McCain-Palin Distorts Our Finding
September 10, 2008
Those attacks on Palin that we debunked didn't come from Obama.
Summary
A McCain-Palin ad has FactCheck.org calling Obama's attacks on Palin "absolutely false" and "misleading." That's what we said, but it wasn't about Obama.
Our article criticized anonymous e-mail falsehoods and bogus claims about Palin posted around the Internet. We have no evidence that any of the claims we found to be false came from the Obama campaign.
The McCain-Palin ad also twists a quote from a Wall Street Journal columnist. He said the Obama camp had sent a team to Alaska to "dig into her record and background." The ad quotes the WSJ as saying the team was sent to "dig dirt."
Update, Sept. 10: Furthermore, the Obama campaign insists that no researchers have been sent to Alaska and that the Journal owes them a correction.
Analysis
We don't object to people reprinting our articles. In fact, our copyright policy encourages it. But we've also asked that "the editorial integrity of the article be preserved" and told those who use our items that "you should not edit the original in such a way as to alter the message."
McCain-Palin 2008 Ad:
"Fact Check"
Announcer: The attacks on Governor Palin have been called "completely false"..."misleading."
On screen: Photo of Obama, FactCheck.org banner, "'completely false' . . . 'misleading' 9/0/08"
And, they've just begun.
The [Wall Street] Journal reports Obama "air-dropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers" into Alaska to dig dirt on Governor Palin.
As Obama drops in the polls, he'll try to destroy her.
Obama's "politics of hope"? Empty words.
McCain: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.Less Than Honest
With its latest ad, released Sept. 10, the McCain-Palin campaign has altered our message in a fashion we consider less than honest. The ad strives to convey the message that FactCheck.org said "completely false" attacks on Gov. Sarah Palin had come from Sen. Barack Obama. We said no such thing. We have yet to dispute any claim from the Obama campaign about Palin.
They call the ad "Fact Check." It says "the attacks on Gov. Palin have been called 'completely false' ... 'misleading.' " On screen is a still photo of a grim-faced Obama. Our words are accurately quoted, but they had nothing to do with Obama.
Our article, posted two days earlier, debunked a number of false or misleading claims that have circulated in chain e-mails and Internet postings regarding Palin. There is no evidence that the Obama campaign is behind any of the wild accusations that we critiqued. There is no more basis for attributing these viral attacks to the Obama campaign than there is for blaming the McCain campaign for chain e-mail attacks falsely claiming that Obama is a Muslim, or a "racist," or that he is proposing to tax water. The anti-Palin messages, like the anti-Obama messages, have every appearance of being home-grown.
Digging for "Dirt"
The ad also quotes the Wall Street Journal as saying that the Obama campaign "air-dropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers to dig dirt on Governor Palin." That's also a distortion. The Wall Street Journal opinion article did not say that the Obama team was there to "dig dirt." It said they were there do "dig into her record and background." Maybe the McCain-Palin campaign knows something we don't about what's in Palin's record and background.
The full quote, from an item by conservative columnist John Fund, dated Sept. 9:
WSJ's John Fund, Sept. 9: Democrats have airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers into Anchorage, the state capital Juneau and Mrs. Palin's hometown of Wasilla to dig into her record and background. My sources report the first wave arrived in Anchorage less than 24 hours after John McCain selected her on August 29.
Fund said the opposition researchers were mainly interested in a controversy surrounding Palin's firing of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan. Monegan has claimed he was dismissed because he wouldn't fire a state trooper who was in a divorce battle with Palin's sister; the Alaska Legislature is investigating whether Palin acted properly. Fund also stated that the Palin family has accused the trooper of "using a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson, drinking in his patrol car and illegally shooting a moose."
Now, that's "dirt."
Update, Sept. 10: After this article was posted, the Obama campaign contacted us to say that John Fund's article is wrong.
Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor, Sept. 10: John Fund's claim that we "air-dropped" 30 lawyers into Alaska is false. No one from the Obama campaign or the DNC has been sent to Alaska. We've asked Mr. Fund for a correction.
