The Swift-Skirting of Sarah Palin
Posted on September 7, 2008
-By Warner Todd Huston
Apparently the media wants to get even for the Swift-Boaters’ successful torpedoing of John Kerry in 2004 because they are by the dozens every day promulgating lies about the career and life of Governor Sarah Palin. I recently posted a piece on the lies, exaggerations and misbegotten assumptions of a Baltimore Sun columnist and it got me to thinking to try and gather one thread rebutting the media’s ever evolving negative memes against this strong woman. From unproven claims of infidelity, to claims she is a book banner and a negligent Mother, the media have been smearing this woman daily since she stepped out onto the national stage. One recent Politico attack on Palin was made up solely of the claim that she was once mean to someone… yes, Politico actually was trying to say that their report was serious.
In any case, I’d like to present and knock down some of the swift-skirt attacks the media is launching. So, in no particular order…
Lie- Palin Slashed spending for teen moms from $5 million dollars to $3.9 million in the Alaska state budget.
Truth- Palin actually increased by three-fold the budget for the Covenant House teen pregnancy programs. What she “cut” was the Covenant House’s request for $5 million! Palin’s $3.9 million was still a massive increase from the previous budget.
Lie- Palin belonged to the Alaska Independence Party, a group that wants Alaska to secede from the United States.
Truth- The Governor’s political registration shows that she has been a Republican since 1982 and she has never been a member of the AIP, though he husband has in the past.
Lie- Palin wants Creationism taught in school alongside of the Theory of Evolution.
Truth- Palin has spoken in favor of open discussion in the classroom of the two competing ideas, but has never spoken for, advocated for, or tried to make a policy that would make Alaska’s schools add creationism to their curriculum. Palin quote: “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”
Lie- Palin was so mired in controversy as a mayor that she was almost recalled while mayor of Wasilla.
Truth- Only a small number of Wasilla residents supported the recall effort and the idea died stillborn.
Lie- Palin cheated on her husband with her husband’s former business partner. This man had his divorce papers sealed to hide Palin’s affair.
Truth- Turns out it is untrue and the reason the man wanted his divorce papers sealed is to prevent the media from intruding into his life and the life of his young son.
Lie- Palin faked her recent pregnancy to cover for an out-of-wedlock birth of her teenaged daughter.
Truth- Many eyewitnesses and photos easily debunk this story. And even if you didn’t believe that, the fact that Palin’s daughter is pregnant NOW makes it physically impossible that she could have had a baby earlier in the year.
Lie- Palin was a supporter of Pat Buchanan when he ran for president in 1999.
Truth- Palin actually supported Steve Forbes in 1999 and was the co-chair on his Alaska campaign.
Lie- Palin is hiding her real religion from the public. She claims to be “just” a Christian, but is really a Pentecostal.
Truth- Palin left the Pentecostal Church she belonged to in Alaska 6 years ago.
Lie- Palin wanted a long, long list of books to be banned in the Wassilla library.
Truth- Palin did ask the library about what the process might be to ban a book, but the long list of books being circulated to “prove” she wanted books banned is really a list of all the books that have been banned at one time or another over the last 100 years. In fact, as far as the Harry Potter Books on that list goes, some of them came out after Palin left the office of Mayor of Wasilla.
Lie- Palin is lying when she says she sold the state’s jet plane on ebay.
Truth- Palin never said she sold the jet on ebay. She says she put it up to sell on ebay. And she did. But it didn’t sell there. The state sold it in a private sale to Larry Reynolds.
These are just some of the lies that the media are trying to sell us to swift-skirt Sarah Palin. They cannot stand to see a strong woman like Sarah who actually got to the top by her own efforts… as opposed to some female Senator who got to where she is because her philandering, but powerful husband paved the way for her.
There are surely others I’ve missed, I know, and if you readers have some, post them and I’ll add them here. (Give supporting links if you can)
» Filed Under Elections, Liberal Media/Bias, News, Propaganda, Revisionism, Sarah Palin
Trackback URL
Comments
16 Responses to “The Swift-Skirting of Sarah Palin”
Leave a Reply
The immediate uproar from the left over John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate has, at least for me, brought back memories of the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. There are some very interesting comparisons to be made here, especially for those too young to remember the Thomas confirmation hearings.
