« Obama Surpasses 8 Million Vote Margin Over McCain | Main | The Odd Lies of Sarah Palin: November 12 Edition »

Welcome Back Sarah Palin!

She's back, pandering and pontificating. Well, since "pontificating" is a large word that Sarah probably would have to look up to check its meaning I'll change that to "Sarah Wonders Out Loud," dontcha-knowit...

Nonetheless, just one week after Sarah swore she just wanted to go back to Alaska and serve out her term, returning to her roots in the far north in order to govern (and kill defenseless mammals from helicopters), Sarah is back to giving out interviews and trying to make headlines.... and trying to make it everybody else's fault that she lost the election for the Republicans:

During an interview televised Monday night on U.S. cable outlet Fox News [embedded below] , the Alaska governor says her deep religious faith will reveal - in her words - "if there is an open door" for her in politics. Palin says she would "plow right on through" to take advantage of the opportunity, even if it is a premature move.

It must tbe nice to govern from a place where nothing is your fault, and important decisions are left to "God's will." Nothing is ever "your fault"...

Palin is obviously testing the waters to see if there is 'plowing right through" room . This diva didn't last a week away from the limelight. She spent last Saturday going through her extensive wardrobe, and now she's back to licking the hands of Fox News, less than a week after the election.

During the interview, Palin dismissed reports following the election suggesting she was not aware Africa was a continent rather than a country, saying it did not come up during discussions about the region.

Palin also denied she ever asked for the much-publicized $150,000 wardrobe during the campaign, saying it was bought by the Republican Party, and that many of the clothes purchased for her and her family were never worn.

Palin's propensity to lie to reporters in direct contradiction to the facts is now legendary. Her efforts now are clearly aimed at defelecting blame away from her as much as possible.

In a separate interview with an Alaskan newspaper Monday, the governor says voter dissatisfaction was the reason for the Republican ticket's defeat to Democrat Barack Obama last week.

Palin says she believes she and McCain may have represented "too much of the status quo" to voters tired of Bush administration policies. Palin said she is amazed the Republican ticket did as well as it did.

But she's not running for any office, no-no, not Sarah.

She has scheduled a series of media interviews over the next few days.

I suspect Sarah sniffs a fundraising opportunity - you know, a chance to turn some bad PR into coins. Rebuilding her image is job 1.

In an interviewed aired Tuesday on NBC's "Today," the Republican vice presidential candidate said three factors contributed to her party's defeat:

"We didn't get the Hispanic vote."

"We were outspent so tremendously."

"The anti-incumbency sentiment that was spread across the land and our ticket representing the incumbency."

She left out "And I came across like an empty-headed, vapid diva -- who in the end even John McCain shunned"... but she left out a lot more too. Not to worry, Palin fans, this egotistical monster will be around for a long, long time.

Sarah Palin, the gift to the Democratic Party that just keeps on giving:

Notice that she starts out lying about the clothes, in direct contradiction to all of the reports that have surfaced since September. And notice the way the Fox News reporters tosses out softballs and defends Sarah.

Gawker goes on:

Listen up, voters: It was not Sarah Palin's idea to try and fool you by wearing fancy clothes she would not normally have anything to do with! The Republican National Committee bought an opulent $150,000 wardrobe for her and seven family members before she even showed up at the convention, the former vice presidential nominee told Fox News Channel's Greta Von Susteren Tuesday night. The legendary MAVERICK was just "goin' with the flow... if that's the way they do this." She's never even been to a Saks or Neiman Marcus. Why on earth is she telling everyone this now?

If Palin had addressed the wardrobe issue during the campaign, it might have defused the charges of hypocrisy and significantly helped her ticket's chances. But by talking publicly like this now, she's just depleting her still-considerable balance of political capital. Palin's own accounting makes her look like a pushover who agreed to put on the airs of a folksy, small-town mayor while wearing fancy duds that, as she told Susteren, she was relieved to trade in upon her return home. It was only then, Palin said, that she put on "my own clothes." (See video above.)

This clothes thing shouldn't matter, as Palin herself said in the interview. And if she'd just left it alone, it wouldn't. But by talking out of both sides of her mouth about it -- first she told Susteren she didn't wear her own clothes on the trail, then that she did -- the Alaska governor not only revived the controversy but also reminded her remaining fans of what they liked least about her, about the fumbling duplicity of her ticket in its final weeks.