Footnote: At least one Obama spokesman has repeated an allegation that we debunked in our story, that Palin was a supporter of Pat Buchanan. However, the Obama campaign was not the originator of the claim.
–by Brooks Jackson
Sources
Fund, John. “The Hunt for Sarah October.” Wall Street Journal, 9 Sept. 2008.
Loy, Wesley. “Hired help will probe Monegan dismissal.” Anchorage Daily News, 29 July 2008.
Related Articles
Sliming Palin
False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate.
Sliming Obama
Dueling chain e-mails claim he's a radical Muslim or a 'racist' Christian. Both can't be right. We find both are false.
Copyright © 2003 - 2008, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
FactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.
Home | About Us | Privacy | Copyright | Contact Us
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Here's an Organization That I Like: FactCheck.org
Sliming Palin
September 8, 2008
False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate.
Summary
We’ve been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.
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."
We'll be looking into other charges in an e-mail by a woman named Anne Kilkenny for a future story. For more explanation of the bullet points above, please read the Analysis.
Correction: In our original story, we incorrectly said that a few of the claims we examine here were included in the e-mail by Kilkenny. Only one of the claims – about the librarian's firing – was similar to an item in that e-mail. We regret the error.
Analysis
Since Republican presidential nominee John McCain tapped Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, information about Palin's past has been zipping around the Internet. Several claims are not true, and other rumors are misleading.
No Cut for "Special Needs" Kids
It's not true, as widely reported in mass e-mails, Web postings and at least one mainstream news source, that Palin slashed the special education budget in Alaska by 62 percent. CNN's Soledad O'Brien made the claim on Sept. 4 in an interview with Nicolle Wallace, a senior adviser to the McCain campaign:
O'Brien, Sept. 4: One are that has gotten certainly people sending to me a lot of e-mails is the question about as governor what she did with the special needs budget, which I'm sure you're aware, she cut significantly, 62 percent I think is the number from when she came into office. As a woman who is now a mother to a special needs child, and I think she actually has a nephew which is autistic as well. How much of a problem is this going to be as she tries to navigate both sides of that issue?
Such a move might have made Palin look heartless or hypocritical in view of her convention-speech pledge to be an advocate for special needs children and their families. But in fact, she increased special needs funding so dramatically that a representative of local school boards described the jump as "historic."
According to an April 2008 article in Education Week, Palin signed legislation in March 2008 that would increase public school funding considerably, including special needs funding. It would increase spending on what Alaska calls "intensive needs" students (students with high-cost special requirements) from $26,900 per student in 2008 to $73,840 per student in 2011. That almost triples the per-student spending in three fiscal years. Palin's original proposal, according to the Anchorage Daily News, would have increased funds slightly more, giving intensive needs students a $77,740 allotment by 2011.
Education Week: A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special needs to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.
Unlike many other states, Alaska has relatively flush budget coffers, thanks to a rise in oil and gas revenues. Funding for schools will remain fairly level next year, however. Overall per-pupil funding across the state will rise by $100, to $5,480, in fiscal 2009. ...
Carl Rose, the executive director of the Association of Alaska School Boards, praised the changes in funding for rural schools and students with special needs as a "historic event," and said the finance overhaul would bring more stability to district budgets.
According to Eddy Jeans at the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, funding for special needs and intensive needs students has increased every year since Palin entered office, from a total of $203 million in 2006 to a projected $276 million in 2009.
Those who claim that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent are looking in the wrong place and misinterpreting what they find there. They point to an apparent drop in the Department of Education and Early Development budget for special schools. But the special schools budget, despite the similar name, isn't the special needs budget. "I don’t even consider the special schools component [part of] our special needs funding," Jeans told FactCheck.org. "The special needs funding is provided through our public school funding formula. The special schools is simply a budget component where we have funding set aside for special projects," such as the Alaska School for the Deaf and the Alaska Military Youth Academy. A different budget component, the Foundation Program, governs special needs programs in the public school system.
And in any case, the decrease in funding for special schools is illusory. Palin moved the Alaska Military Youth Academy's ChalleNGe program, a residential military school program that teaches job and life skills to students under 20, out of the budget line for "special schools" and into its own line. This resulted in an apparent drop of more than $5 million in the special schools budget with no actual decrease in funding for the programs.