Thomas, a conservative Republican African-American, was nominated by President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1991 to become the second black Supreme Court justice succeeding Thurgood Marshall, a liberal icon of the Civil Rights era. That Thomas was conservative and a critic of affirmative action was a red flag in the eyes of liberals, especially black liberals. They saw in Thomas a rejection of the notion that African-Americans needed special treatment in order to succeed in a racist American society. To the liberals in the Democratic Party and various political activist groups, Thomas’ nomination had to be defeated at all costs.
First, they argued that he was unqualified for the position. Thomas, however, proved a feisty opponent as the confirmation hearings proceeded. He was making his opponents on the Judiciary Committee look like the small people they were.
Then they dug up Anita Hill, who came to testify that, as a former employee of Thomas, he had pursued her for a relationship in inappropriate ways. In other words, Thomas had been guilty of sexual harassment. Thomas, for his part, denied the charges angrily as stories of pornography and inappropriate language and conduct were hurled at him-without proof. In the end, Hill’s testimony could not be corroborated, and Thomas was confirmed after a humiliating process played out in front of a national TV audience. Since then, Thomas has served as a solid conservative on the Supreme Court, hated to this day by liberals and groups such as the NAACP. What was Clarence Thomas’ crime? He was a black conservative. To this day, he shares the fate of all black conservatives in America-castigated and insulted as an “Uncle Tom” and a “sell-out”.
Ironically, one of Thomas’ biggest thorns on the Judiciary Committee was Joe Biden, for whom Thomas had harsh words in his memoirs. Biden was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who presided over the ugliest confirmation hearing in memory.(He voted against Thomas.)
Now along comes Sarah Palin, right on the heels of Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign to become the first female president. Unlike Hillary, however, Palin is a conservative. She is the embodiment of what so-called feminists profess they dream about-a woman who works hard and makes it on her own ability-independent of being the spouse or girlfriend of some powerful man. In reality, Palin is the woman’s equivalent of Clarence Thomas. Her elevation to Vice-President is completely unacceptable to liberals and feminists. Never mind that she enjoys an approval rating among Alaskans at 80%. Never mind that the Republicans have accepted her enthusiastically. She is unacceptable to “them”.
Why? Several reasons. First, she is conservative-a Republican. (How dare the Republicans put the first female in the White House as VP-that’s the “Democrat destiny”.) Second, she is a family woman. Married-not to some rich, powerful man-but to a blue collar worker. She has five children-the last born in April with Downs Syndrome. This leads to perhaps the biggest objection. Palin chose to have the baby. She is anti-abortion.
Therein lies the problem for Democrats, liberals and feminists: Palin’s elevation, like that of Thomas before her, sends a message to women that they don’t want women to hear. That message is about family, conservative values and life-as opposed to abortion.
Thomas’ message was and is that African-Americans or anybody else can make it in today’s America through their talents and hard work. For the left, he was a figure that had to be stopped at any cost. Smear him, destroy him, destroy his family-whatever it takes.
Now we see it repeating itself with Sarah Palin. From day one, the left has mounted a campaign to stop this woman by whatever means necessary. Like Thomas, they say she is unqualified by nature of her political experience (which is arguably at least equal to if not greater than Barack Obama). Now, in short order, we see the personal smears. First, it was the Daily Kos running with a wild rumor that Palin was not the real mother of her baby, Trig-rather it was her daughter, Bristol, 17, who was the real mother. Faced with that flying around the blogosphere and being repeated by the media, Palin announced that Bristol was pregnant and expecting in December. So now, we watch the Democrats and their allies in the media spouting moral outrage. How could this Sarah Palin run for Vice President with a 17-year-old pregnant, unmarried daughter-plus a baby with Downs Syndrome? How could she? She is not a fit mother. Never mind that if Palin were a liberal Democrat, the left would be celebrating her as a modern-day WOMAN-especially if she aborted that baby. Since when did the left become the new “Moral majority” in this country? Since when did they become the guardians of our morals in the bedroom?
