Palin APPROACHED the librarian about banning certain books and the librarian objected. It's just that no ACTUAL LIST was ever discussed. Palin later fired the librarian although this was not given as the reason. Is this correct? It is factual to say Palin EXPRESSED SUPPORT for banning certain books, only the book list released on the internet is urban legend?

by Greg Purcell (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 47 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:58:54 AM

  (0+)

Palin asked about banning books. No list, as far as is known, was submitted. The librarian refused to cooperate. Palin tried to fire her but was unsuccessful.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:17:26 AM

  (0+)

Yesterday. FactCheck is pretty reliable. Anyone got a thought or two about this debunking of the Kilkenny email? Could it be completely false? Or have people in Alaska been pressured or intimidated to retract true statements?

Sliming Palin

by Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:23:25 PM

  (0+)

Does her husband belong or did belong to the succession party mentioned above? Did she support any candidates of that party?

How many times did she inquire about banning books?

Did she try to fire the librarian? What was her intention?

You are not being completely honest. Sorry, no cigar or golden ring.

Why did she even mention a ban list of books? Sounds like a very revengful hot tempered woman who would lose control if push comes to shove.  We have had enough of that with Bush and Cheney company, don't you agree?

Phil.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:38:14 PM

  (0+)

According to the Annenberg foundation's FACT CHECK.ORG Mary Ellen Emmons WAS fired...  Palin rehired her...

  In fact, there are quite a few bogus stories that have been circulated about Palin...  Here is FACT Check's response to some of those stories..

• Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.

• She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.
  

• She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.
  
  
• Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesy" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.
  
  
• Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

 I never imagined that so many people would believe the crap being spewed, even after it was proven to be false.

Ciao, CZ

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:31:58 PM

  (0+)

Comment from Ratings:   I should have been more careful with my previous response. In my previous response I wrote: "The title was very misleading and the article was disjointed." Rob's title was: "Books Banned by Sarah Palin" Email Is Urban Legend. I saw the title as being: "Books Banned by Sarah Palin" Is Urban Legend. My negative response to the title was based on my impression that it was an exonoration of Palin. Based on Rob's sources, Palin did not ban any books, but it's hard not to think that she wanted to and most probably was on a track to do so. The Christian right, of which Palin - I think it safe to say - is a part, has tried, and probably succeeded in some cases, to ban books they disagree with. That knowledge led me to misread the title. With respect to the rest of Rob's article, my evaluation that it was disjointed was a first impression. I should have held my fire and studied it more carefully.

by William Stevens (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:34:57 PM

  (0+)

Looks like another one of those "fake but accurate" claims. Dan Rather, call your office. I do seem to remember something about Bill Clinton firing all U.S. attorneys when he took office. Along with no doubt brooming numerous federal agencies of Republican-leaning career bureaucrats and replacing them with people "more aligned with his agenda". Suddenly it's a crime against humanity. Whereas Bush stupidly and naively didn't follow Clinton's power-grabbing but politically astute example. Could it be that Rob is realizing that rumor-mongering is actually helping Palin among independents, and maybe even some Democrats? I know for a fact that it's motivating me to go down and vote, even though I live in a pretty safe Democrat state.

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:05:54 PM

  (0+)

The attorneys Bush fired were let go during the term, not at the beginning. Nice try though.

by Intelitary Milligence (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:03:52 PM

  (0+)

Later verified?  That would have been big news.  Must have missed that bombshell.  Does CBS know about it?

The point is this:  Clinton was far more aggressive in putting his own type of people in government positions than was Bush.  I actually admire him for that, and I wish Bush had been more like him in this regard. 

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:36:52 PM

  (0+)

Not only did Bill Clinton, but so did George W. Bush when he took office as did his Daddy, George H. Bush when he took office and so did Ronald Reagan. Lets be a little more honest.

It is the common practice of most presidents. It is when they fire the ones they appoint when something they do not like is being investigated as in the case of George W. Bush and Richard Nixon of Watergate fame before him.

Phil

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:03:45 PM

  (0+)

Did you, folks make up your mind on what Palin represents for you? If yes,  and  if you share the brilliant statement about Trojan Moose by Huffington you better stop being foolish  and  even consider her as something  different than  a patso used by McCain to steal the celebrity glitz from Obama. Now, if you love her like Mr. Williams here ( who  even  uses Bill Clinton for comparison; just eat your Bill with the sour sauce), then by all means enjoy wasting the pixels.  When this dame makes  souvenirs out of your bones  there will be too late to argue for her unfortunate reputation.

