veracity, or lack thereof, of all those so willing to invest time in perusing them.
Juke said,
Need cite.
If you’re really having trouble understanding some things that should be obvious, it might help you to start here and here.
The nuggets aren’t that “revelatory,” because we already knew she was a liar. But “not a surprise that those already predisposed to” like Sarah Palin will go to great lengths to make excuses for a liar.
If you’re in a position to show a problem with my “veracity,” what are you waiting for? There’s no time like the present. Where’s your proof? I guess the concept of proof is foreign to you. Not a surprise that people who make excuses for a liar can’t grasp that a naked assertion is worthless until it’s backed with proof.
Replete with irony, and not worth the time to respond henceforth.
juke,
Your “cites” which you helpfully presented under the title of “here” and here” and no other information were comments you made on another blog.
Your comments on the other blog consisted of
1. More links to other comments you made. These comments meandered from joe wilson, to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, to wikileaks.
2. Links to a blog post by a Wisconsin professor regarding his FOIA request
3. Links to a discussion on the intervention in libya.
Your links provided a certain entertainment value.
However, in the interest of clarity would you provide a concise primary source regarding FOIA and college professors without referring to other comments you made on different topics.
I know your proud of your comments on other topics. Unfortunately, since they were made on other topics the wheat to chaff ratio is ugly.
bains:
Using “replete” and “henceforth” in the same short sentence is worth a couple of points for flowery, affected writing, but it’s no substitute for backing your claims with proof. Let us know when you’re ready to do that.
===================
Duracomm:
No. My comments which I cited do mention other topics, but they also respond to what you asked about this topic. If you can’t figure that out, too bad.
Actually, I’m pretty sure you can figure that out, but you simply have no response to what I said.
Juke said,
So,
1. you can’t flesh out your argument
2. you can’t provide an independent cite supporting your position
3. you will attempt to obscure your failure at 1. and 2. by continuing to bang on the table.
I’m sure it will be entertaining.
First your problem was that I was not “concise” enough, but now you want me to “flesh [it] out.” Here’s an idea: pick one story and stick with it.
If you had a substantive response to what I said, we would have heard it by now.
Juke said,
There is a happy medium (generally it requires a few short sentences,) between
and pages of scholarly discussion.
This is the sweet spot you should aim for.
Anything to support the recent rumors that Sarah may have engaged in lesbian activities in the emails?
This is the sweet spot you should aim for: responding to what I said. So far you’ve posted three comments that manage to avoid doing so.
juke said,
Lets review:
You said
Note the complete and utter lack of anything related to the current topic in your statement.
I followed your links, described them and asked for clarification. You have responded by continuing to bang on the table while pointedly refusing to add anything to the topic at hand.
Why don’t you make life easier for everyone.
If you think you made relevant points on another comment you made on another blog, on a different topic do everyone here a favor.
Drag what you think were your relevant points from the other thread and put them here where everyone can see them. Copy paste is not that difficult.
Doing this provides some benefits to everyone:
1. It allows you to make your point where everyone can see it in all of its scintillating glory.
2. It saves everyone else from having to wade through topics that are not remotely related to the current discussion.
3. It makes it more likely the point you want to make will be made.
The direct approach beats forcing everyone else to try and figure out what you thought was important on another topic.
Juke,
I was hoping you would make your point here directly instead of having others second guess what your point was.
Since you won’t I will summarize your comments on the other topic, on another blog, this way.
Team Red FOIA requests bad. (University professor emails)
Team Blue FOIA good (Cheney energy task force attendees)
Admittedly that is just my summary but it is consistent with your line of argument here.
Team Red FOIA requests bad. (Mann emails related to climate research)
Team Blue FOIA good: (Palin emails)
The interesting thing is Mann’s work has far greater public policy relevance than Palin’s emails do. Which thickens the plot as they say.
Feel free to correct my summary if I got it wrong.