The Palin saga is going to get much uglier. This is an all-out attempt to drive her from the ticket-to humiliate her and her family until she throws in the towel and withdraws. It is the same tactic that was used-and failed with Clarence Thomas-a good and decent man who refused to back down. I hope that Palin, whatever the sacrifice, will stand her ground. If she does, I think the American people will stand with her.
gary fouse
fousesquawk
You know Warren, the things that have turned out to be “lies”, are things I liked about Palin. Her support for Pat Buchanan, that she belonged to the AIP (I support succesion) and she cut programs. And I see a few other things, that I thought were true, are now lies.
Oh well, all I’m seeing is another Modern Day Republican. I.E. Democrat. Nothing “True Conservative” about her. Unless you think JFK, LBJ, and FDR were Conservatives.
They hated Thomas because he was living proof that minorities don’t need Affirmative Action to succeed, and they hate Palin because she is living proof that women don’t need abortion to succeed.
Take away affirmative action and abortion, and what’s a liberal got left? National healthcare and a sky-high minimum wage, neither of which you can really be a living embodiment of not needing.
(Does anybody else remember the cartoon with Thomas in the background and the libs in the foreground sharpening a sword and muttering, “This is gonna be tough — we have to carve him up without touching his skin!”?
Great article. Whatever happened to the 18 million cracks in the ceiling, touted by the Dems. How hypocritical when it is not one of yours who is rising to the top.
All that talk about Hillary and how smart,experienced, etc.
Who cares? Clarence Thomas?? Rumors and lies??? This is news?
I believe she tried to ban Harry Potter as much as I believe Obama attended a madrasa. But if it turns out she tried to ban even one book, she is a Nazi who has no business representing the American Constitution. If we can’t all agree on that, our country is lost forever.
It’s pretty funny how much some of the media jumped on her. Specially the Times that’s a pretty stupid mistake that could have been easily fact checked. But there are still some things that make you wonder,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm?csp=34
I mean unless there quotes are wrong she was for the bridge to nowhere in the beginning, and she hired lobbyists for to gain 27 mil in earmarks for her small town. For a campain that is banking hard on cutting wasteful spending Palin is a strange choice.
It’s funny that the media jumped on her so much. The New york times one was pretty bad considering how easy it should have been to fact check it. That being said there are still some strange things,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm?csp=34
unless they are lying about the quotes, she was for the bridge to no where in the beginning as well as hiring lobbyists for 27 million in earmarks for her small town. It seems like a strange pick for VP for a campain banking so hard on cutting wasteful spending
“Teach the controversy” IS putting creationism in the science class. You can’t “just discuss it” without presenting it. Having a governor friendly to anti-evolution propaganda in the classroom is all that is needed to give the green light to teachers and school admins. “Teach the controversy” is spreading quite nicely throughout the country without any laws being passed.
Mike, that is the most ridiculous claim I’ve ever seen. “Teach” has a far different meaning than discuss. To “teach” evolution is to go into it as a matter of course work. To DISCUSS creationism is to make it an aside without going into it as a scientific theory, NOR does it have to mean that creationism is given the weight of science.
You are disingenuous at best, lying to advance atheism on our kids at worse.
It never ceases to amaze me how hypocritical the Right is. Awww. The Left is picking on your VP candidate! The whining is laughable after all the attacks from the Right over Clinton. What, we’re not allowed to point out yet another Republican’s hypocrisies?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card
I am a feminist, though I did not support Hillary. I am also one of those “white, working-class, rural voters” that the GOP thinks they can steal with this VP pick. However, it is overall demeaning to women that McCain thinks that he only had to put a pretty face on the ticket, and the female population would overlook her own contradictions and jump on the bandwagon. Same genitalia is ALL she shares with most women.
Balancing work and family life is indeed a tough chore, but when her family life is in peril, she instead chose work. Yes, just 3 days after her special needs child was born.