Really, people, you better  be afraid and very afraid. This dame is there for a reason. And a very bad one.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4102 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:38:06 PM

  (0+)

And we were always told that Republicans were the scare-mongers.

Time to revise our notebooks.

Frankly, I'm far more scared of Obama's apparent agenda than I am about a mom who was probably simply concerned about the kids in her community being exposed to trash and filth.  

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:17:38 PM

  (0+)

about how racists and redneck morons are going to vote for McCain and ms. proud to be a redneck. But I forgot to mention the people Michael Moore described in his brilliant book.

It's amazing how some people will piss this country down the toilet, supporting more Bush, more right wing pure garbage policy. I attribute it to the fact that a third of the population has been sexually or otherwise abused, often by drunk parents. One third. That's about one third more than the 25% of the population who continue to blindly and stupidly support the right wing criminals who have trashed most of America's assets-- our environment, our military readiness, our internationl relatoins, our industries. Talk about a choice. They are either idiots or traitors... or both.

My friend and I concluded that we hope there are enough women and minorities to save the US from the others.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:27:02 PM

  (0+)

Hmmm..... that's really offensive, on so many levels.  I guess I can't flag the boss.

Actually, I think you better revise that to read "enough black women". 

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:43:03 PM

  (0+)

We as Americans (as well as the rest of the world who looks on in dismay) have been subjected to a woman, Sarah Palin, being thrust upon us out of nowhere who remember folks, could very very possibly become the president of the United States should McCain win and then die or resign while in office.

If we are not allowed to look into his woman in ALL ways and question not only her qualifications but her TEMPERAMENT and those things in her life which mold her motivational attitude in all matters, then there is SOMETHING WRONG. 

One mark of any good news blogger is their willingness to admit when they could have been wrong.

Rob, the jury is still out on this one.  A list is not necessary to produce, it was Palin's more than once bringing this subject up, and then trying to fire the librarian, her intimidation of the librarian.  Sarah Palin seems to fancy herself a big fish in a little pond. 

I suggest keeping up with this blog

http://librariansagainstpalin.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/mat-su-valley-frontiersman-121896/#comments

Read the comments there, particularly #9 because it goes to what was going on in this small town while  Sarah baracuda, a "pitbull in lipstick" reigned supreme

Lucy Says:
September 7, 2008 at 9:01 pm

None of you have ever lived in small town Alaska. If you are a professional librarian, you have one, maybe two jobs available to you in school or public libraries…if there are even openings. If you quit your job or are fired, you have to MOVE. Mary Ellen had a home, a life, friends, and a career in Wasilla. She did not want to give them up without a fight. When the time came to go, she had to move hundreds of miles away to find a job. If you have a bad boss, you keep trying to find a way to work together and sometimes it just gets to be too hard. If I were to quit my job in my small town, it might be YEARS before another job in my field would be open in the same community. Again, many Alaskan librarians stay in the same town for DECADES. On my staff the three MLS librarians have almost sixty five years of experience working in our library when added together! Many of our library subs even wait YEARS to get on our library staff at any level. If you want to stay in Alaska, you would likely have to have to wait months or years for a position to open up the matches your qualifications. Who’s to say that Mary Ellen wasn’t looking for a way out of a bad situation and waiting for a job to open?

by Robin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:05:23 PM

  (0+)

Though I don't subscribe to the right wing morality of "the ends justify the means", I just have to ask: How many right wing sites are wringing their hands in dismay over inaccurate opinions, blogs, articles, rumors, and opinion pieces about Obama?  Just sayin'.

by Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:15:20 PM

  (0+)

Quite a few actually.  And those who continue to cling to unfounded claims are losing or have already lost their credibility. 

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:31:08 PM

  (0+)

I really hope so.

by Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:36:14 PM

  (0+)

Correction: In our original story, we incorrectly said that a few of the claims we examine here were included in the e-mail by Anne Kilkenny. Only one of the claims – about the librarian's firing – was similar to an item in that e-mail. We regret the error. We are sending this corrected summary and links to the story to all readers on our e-mail list. We also have revised the story's section dealing with accusations that Palin wanted to ban books from Wasilla's library to include more detail about what transpired at the time.

by Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 5:14:11 PM

  (0+)

They did say that they were writing an article based on the e-mail, but they had not actually read it at the time of THIS article...  Naturally there would be some corrections, and in this case, the fact that only one of the bogus stories was written about in the e-mail in question.. 

My question, to you:   SO WHAT?

 Ciao, CZ

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:04:47 AM

  (0+)

Anyone taking over as head of a city, town, state, country, company, etc. has the perfect right to determine which key people they have inherited that they keep.  There is no such thing as permanent employment.  One can be terminated for any and all reasons, or for no reason at all, so long as one follows the law and/or contractual obligations with respect to the termination.   Lying about why someone was terminated is another issue.