Not a Book Burner
One accusation claims then-Mayor Palin threatened to fire Wasilla’s librarian for refusing to ban books from the town library. Some versions of the rumor come complete with a list of the books that Palin allegedly attempted to ban. Actually, Palin never asked that books be banned; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication. The librarian was fired, but was told only that Palin felt she didn’t support her. She was re-hired the next day. The librarian never claimed that Palin threatened outright to fire her for refusing to ban books.
It’s true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla’s librarian, on at least two occasions, three in some versions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition each time. But, as the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman (Wasilla’s local paper) reported at the time, Palin asked general questions about what Emmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned. According to Emmons, Palin "was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons' position would change if residents were picketing the library. Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny, who was at the meeting, corroborates Emmons' story, telling the Chicago Tribune that "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' "
Palin characterized the exchange differently, initially volunteering the episode as an example of discussions with city employees about following her administration's agenda. Palin described her questions to Emmons as “rhetorical,” noting that her questions "were asked in the context of professionalism regarding the library policy that is in place in our city." Actually, true rhetorical questions have implied answers (e.g., “Who do you think you are?”), so Palin probably meant to describe her questions as hypothetical or theoretical. We can't read minds, so it is impossible for us to know whether or not Palin may actually have wanted to ban books from the library or whether she simply wanted to know how her new employees would respond to an instruction from their boss. It is worth noting that, in an update, the Frontiersman points out that no book was ever banned from the library’s shelves.
Palin initially requested Emmons’ resignation, along with those of Wasilla’s other department heads, in October 1996. Palin described the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all of them (except one, whose department she was eliminating) to retain their positions. But in January 1997, Palin fired Emmons, along with the police chief. According to the Chicago Tribune, Palin did not list censorship as a reason for Emmons’ firing, but said she didn’t feel she had Emmons’ support. The decision caused “a stir” in the small town, according to a newspaper account at the time. According to a widely circulated e-mail from Kilkenny, “city residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin’s attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter.”
As we’ve noted, Palin did not attempt to ban any library books. We don’t know if Emmons’ resistance to Palin’s questions about possible censorship had anything to do with Emmons’ firing. And we have no idea if the protests had any impact on Palin at all. There simply isn’t any evidence that we can find either way. Palin did re-hire Emmons the following day, saying that she now felt she had the librarian’s backing. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned.
So what about that list of books targeted for banning, which according to one widely e-mailed version was taken “from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board”? If it was, the library board should take up fortune telling. The list includes the first four Harry Potter books, none of which had been published at the time of the Palin-Emmons conversations. The first wasn't published until 1998. In fact, the list is a simple cut-and-paste job, snatched (complete with typos and the occasional incorrect title) from the Florida Institute of Technology library Web page, which presents the list as “Books banned at one time or another in the United States.”
Update, Sept. 9: We have revised this section dealing with accusations that Palin wanted to ban books from Wasilla's library to include more detail about what transpired at the time.
Closet Secessionist?
Palin was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party – which calls for a vote on whether Alaska should secede from the union or remain a state – despite mistaken reports to the contrary. But her husband was a member for years, and she attended at least one party convention, as mayor of the town in which it was held.
The party's chair originally told reporters that Palin had been a member, but the official later retracted that statement. Chairwoman Lynette Clark told the New York Times that false information had been given to her by another member of the party after she first told the Times and others that Palin joined the AIP in 1994. Clark issued an apology on the AIP Web site.
The director of Alaska’s Division of Elections, Gail Fenumiai, confirms that Palin registered to vote in the state for the first time in May 1982 as a Republican and hasn’t changed her party affiliation since. She also told FactCheck.org that Palin’s husband, Todd, was registered with AIP from October 1995 to July 2000, and again from September 2000 until July 2002. (He has since been registered as undeclared.) However, the AIP says Todd Palin "never participated in any party activities aside from attending a convention in Wasilla at one time."