It doesn't help her credibility that Palin claims no Democratic nominees were slammed over who did their "hair and makeup," or that she also falsely claimed to Van Susteren that Harry Potter hadn't been published while she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and that she therefore couldn't have banned the book from local libraries. This was exposed (at Huffington Post) as an awful lie just minutes after Palin said it.

The governor repeatedly acknowledged she might like to run for the Republican nomination for president in 2012, 2016 or beyond (see video below). A more tactful politician might wait until the body of her last campaign was cold before engaging in such a discussion. On the other hand, everyone knows Palin is a (sometimes irrationally) confident and ambitious politician, and nothing if not plainspoken, so trying to deny the possibility of a run would have just looked silly and out of character.

Palin at least managed to deny those rumors she didn't know her continents, and to work in a cute story about a phone call with Barack Obama (also below). Fox: Put the quality material at the front of the broadcast when you air Part 2 Tuesday night. Having to watch another full hour of Palin is just going to give us more terrible flashbacks to last month.

Less than a week has passed since Sarah lost the election for the GOP and Palin can't wait to try to repair her damaged reputation, but she isn't considering a run for 2012, no no.... And if you believe that, Sarah has a bridge she'd like to sell ya'.

Sarah Palin clearly represents the side of the Republican Party that will just tell Americans as many lies as it takes to get elected. Hopefully we've turned the page on this GOP of old once and for all.

Update: On the Today Show this morning Palin again denies she's the reason Republican lost the election:

"I think the economic collapse had a heckuva lot more to do with the campaign's collapse than me personally," the governor said in an interview broadcast Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show.

Note to Palin: The reason everyone keeps asking you these questions is because, in fact, you did lose the election -- what's fun about all of this is the many colorful ways you choose to deny it.

Related
: TODAY show transcript.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 2.3/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.3/5 (9 votes cast)


Comments (19)

Allen:

Lee, she is using the same meds and crystal ball the people on the right are using. First, she will have to be cleared from some of the scandalized things she has been involved in.

Her house for one, troop-gate for 2nd, (which isn't over yet.) several lawsuits being brought against her in civil court, etc.

But knowing the religious wingnuts that make up the GOP, they will lie about those scandals and she will become the poster girl for them. You betcha, wink, wink.

I guess it's hell being a raving GOP lover, as they still refuse to believe they lost the election. Obama won the election, and he will lead this country anyway he wants to, and that really T's off the repuggies.

Only time will tell about what Obama is going to do. He has inherited a mess, and no, this mess didn't start in 2006 as the GOP wants everyone to believe. It started in 2004 when Bush was reelected. That's when the stealing started, and the taxpayers will have to pay for the stealing that was done. And both parties are responsible for that.

Well, she's certainly in the business of making a darn fool of herself any possible way that she can. And now doing one foolish post-election interview after another is just her latest absurd publicity seeking way. I guess she's like Dan Quayle, just much dumber yet. At least he knew when to leave the stage, and it was over.

The failed McCain effort reminds me of the Mel Brooks film and play, THE PRODUCERS. The GOP took a candidate way too old and erratic to be president, added the worst possible VP choice, avoided the important issues like the economy for the most part and concentrated on foolishness like Bill Ayers or "Socialist" name calling, etc. In many ways it was a simply childish effort, where school children could have run this awful campaign, and sadly John McCain only hurt what good image he had with many in the public. Only his excellent concession speech restored some dignity to this poor man, and proved his basic decency despite many character flaws and judgment lapses of his own.

This 2008 GOP ticket was merely sad and unprofessional in so many ways. I hate saying these things because I'm not trying to make McCain's voters feel bad right now. But it's the truth.

I know McCain swimming uphill against the bad economy and George Bush was tough enough. But his campaign needed to at least put in decent effort to save face, but certainly didn't. That's part of why the loss was so big.

I've never seen a campaign as bad as McCain's in my entire life, and I thought that the 1988 Dukakis effort was absolutely awful as was the 1972 McGovern mess as well.

Mike:

It's incredible that liberals are still peddling the book banning lie, even after it has been thoroughly discredited.