  There is no evidence that the termination was related to the librarians reluctance to censor books.  Thats speculation.  The question Palin posed may simply have been a loyalty test, and not an intent to censor.  In fact, perhaps if the librarian answered she would be willing to censor, that would have got her terminated permanently for integrity issues.

The fact that this Palin bashing continues despite it being obvious that it is hurting Obama in the polls is curious.  I was never an Obama supporter so it bothers me not.  Perhaps the Democrats are too scared to take over from Bush and the neocons.  Maybe thats because they know who attacked us on 9/11. 

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 5:17:55 PM

  (0+)

Thank you, Rob, for the objective reporting in the article! Given the polarities and levels of frustration that exist today, it's understandable that biases and subjectivity can creep into one's writings. But frustration doesn't make a falsehood true, and adding confusion to frustration is a sure recipe for bitterness. Again, thank you!

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:43:18 PM

  (0+)

"There is no evidence that the termination was related to the librarians reluctance to censor books. Thats speculation. The question Palin posed may simply have been a loyalty test, and not an intent to censor. In fact, perhaps if the librarian answered she would be willing to censor, that would have got her terminated permanently for integrity issues." -- pft

That's actually some really good out of the box thinking. Kudos. Seriously. I somehow doubt it's true, but wouldn't it be just funny if it was?

All this hysteria from the left about some inquiries about banning, while they themselves have no qualms about relegating conservative books to the back shelves in bookstores, or ginning up calls to sponsors to try to get conservative radio shut down, or calling for the "fairness" doctine to do the same, or refusing to even review a conservative book even though it may have been #1 on the NYT best seller list for weeks.

When it comes to censorship, or experience, or even strange churches, opponents of Palin really should know better than to even go there. 

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:35:11 PM

  (0+)

I heard a commentator today say that every negative, untrue article on Palin generates another 1000 votes for McCain-Palin.

If that is the case this book banning lie has generated 10,000,000 votes for McCain.  And there is no indication that Democrats are ready to back off.  My Democratic neighbor said she has been sicken by the untrue attacks on Palin and is ready to either vote for McCain or not vote at all.

Palin asked the librarian rhetorically about censorship.  There is no evidence whatsoever that it was more than a rhetorical question.  The librarian responded that she was against it as she should have.   The librarian, however, was fired at the same time as 3 other department heads and there is no indication other than timing that her answer to rhetorical question had anything to do with her firing.  She was, in fact, rehired.  It seems to me if Palin told her to ban books that any self respecting librarian would have walked out the door immediately.  Either the librarian had no self respect or Palin did not tell her to ban books because the librarian continued to work for Palin another 2 years after she was rehired.   Palin has been unfairly crucified by the left for this in my opinion. 

Also by saying that it was Palin's intention to ban books is just as bad as banning them is just about cheap and underhanded as saying she banned them when she didn't.  How does anyone here know what Palin's intentions were unless it was testified to by someone close to Palin or Palin herself.   Again no evidence.

By the way, that list of books turned up in a comment on this website.  I flagged it as being a fraud and as being slanderous two or three days ago.   I never heard back from the editor so I guess the editor felt it was okay.  The comment occured in one of about 4 poorly written articles on this website about Palin banning books.

by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:24:32 PM

  (0+)

Comment from Ratings:   Finally we have an article on this website about Palin and book banning that is factual. Thanks. Now maybe the Palin haters and sexists will move on to something else they can nit-pick to death and or find 'offensive' to them to pass on lies and half-truths about.

by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:30:25 PM

  (0+)

I certainly wanted to save people the embarassment of forwarding incorrect info-- the list of books. But the fact is, Palin tried to fire people who were not political appointees. She tried to dump the librarian and DID fire the police chief because of strictly political reasons.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:08:47 AM

  (0+)

is paved with good intentions, Rob. I guess when you are thanked   by Tom Murphy and Mr. Williams feels Ok with your message you  understand that your goody intentional article has unfortunate consequences.  Not all  your fault,  also our problem. See,  in  the US perception is everything. So if you are in the perception business you  can even take a weather report and turn it into the God's wrath if you wish. And on the contrary, you can have the whole country collapsing and see only the ' country of whiners'. In both cases the reaction  is pure nonsense.  Here it is the same thing.