There is still some dispute as to whether Sarah Palin also attended the AIP’s 1994 convention, held in Wasilla. Clark and another AIP official told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that both Palins were there. Palin was elected mayor of Wasilla two years later. The McCain campaign says Sarah Palin went to the 2000 AIP convention, also held in Wasilla, “as a courtesy since she was mayor.” As governor, Palin sent a video message to the 2008 convention, which is available on YouTube, and the AIP says she attended in 2006 when she was campaigning.
Didn't Endorse Pat Buchanan
Claims that Palin endorsed conservative Republican Pat Buchanan for president in the 2000 campaign are false. She worked for conservative Republican Steve Forbes.
The incorrect reports stem from an Associated Press story on July 17, 1999, that said Palin was "among those sporting Buchanan buttons" at a lunch for Buchanan attended by about 85 people, during a swing he took through Fairbanks and Wasilla. Buchanan didn't help matters when he told a reporter for the liberal publication The Nation on Aug. 29: "I'm pretty sure she's a Buchananite." But in fact, she wasn't.
Soon after The AP story appeared, Palin wrote in a letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News that she had merely worn a Buchanan button as a courtesy to her visitor and was not endorsing him. The letter, published July 26, 1999, said:
Palin, July 26, 1999: As mayor of Wasilla, I am proud to welcome all presidential candidates to our city. This is true regardless of their party, or the latest odds of their winning. When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I'll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect.
Though no reporter interviewed me for the Associated Press article on the recent visit by a presidential candidate (Metro, July 17), the article may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla. As mayor, I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla.
Palin actually worked for Forbes. Less than a month after being spotted wearing the "courtesy" button for Buchanan, she was named to the state leadership committee of the Forbes effort. The Associated Press reported on Aug. 7, 1999:
The Associated Press, Aug. 7 1999: State Sen. Mike Miller of Fairbanks will head the Alaska campaign chairman for Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes, campaign officials said. Joining the Fairbanks Republican on the leadership committee will be Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin, and former state GOP chairman Pete Hallgren, who will serve as co-chairs.
Still, after nine years, the truth has yet to catch up completely.
No Creationism in Schools
On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That's true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.
In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied:
Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.
A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying:
Palin, Oct. 2006: 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.
After her election, Palin let the matter drop. The Associated Press reported Sept 3: "Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them. ... It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans." The article was headlined, "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." It was written by Dan Joling, who reports from Anchorage and has covered Alaska for 30 years.
That E-mail Author
Switching gears: Almost 100 readers have written to ask us if the many claims made about Palin in an e-mail written by someone named Anne Kilkenny are true. We can tell you that Kilkenny is a real person. (She was quoted by the Chicago Tribune, as we said above.) According to the New York Times, she’s a Democrat. According to Kilkenny herself, Palin “has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah’s attempt at censorship."
We’re still analyzing Kilkenny’s claims, and we will be posting something on this soon.
—by Brooks Jackson, Jessica Henig, Emi Kolawole, Joe Miller and Lori Robertson
Sources
Sutton, Anne. "Governor signs revamped education package into law." Anchorage Daily News, 28 Mar. 2008.
Holland, Megan. "Intensive needs funding examined." Anchorage Daily News, 12 Jan. 2008.
Cavanagh, Sean. "Alaska Legislators Overhaul Funding." Education Week, 29 Apr. 2008.
Joling, Dan. "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." The Associated Press, 3 Sept. 2008.
Hayes, Christopher. "Sarah Palin, Buchananite." The Nation "Capitolism" Web site, 29 Aug. 2008.
Palin, Sarah. "Letters from the People." Anchorage Daily News. 26 July 1999; 5B.
The Associated Press: "Forbes sets Alaska leadership team," 7 Aug 1999.
Kizzia, Tom. "'Creation science' enters the race." Anchorage Daily News, 27 Oct. 2006.
Paulson, Michael. "Sarah Palin on faith, life and creation." The Boston Globe, 29 Aug. 2008.
Tapper, Jake. “Another AIP Official Says Palin Was at 1994 Convention.” ABCNews.com, 2 Sept. 2008.