Lee Ward:

And just when you think you might know the truth, Sarah Palin gets caught in another lie:

Just minutes ago on Fox News I saw Sarah Palin tell Greta van Susteren that the rumors that she wanted to ban books in the local library while she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska were false.

Governor Palin said the charge was untrue because someone accused her of banning Harry Potter books and that would be impossible because Harry Potter "hadn't even been written when I was mayor." But Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002 and there were additions to the Harry Potter series in that period.

So the conclusion to be drawn here is either 1). Palin is lying about her attempt at book burning in Wasilla and trying to cover it up; or 2). Palin is so clueless about secular popular culture she is unaware of the time period of the publication of the books in the mega-hit Harry Potter series. Of course, van Susteren -- dutiful Fox News Republican ventriloquist dummy she is -- just let Palin's assertion go by unchallenged. I just thought it was really weird. I guess Palin just lies even when she doesn't have to or is really culturally challenged up there in the tundra. Did anybody else see this?

Minutes after Palin says something there is proof available that she lied -- or is just plain stupid -- or both.

Why wouldn't she just tell the truth?

What is in it Sarah Palin's pathology that makes her lie repeatedly? It's bizarre.

K:

Um, guys. Two things. First, it's Veteran's Day. Why not drop the smear campaign for just one day and show some honor and respect toward those who have served? Second, why are you still wasting your time smearing Sarah Palin to start with? Move forward like the rest of the world.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Show some respect for vets by backing off of Palin?

Why don't you show some respect for vets by ceasing to make such trivializing, asinine comments.

And I'll write about Sarah Palin until she is no longer a threat to our nation.

K, I personally don't care what Palin does myself. But historically most persons who lose an election have the self-dignity to simply go off-stage and not try to get some more spotlight from the winner. The election's over for heaven sake. It's time for Palin to leave the stage and let the winner attempt to address the nation's problems now.

in the middle east:

Paul and Lee,
Are you really that threatened by Sarah Palin?
Your comments are laughable, and yes Paul you are correct "attempt" is the key word.

Allen:

Well, Bush insists that the Columbia free (not fair) trade act just has to be part of the bail out for the auto companies. I guess the GOP still don't care about America, just try to fill their pockets.

Does anyone realize how many mom & pop companies out there supply items to the auto companies? Not only are you talking about thousands of employees who assemble the autos, but probably millions who supply items to them. Bush and the GOP don't care about them.

And yes, attempt is the key word, but watch the GOP to try and insure he fails. I have a feeling that Obama is ready, not only for the problems facing our country, but to show the country how the GOP is obstructing any plan to get on the correct recovery plan.

And if that happens, the bath the puggies took at this election will be nothing compared to what will happen. The GOP trickle down BS is just that: BS.

And please keep bringing Palin out in public, just like promoting Newt for some position, because that really proves the point about the family values the GOP has.

I'm glad that the GOP isn't waking up to the fact that this country needs all of us to get us out of the hole Bush put us in.

TangoMan:

Minutes after Palin says something there is proof available that she lied -- or is just plain stupid -- or both.

Minutes after Gawker and Huffington post inane refutations, you lap them up without an ounce of skepticism.

A day later I have to come here and highlight your ignorant gullibility, closemindedness and partisanship.

In order to rehabilitate your reputation would it really have troubled you to have taken a moment and checked your facts? The book banning accusation was leveled at Governor Palin in her first days of office as Mayor. She was elected in 1996. The first Harry Potter book was published in 1997. You, Gawker and Huffington, can't ex post facto, now change the original accusation to encompass a timeline that extends through her entire term in office and if you want to do this then you need to link up to accusations that the story of the book banning inquiry was something that was repeated on multiple occasions during her time in office.

It's now time for you to man up and publicly apologize for being an unthinking rumor monger, change your personal behavior, and learn to keep your unthinking and blind partisanship in control, and that's on top of learning not to link to Gawker and Huffington as credible sources for stories.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

J the TangoMan is as IQ challenged as Sarah "I can see the Moon from My Front Porch" Palin.

Palin said the Potter Books hadn't even been written when she was mayor. Did she mean to say something else? ...because what she said is a lie.