To convey what you really meant properly, Rob ( and I hope  you meant to show the true face of Palin)  you should have started with  the right thing-  tell what mean things she really did and especially why. Then you should show that  those exact qualities of hers  were the ones who brought her to the GOP nomination and also explain why.  Connect the dots, so to speak. After that, in the end you surely should have said that urban legends were wrong but  she did not need those to show her true face. And that would be the truth   said about the  Trojan Moose and I assure you- the abovementioned gentlemen would  not praise you then.

Rob, the unfortunate comment thread above is the symptom of the very old   ' syndrom' of the opednews if I may. A person can be bipolar but  the site cannot, sorry.   The site has to have a face  and never hide its preferences. Progressive site must not loose the focus of its business, it must not be a sanctuary for everyone.  It is becoming bigger and bigger and  without a face it is like a Rodos Collossus who had a great head but  a weak foundation.  This is not to be nasty, just a friendly observation.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4102 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:24:11 AM

  (0+)

"I guess when you are thanked by Tom Murphy and Mr. Williams feels Ok with your message you understand that your goody intentional article has unfortunate consequences."

Mr. Sashine, surely you grant me too much meaning and worth! I don't see how Rob's article compromised the progressive nature of OpEdNews.com. Rob recommended that the silliness about the book banning listing be stopped but focused on the issue of Governor Palin dismissing town employees over nothing more than political pettiness; that's a real issue.

And I recommend to you Mr. Sashine that you read my comment above. "...[F]rustration doesn't make a falsehood true, and adding confusion to frustration is a sure recipe for bitterness." You seem a little bitter at Rob's having supposedly compromised the web site's tough, progressive edge. Are you confused over what is the right thing to report?  Perhaps I could help you... =)

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:54:54 PM

  (0+)

You can't help me with anything. You need help yourself. Now, as an old author of the site I used an opportunity to address the issues which reflected themselves in this article. It was a recommendation of a veteran, so to speak, that's all.  From my point of view the actual fact that you are satisfied with the article on this site  is the sign of trouble.  It is my criteria. As soon as you already know that from our previous encounters you should not be surprised and should not consider me bitter. I am as much bitter as a cucumber.  I  have a goal to achieve and  that goal is very clear. As such   I do  what is necessary.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4102 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:35:02 PM

  (0+)

The individual fired sued the city.  The court ruled that the Mayor had the right to fire him.  Civil servant or political appointee, city employees can be fired.  Plain was within her rights to fire him and the others.   The librarian firing was very unpopular and Palin was forced to rehire her.  Small town politics at its best.  Unless you live in or have lived in a small town you can't appreciate some of the political things that go on.  

The Mayor in a small town is the one with their rearend on the line and it takes guts to step into that job, especially someone as young as Palin was when she was elected.  There is a tremendous amount of responsibility involved even in a relatively small town. 

I imagine (I have no proof) that Palin wanted to show the 'good old boys' in the city hierarchy who was in charge.  A lot of city employees in small towns sometimes act like they own the town and do what they want to irregardless what the mayor and the council want.  It is better when the mayor, council, and the city's employees all work together but it doesn't always happen.  Palin could have gotten elected into a really bad situation and that could explain the firings.  I don't know what the situation was in the town when Palin took office.  Evidently she did a good job because she was reelected.  The librarian must not have had many problems with her either because she didn't resign for 2 years after being rehired.

by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:38:34 PM

  (0+)

Too late.  All you have to do is read the articles and comments on your webpage to see that people have already embarrassed themselves on this 'issue'.   It was obvious that Palin did not give the librarian a list of books to banish and was only asking a rhetorical question as she had said.  People were basing a lot of their slanderous comments on the ridiculous email of Palin hater - Kilkenny. 

Fact checking is apparently not one of strongest qualities of a lot of the  commenters here.  All the lie in an article has to do is agree with their warped perception of the truth and it is worth a ill-informed snide remark in the comment section of an article.  They are the easily led ones amongst us.  When the Messiah shows up, they willingly follow him without questioning, repeating the hollow mantras of CHANGE! and HOPE! over and over and over.  This has happened before in history.

by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 11, 2008 at 6:29:29 PM

  (0+)

By keeping it nebulous it makes it more difficult to make the idea of her wanting to ban books more difficult to prove. Also by sending a false list about a real story tends to sabotage it rather neatly. An excellent disinformation and psy-warfare tactic. See Dan Rather for a well known example of that technique and how it was instrumental in removing him and negating the real data on Bush's AWOL charges. However it is a small thing in a larger scheme to be found in her resume and point of view. It is expected of her to want a sever limit on books to be read. Also the tactic to fire people for stated reasons other than the real partisan ones is well known and also difficult to prove. I have experienced that myself.

by nightgaunt (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 449 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:26:22 PM

  (0+)