Tapper, Jake. “Members of ‘Fringe’ Alaskan Independence Party Incorrectly Say Palin Was a Member in 90s.” ABCNews.Com, 1Sept. 2008.
Komarnitsky, S.J. "Wasilla Keeps Librarian, But Police Chief Is Out." 1 February 1997. The Anchorage Daily News, 8 Sept. 2008.
Stuart, Paul. "FROM THE ARCHIVE: Palin: Library Censorship Inquiries 'Rhetorical'." 18 December 1996. Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, 8 Sept. 2008.
White, Rindi. "Palin Asked City Librarian Whether She'd Ban Books." 7 September 2008. The Chicago Tribune, 8 Sept. 2008.
Related Articles
FactChecking McCain
He made some flubs in accepting the nomination.
GOP Convention Spin, Part II
Palin trips up on her facts, and Giuliani and Huckabee have their own stumbles on Night 3 of the Republican confab.
Hit the Brakes
An Obama ad running in Michigan claims McCain didn't support loan guarantees for the auto industry. In fact, he does support them.
FactChecking Obama
He stuck to the facts, except when he stretched them.
Sliming Obama
Dueling chain e-mails claim he's a radical Muslim or a 'racist' Christian. Both can't be right. We find both are false.
Copyright © 2003 - 2008, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
FactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.
Home | About Us | Privacy | Copyright | Contact Us
September 8, 2008
False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate.
Summary
We’ve been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.
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."
We'll be looking into other charges in an e-mail by a woman named Anne Kilkenny for a future story. For more explanation of the bullet points above, please read the Analysis.
Correction: In our original story, we incorrectly said that a few of the claims we examine here were included in the e-mail by Kilkenny. Only one of the claims – about the librarian's firing – was similar to an item in that e-mail. We regret the error.
Analysis
Since Republican presidential nominee John McCain tapped Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, information about Palin's past has been zipping around the Internet. Several claims are not true, and other rumors are misleading.
No Cut for "Special Needs" Kids
It's not true, as widely reported in mass e-mails, Web postings and at least one mainstream news source, that Palin slashed the special education budget in Alaska by 62 percent. CNN's Soledad O'Brien made the claim on Sept. 4 in an interview with Nicolle Wallace, a senior adviser to the McCain campaign:
O'Brien, Sept. 4: One are that has gotten certainly people sending to me a lot of e-mails is the question about as governor what she did with the special needs budget, which I'm sure you're aware, she cut significantly, 62 percent I think is the number from when she came into office. As a woman who is now a mother to a special needs child, and I think she actually has a nephew which is autistic as well. How much of a problem is this going to be as she tries to navigate both sides of that issue?
Such a move might have made Palin look heartless or hypocritical in view of her convention-speech pledge to be an advocate for special needs children and their families. But in fact, she increased special needs funding so dramatically that a representative of local school boards described the jump as "historic."
According to an April 2008 article in Education Week, Palin signed legislation in March 2008 that would increase public school funding considerably, including special needs funding. It would increase spending on what Alaska calls "intensive needs" students (students with high-cost special requirements) from $26,900 per student in 2008 to $73,840 per student in 2011. That almost triples the per-student spending in three fiscal years. Palin's original proposal, according to the Anchorage Daily News, would have increased funds slightly more, giving intensive needs students a $77,740 allotment by 2011.
Education Week: A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special needs to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.
Unlike many other states, Alaska has relatively flush budget coffers, thanks to a rise in oil and gas revenues. Funding for schools will remain fairly level next year, however. Overall per-pupil funding across the state will rise by $100, to $5,480, in fiscal 2009. ...
Carl Rose, the executive director of the Association of Alaska School Boards, praised the changes in funding for rural schools and students with special needs as a "historic event," and said the finance overhaul would bring more stability to district budgets.
According to Eddy Jeans at the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, funding for special needs and intensive needs students has increased every year since Palin entered office, from a total of $203 million in 2006 to a projected $276 million in 2009.