Governor Palin said the charge was untrue because someone accused her of banning Harry Potter books and that would be impossible because Harry Potter "hadn't even been written when I was mayor." But Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002 and there were additions to the Harry Potter series in that period.

That's absolutely correct. Palin was mayor from 1996-2002 and there were many Potter books in release during those years.

Middle East, I certainly don't find political lightweight Sarah Palin threatening to any degree myself. I just simply find it embarrassing that she doesn't know when to leave the stage after her Andy Warhol 15 minutes of fame are over. Where's that guy with the crooked handle cane when you need him that ushers those awful acts off the stage when they refuse to leave.

Palin won't ever be a serious GOP contender for president either. There is simply too little substance there. Other than for comedy appeal, I can't imagine the press still telling her story. John McCain at least got it right by telling jokes on Jay Leno last night, unlike Palin who is the joke.

TangoMan:

There was only one instance of a book banning charge, which turned out to be baseless, being leveled at Governor Palin and that occurred right when she took office. If you have evidence that people were accusing then Mayor Palin of continual efforts at book banning, including Harry Potter books, over the course of her term as Mayor, then produce evidence to back up your claim, otherwise acknowledge the plain fact that the concocted charge of book banning took place a year before Harry Potter was published.

Really, would it have taxed you so severely to have investigated this issue before using Gawker and Huffington to support your bias? Further, digging your hole deeper by standing pat on a ridiculous point like this makes you look even more the idiot.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Someone as trollish as you, Tango, should be able to figure out that even if it Harry Potter couldn't have been on the book banning list Palin proposed that doesn't prove she didn't attempt to get books banned.

What this post documented was the lie told by Palin - the lie she stated that Harry Potter hadn't been published while she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and that she therefore couldn't have banned the book from local libraries.

Proving that Potter wasn't published when Palin took office does not prove that Palin didn't request other books be banned at that time,.

Potter wasn't the only book that Palin supposedly attempted to get banned, now was it? But you pretend it was - how very "Palin'esque" of you.

What about the other books on the Palin ban list, Tango? Why are you ignoring those?

"There was only one instance of a book banning charge,"

But there were many more books on the list. Proving Potter shouldn't be on the list (a) does not absolve Palin for the lie, and (b) does not prove Palin didn't attempt to get books banned, only that Potter could not have been one of them when she attempted the book banning in late 1996.

By the way, you are sure she never attempted to get books banned - but if she did it happened in December 1996 and therefore it wasn't Potter if it happened in December, 1996 - and Potter couldn't have been on the list -- you know, the list that never existed, or sumthin' lol

Oh what a tangled web she weaves...

TangoMan:

Someone as trollish as you, Tango, should be able to figure out that even if it Harry Potter couldn't have been on the book banning list Palin proposed that doesn't prove she didn't attempt to get books banned.

So now catching you in ignorant, and wholly avoidable, errors is considered trollish? If you want to exist in an echo chamber and renounce tactics like quickly confirming one's facts before publishing, then why not simply be a commenter at Huffington? If you're providing content for readers then shouldn't you exercise some rigor in what you write and take a moment to check timelines and research topics. Regurgitating unsubstantiated rumors only serves to run your own reputation into the gutter.

Proving that Potter wasn't published when Palin took office does not prove that Palin didn't request other books be banned at that time.

What kind of screwed up logic is this? Do you still beat your wife? Lot's of us think you do. Your denial this morning in no way proves that you don't beat her at lunch.

The point is that if you have evidence that then Mayor Palin requested that books be banned then provide that evidence. Here is a contemporaneous report on the incident back in 1996:

Palin used the library topic as an example of discussions with her department heads about understanding and following administration agendas. Palin said she asked Emmons how she would respond to censorship. . . . . . Emmons said Palin asked her on Oct. 28 if she would object to censorship, even if people were circling the library in protest about a book. "I told her it would definitely be a problem the ACLU would take on then," Emmons said. . . . .Asked who she thought might picket the library, Palin said Monday, "Had no one in mind ... again, the issue was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy. . . . . ."All questions posed to Wasilla's library director were asked in the context of professionalism regarding the library policy that is in place in our city. Obviously the issue of censorship is a library question... you ask a library director that type of question," Palin said.

(Above paragraphs strung together because blockquote won't allow spaces between paragraphs)

Potter wasn't the only book that Palin supposedly attempted to get banned, now was it?