In my comments on the other thread (link, link), I explained why it makes sense to hold elected officials to a level of transparency and accountability that does not apply to other public employees, including and especially college professors.
“The interesting thing” is that you are quite determined to not respond to what I said about that. You’ve now posted five comments that pointedly avoid responding to what I said about that.
Hint: at the very beginning of the first linked comment, I cited “a little history lesson regarding the concept of academic freedom.” You’re putting a lot of effort into ignoring this, even though it’s directly relevant to what you asked. This reminds me of what you said in another thread: “a certain lack of intellectual engagement and tendency towards epistemic closure.”
And it’s true that lots of Palin’s emails have little or no “public policy relevance,” but we wouldn’t know that without seeing them. And we’re still left guessing about the large amount of material that was withheld entirely or heavily redacted.
Juke said, in another thread on another topic. Since Juke is too tired to copy and paste the comment from another blog, on another topic, I will
That is a reasonable position to hold. The statement that “College professors generally have no power over us” Is generally true.
Not so true in Mann’s case since his work is being used to support the need for regulations that have caused and will continue to cause massive environmental and economic damage.
I would like to have a media that would hold the politicians and the politically connected who feed off access to them, accountable.
What I have is a media that largely acts as a defender of the powerful and well connected, if they happen to be politicians with a D behind their name or people and interest groups that support policies the democrats support.
This becomes perfectly clear when one compares the way, for example, the la times treated john edwards affair as opposed to the way Palin’s emails were treated.
LAT Gags Blogs: In a move that has apparently stirred up some internal discontent, the Los Angeles Times has banned its bloggers, including political bloggers, from mentioning the Edwards/Rielle Hunter story.
duracomm:
College professors don’t make and enforce laws. Elected officials make and enforce laws. Now, those officials might be influenced by something they heard from a college professor. They also might be influenced by something they heard from their spouse, child, priest, hairdresser, therapist, astrologer or mother-in-law. Or they might be influenced by something they read in a newspaper article quoting some alleged expert. Something those people say could be “used to support the need for” a certain law. Nevertheless, it is not those people who make and enforce laws. It’s the elected official who makes and enforces laws. We make a distinction between the actual people who actually make and enforce laws, as compared with the vastly larger group of people who might produce work that could be “used to support the need for” a certain law.
People who might produce work that could be “used to support the need for” a certain law do not have power over us. The people who actually make and enforce laws are the ones who have power over us. This is true even though it’s always going to be possible to point a finger at someone who allegedly played a role in influencing the elected official.
This is a simple concept. Understanding this concept is a prerequisite to having a useful discusion about the thing you seem to be interested in discussing.
Jay Tea, for some strange reason you haven’t been seen in this thread since I pointed out that you made a bunch of false claims. For example, you accused Wooten of “wife-beating,” even though that claim is contradicted by various statements by people (like the wife) who are in a position to know that you’re wrong.
It looks like your regard for the truth is just like Palin’s: you don’t mind making false claims, and then you refuse to take responsbility for them, when caught. It’s helpful for readers to know this about you, so thanks for providing such a vivid, transparent demonstration.
Now that the dust has settled.
Will the “lamestream” journalists now look straight into the camera and proclaim Sarah Palin a media genius?
Yes, exactly. Why? Because the material was heavily redacted “by same people who worked for her.” 2,415 pages were withheld.
The log of withheld material is 190 pages long, and the log of redactions is 80 pages long.
You, Althouse and Stewart all failed to mention this.
Yes, it was silly for the “lamestream media” to not anticipate that the material would be mostly innocuous, given that Palin’s people had spent years identifying thousands of pages they didn’t want the public to see. It’s also silly for you, Althouse and Stewart to all gloss over this.
But even though the material is heavily redacted, it still contains multiple instances of Palin lying, as I documented above. But you won’t see the press talking about that. Why? Because lying by politicians isn’t considered news, and because those are all lies she has told before, publicly, so finding them in the emails isn’t terribly important.