Those who claim that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent are looking in the wrong place and misinterpreting what they find there. They point to an apparent drop in the Department of Education and Early Development budget for special schools. But the special schools budget, despite the similar name, isn't the special needs budget. "I don’t even consider the special schools component [part of] our special needs funding," Jeans told FactCheck.org. "The special needs funding is provided through our public school funding formula. The special schools is simply a budget component where we have funding set aside for special projects," such as the Alaska School for the Deaf and the Alaska Military Youth Academy. A different budget component, the Foundation Program, governs special needs programs in the public school system.
And in any case, the decrease in funding for special schools is illusory. Palin moved the Alaska Military Youth Academy's ChalleNGe program, a residential military school program that teaches job and life skills to students under 20, out of the budget line for "special schools" and into its own line. This resulted in an apparent drop of more than $5 million in the special schools budget with no actual decrease in funding for the programs.
Not a Book Burner
One accusation claims then-Mayor Palin threatened to fire Wasilla’s librarian for refusing to ban books from the town library. Some versions of the rumor come complete with a list of the books that Palin allegedly attempted to ban. Actually, Palin never asked that books be banned; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication. The librarian was fired, but was told only that Palin felt she didn’t support her. She was re-hired the next day. The librarian never claimed that Palin threatened outright to fire her for refusing to ban books.
It’s true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla’s librarian, on at least two occasions, three in some versions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition each time. But, as the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman (Wasilla’s local paper) reported at the time, Palin asked general questions about what Emmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned. According to Emmons, Palin "was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons' position would change if residents were picketing the library. Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny, who was at the meeting, corroborates Emmons' story, telling the Chicago Tribune that "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' "
Palin characterized the exchange differently, initially volunteering the episode as an example of discussions with city employees about following her administration's agenda. Palin described her questions to Emmons as “rhetorical,” noting that her questions "were asked in the context of professionalism regarding the library policy that is in place in our city." Actually, true rhetorical questions have implied answers (e.g., “Who do you think you are?”), so Palin probably meant to describe her questions as hypothetical or theoretical. We can't read minds, so it is impossible for us to know whether or not Palin may actually have wanted to ban books from the library or whether she simply wanted to know how her new employees would respond to an instruction from their boss. It is worth noting that, in an update, the Frontiersman points out that no book was ever banned from the library’s shelves.
Palin initially requested Emmons’ resignation, along with those of Wasilla’s other department heads, in October 1996. Palin described the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all of them (except one, whose department she was eliminating) to retain their positions. But in January 1997, Palin fired Emmons, along with the police chief. According to the Chicago Tribune, Palin did not list censorship as a reason for Emmons’ firing, but said she didn’t feel she had Emmons’ support. The decision caused “a stir” in the small town, according to a newspaper account at the time. According to a widely circulated e-mail from Kilkenny, “city residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin’s attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter.”
As we’ve noted, Palin did not attempt to ban any library books. We don’t know if Emmons’ resistance to Palin’s questions about possible censorship had anything to do with Emmons’ firing. And we have no idea if the protests had any impact on Palin at all. There simply isn’t any evidence that we can find either way. Palin did re-hire Emmons the following day, saying that she now felt she had the librarian’s backing. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned.
So what about that list of books targeted for banning, which according to one widely e-mailed version was taken “from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board”? If it was, the library board should take up fortune telling. The list includes the first four Harry Potter books, none of which had been published at the time of the Palin-Emmons conversations. The first wasn't published until 1998. In fact, the list is a simple cut-and-paste job, snatched (complete with typos and the occasional incorrect title) from the Florida Institute of Technology library Web page, which presents the list as “Books banned at one time or another in the United States.”
Update, Sept. 9: We have revised this section dealing with accusations that Palin wanted to ban books from Wasilla's library to include more detail about what transpired at the time.
Closet Secessionist?
Palin was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party – which calls for a vote on whether Alaska should secede from the union or remain a state – despite mistaken reports to the contrary. But her husband was a member for years, and she attended at least one party convention, as mayor of the town in which it was held.
The party's chair originally told reporters that Palin had been a member, but the official later retracted that statement. Chairwoman Lynette Clark told the New York Times that false information had been given to her by another member of the party after she first told the Times and others that Palin joined the AIP in 1994. Clark issued an apology on the AIP Web site.