How’s that for “family values”? As a mother of a boy the same age (and other children), I couldn’t imagine doing that to him, much less if he needed more attention from BOTH parents. Nope, instead, my dh and I have worked out a way to have quality family time, both in FT employment (and no Social Services!), and never put our children in daycare.
Note that no one from the Right seems to notice that poor, working women HAVE to return to work quickly, sometimes as fast as Ms. Palin chose to.
I don’t seem to hear a remedy from the “family values” party for paid family leave or mandatory maternity leave for companies of ALL sizes, which would actually support family structure and child health.
I suppose many on the right simply don’t have to think about that, what with their large elitist tax-cut funded bankrolls.
Sure, go ahead and be “pro-life,” but make sure to ignore the “life” that comes after. Does McCain/Palin (and the entire GOP, for that matter) have alternatives for young women who are not as economically viable as Bristol? Oh, sure: abstinence. Got it.
And yes, I do believe that many McCain supporters are racist. It isn’t simply theory; it is what I hear way too often everywhere from my rural community to TV and online pundits. You’re all trying to scare the “average” American of the big scary Black man. At the head of this fight: McCain. Why else would that ad that paints Obama as a celebrity (painting his popularity as a bad thing…seriously?) put him alongside pics of white blond bimbos instead of celebs that actually DO support him? Again, laughable.
Keep whining, conservatives. It’ll get you in practice for November 5.
Cate you are a liar…
And your PROOF that McCain meant Palin’s pick as merely this supposed “cynical” move is???
The TRUTH is this is your wild-eyed, hatemongering CLAIM. And NOT any REAL proof. Go peddle your talking points and lies to your socialist friends. We aren’t fooled here.
WTH: I can’t be a liar for stating my opinion, as well as that of most American women (including many pro-life ones) that I know.
The “proof” is that there were women he could have picked (Kay Bailey Hutchinson, for one), but he instead chose a woman who is a new face to America and dub her “reformer”, though when it comes to her own sister and her ex-husband, it seems like “politics as usual” are quite familiar to her. (BTW: she was also a new face to him. He met her once, and talked to her once before making this monumental, “presidential” decision.)
Also, in case you can’t read things thoroughly, I live in a rural area, not a commune. The closest thing I have to “socialism” in my life is the flock of chickens in my backyard.
I simply think we might want to join the rest of the industrialized world in offering family friendly laws, especially if you’re part of a party that purports to believe in “family values.” (We are one of 5 countries without paid maternity leave, among Papau New Guinea and Swaziland. How “family values” of us!)
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3664021&affil=wjla
Thanks for reinforcing my “whining” point! Way to argue intelligently. Why would I think I could get that from the Right?
Perhaps if you don’t like having a “discussion” with the other side, WTH, you could make everyone pledge their political assimilation to you before they post a comment. Or perhaps state their race, so you’re sure you’re not dealing with someone too far from your bubble of reality.
“You are disingenuous at best, lying to advance atheism on our kids at worse.”
No, not really. I have some experience teaching high school and college biology, and I can assure you that discussing the subject matter in class is, indeed, teaching. I’m not an atheist either. Defending creationism in public schools is not a conservative position, but, unfortunately, the latest repackaging of anti-evolution strategies has been too much of a temptation for politicians desperate for a compromise that looks good to the majority. The extreme anti-evolution campaign has been happy to oblige. This is why McCain appears to waffle on the question. He does not want to appear to be supporting the teaching of religion as science in public schools, he’s not anti-science, but he knows that there should be some way of teaching science without appearing to denigrate someone’s religion. Unfortunately, the scientific community hasn’t been able to get behind a message that no one need feel that science threatens their religious faith. That has left the field open to crusading atheists, and crusading religious extremists.
Cate, so you admit that your “opinion” is a meaningless jab based on no proof but your feelings? Wow. And you have the gall to accuse OTHER people of not arguing “intelligently”? Well, thanks for proving yourself such a silly person not worth taking seriously. We do appreciate it.
Gary: I think the Clarence Thomas analogy is apropos, in the sense that, like him, she was a pure affirmative action pick, is very likely unqualified, and holds views antithetical and harmful to the group she represents.