Mayor Palin made no attempt to ban any book. If you contend otherwise, then provide evidence. Is this really so difficult for you to understand? Further, lacking evidence, what does your blogging on this topic say about you? How can you form an opinion on a topic, or in this case, a person, when that opinion is established without benefit of evidence?

But there were many more books on the list.

Provide the list then.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Provide a list of the books Sarah didn't attempt have banned?

You know, the list she would have attempted to have banned had she attempt to ban books, which you say she never did, but you maintain if she did attempt to ban books she only did it back in December, 1996 -- because you found a book that wasn't published in December, 1996 therefore she didn't attempt to have Harry Potter banned because when she attempted to ban books - which she never did - Harry Potter hadn't been published yet.

Do I understand you correctly?

Let me state the obvious again, for the thinking impaired...

Proving that Potter wasn't published when Palin took office does not prove that Palin didn't request other books be banned at that time. It also doesn't speak to any later attempts which may have occurred after Potter was published and released.

Palin was addressing alleged book bannings that took place during her term as Mayor. She didn't limit it to 1996.

There's a list somehere I"m sure - go look it up. Report back on your findings. Note that the list contains many books that were already in print, and the tell us what proof you have that it didn't happen, that Palin never attempted to have those books banned.

Proving Potter hadn't been published in December, 1996 does not prove that Sarah Palin didn't attempt to have books banned while serving as Mayor of Wasilla, now does it...?

Just as proving that Potter wasn't published in 1996 doesn't prove that Palin didn't attempt to have Potter banned at some later point in time.

The lie that Sarah Palin told that was documented above was that Harry Potter had not been published during her term as Mayor of Wasilla.

It's a lie.

Several of the Potter books were out there in print during the time Palin served as Mayor of Wasilla.

Quoting from the post above:

It doesn't help her credibility that Palin claims no Democratic nominees were slammed over who did their "hair and makeup," or that she also falsely claimed to Van Susteren that Harry Potter hadn't been published while she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and that she therefore couldn't have banned the book from local libraries. This was exposed (at Huffington Post) as an awful lie just minutes after Palin said it.

trolls notwithstanding...

There's a list - go look it up. Report back on your findings, troll.

You mean you can't even be bothered to back up your claims?

Lee Ward: But there were many more books on the list.

TangoMan: Provide the list then.

Surely you're not referring to this list?

Look, you're telling me that she had a list. OK, fine. If you know this, and I clearly don't, then it's incumbent on you to provide for your readers the list that you know Palin created and the list which you build your argument on. So, provide the list.

Being new to this site I'm starting to suspect that Wizbang Blue exists for a very good reason - keeping the nutbar posts isolated from the main site seems to be the the leading hypothesis.

Why exactly do you feel the need to dig deeper the hole you've dug for yourself? Why can't you apologize to your readers and to Governor Palin for being wrong on this issue, propagating unfounded rumors, and using a gossip site and a fevered swamp as the source material for your allegations?

TangoMan:

Palin was addressing alleged book bannings that took place during her term as Mayor. She didn't limit it to 1996.

There was only the one reported incident, which occurred when she took office and the hypothetical was misunderstood. The librarians, past and present, have confirmed that there were no attempts to censor. That being the case Governor Palin doesn't have to answer to events that never occurred, thus the key event, and in fact the only event, is the hypothetical she asked the librarian upon taking office.

In short, there were no alleged book bannings during her term as Mayor.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

"Look, you're telling me that she had a list. OK, fine. If you know this, and I clearly don't, then it's incumbent on you to provide for your readers the list that you know Palin created and the list which you build your argument on."

What argument? I stated that Palin lied about Potter not being published during her term as Mayor of Wasilla.

That's a lie. The rest of the argument was your making, Tango. You and Palin.

Palin maintains that she couldn't have attempted to ban books while Mayor because Potter wasn't even published during the time she served as Mayor.

That's a lie. Several of the Potter books were in print during the time she was Mayor.

Having shown that she lied about her evidence that supposedly exonerated her I have no interest in proving that she or did not attempt to ban books beyond that.

The point I've made repeatedly is that she lied. No amount of dust kicked up over bannings that were attempted or not attempted will change the lie she told.


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.