The director of Alaska’s Division of Elections, Gail Fenumiai, confirms that Palin registered to vote in the state for the first time in May 1982 as a Republican and hasn’t changed her party affiliation since. She also told FactCheck.org that Palin’s husband, Todd, was registered with AIP from October 1995 to July 2000, and again from September 2000 until July 2002. (He has since been registered as undeclared.) However, the AIP says Todd Palin "never participated in any party activities aside from attending a convention in Wasilla at one time."
There is still some dispute as to whether Sarah Palin also attended the AIP’s 1994 convention, held in Wasilla. Clark and another AIP official told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that both Palins were there. Palin was elected mayor of Wasilla two years later. The McCain campaign says Sarah Palin went to the 2000 AIP convention, also held in Wasilla, “as a courtesy since she was mayor.” As governor, Palin sent a video message to the 2008 convention, which is available on YouTube, and the AIP says she attended in 2006 when she was campaigning.
Didn't Endorse Pat Buchanan
Claims that Palin endorsed conservative Republican Pat Buchanan for president in the 2000 campaign are false. She worked for conservative Republican Steve Forbes.
The incorrect reports stem from an Associated Press story on July 17, 1999, that said Palin was "among those sporting Buchanan buttons" at a lunch for Buchanan attended by about 85 people, during a swing he took through Fairbanks and Wasilla. Buchanan didn't help matters when he told a reporter for the liberal publication The Nation on Aug. 29: "I'm pretty sure she's a Buchananite." But in fact, she wasn't.
Soon after The AP story appeared, Palin wrote in a letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News that she had merely worn a Buchanan button as a courtesy to her visitor and was not endorsing him. The letter, published July 26, 1999, said:
Palin, July 26, 1999: As mayor of Wasilla, I am proud to welcome all presidential candidates to our city. This is true regardless of their party, or the latest odds of their winning. When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I'll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect.
Though no reporter interviewed me for the Associated Press article on the recent visit by a presidential candidate (Metro, July 17), the article may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla. As mayor, I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla.
Palin actually worked for Forbes. Less than a month after being spotted wearing the "courtesy" button for Buchanan, she was named to the state leadership committee of the Forbes effort. The Associated Press reported on Aug. 7, 1999:
The Associated Press, Aug. 7 1999: State Sen. Mike Miller of Fairbanks will head the Alaska campaign chairman for Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes, campaign officials said. Joining the Fairbanks Republican on the leadership committee will be Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin, and former state GOP chairman Pete Hallgren, who will serve as co-chairs.
Still, after nine years, the truth has yet to catch up completely.
No Creationism in Schools
On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That's true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.
In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied:
Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.
A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying:
Palin, Oct. 2006: 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.
After her election, Palin let the matter drop. The Associated Press reported Sept 3: "Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them. ... It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans." The article was headlined, "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." It was written by Dan Joling, who reports from Anchorage and has covered Alaska for 30 years.
That E-mail Author
Switching gears: Almost 100 readers have written to ask us if the many claims made about Palin in an e-mail written by someone named Anne Kilkenny are true. We can tell you that Kilkenny is a real person. (She was quoted by the Chicago Tribune, as we said above.) According to the New York Times, she’s a Democrat. According to Kilkenny herself, Palin “has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah’s attempt at censorship."
We’re still analyzing Kilkenny’s claims, and we will be posting something on this soon.
—by Brooks Jackson, Jessica Henig, Emi Kolawole, Joe Miller and Lori Robertson
Sources
Sutton, Anne. "Governor signs revamped education package into law." Anchorage Daily News, 28 Mar. 2008.
Holland, Megan. "Intensive needs funding examined." Anchorage Daily News, 12 Jan. 2008.
Cavanagh, Sean. "Alaska Legislators Overhaul Funding." Education Week, 29 Apr. 2008.
Joling, Dan. "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." The Associated Press, 3 Sept. 2008.
Hayes, Christopher. "Sarah Palin, Buchananite." The Nation "Capitolism" Web site, 29 Aug. 2008.
Palin, Sarah. "Letters from the People." Anchorage Daily News. 26 July 1999; 5B.
The Associated Press: "Forbes sets Alaska leadership team," 7 Aug 1999.
Kizzia, Tom. "'Creation science' enters the race." Anchorage Daily News, 27 Oct. 2006.
Paulson, Michael. "Sarah Palin on faith, life and creation." The Boston Globe, 29 Aug. 2008.
Tapper, Jake. “Another AIP Official Says Palin Was at 1994 Convention.” ABCNews.com, 2 Sept. 2008.
Tapper, Jake. “Members of ‘Fringe’ Alaskan Independence Party Incorrectly Say Palin Was a Member in 90s.” ABCNews.Com, 1Sept. 2008.
Komarnitsky, S.J. "Wasilla Keeps Librarian, But Police Chief Is Out." 1 February 1997. The Anchorage Daily News, 8 Sept. 2008.
Stuart, Paul. "FROM THE ARCHIVE: Palin: Library Censorship Inquiries 'Rhetorical'." 18 December 1996. Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, 8 Sept. 2008.
White, Rindi. "Palin Asked City Librarian Whether She'd Ban Books." 7 September 2008. The Chicago Tribune, 8 Sept. 2008.
Related Articles
FactChecking McCain
He made some flubs in accepting the nomination.
GOP Convention Spin, Part II
Palin trips up on her facts, and Giuliani and Huckabee have their own stumbles on Night 3 of the Republican confab.
Hit the Brakes
An Obama ad running in Michigan claims McCain didn't support loan guarantees for the auto industry. In fact, he does support them.
FactChecking Obama
He stuck to the facts, except when he stretched them.
Sliming Obama
Dueling chain e-mails claim he's a radical Muslim or a 'racist' Christian. Both can't be right. We find both are false.
Copyright © 2003 - 2008, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
FactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.
Home | About Us | Privacy | Copyright | Contact Us
On Keeping Things Straight -- And Avoiding Political Sophisms (Fabrications, Deceptions, Embellishments, Distortions...)
Hi Jackie/Carole,
I am trying to decide whether you have a good grasp of Sarah Palin's personality and that your email is not to be connected with many of the fabricated email lies and embellishments out there now on the internet.
Many of these have to been shown to be false, or at least falsely embellished and biased.
I included your email in my blogsite called: DGB Philosophy, American Politics.
Now I am wondering whether I should be retracting it. Although I'm a Democrat -- or at least have stronger Democrat leanings than Republican leanings --I still do not want my blogsite to be associated with false accusations and distorted embellishments...
Check my site if you wish -- and my essay called: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party which was written before your email was forwarded to me.
I know that I am going to make some further modifications to the site with new essays on the work...
So far I have decided to keep your email on board because I think it was well-written and I have not had any of your statements flat-out contradicted yet. The hunting issue, in my mind, is very important. The video shots I saw on CNN that showed aerial hunting and I believe it was a wolf being shot down, in my opinion, is disgusting. This form of hunting should be outlawed. Any person who can support this type of hunting and at the same time call him or herself a 'pro-lifer' -- well, I have to wonder about this type of person. He or she doesn't appeal to me. No wonder wolves have become an endangered species.
Anyways, thanks for the email. Your points on the hunting issue only emphasized what I had already partly written about her based on my hearing her speak at the Republican Convention.
I will stick to this point, and also stick with your email, until and/or unless I am shown -- and you are shown -- to be grossly wrong. But I don't think either of us is.
P.S. I have included this email on my site to show my readers that I am more interested in searching for the truth than in -- 'impaling' Palin -- based on fabricated stories and/or distorted embellishments.
I do not want DGB Philosophy to get caught up in 'Partisan Political Positive and Negative Sophisms'.
DGB Philosophy is looking for as close to the 'epistemological truth' as I can 'objectively get to' -- without my own 'subjective partisan biases' blocking my path so that the American people -- and I -- can make good ethical-moral-political judgments regarding who should be the next President and Vice-President of the United States.
Cheers,
David Bain, author of DGB Philosophy on the internet...
I am trying to decide whether you have a good grasp of Sarah Palin's personality and that your email is not to be connected with many of the fabricated email lies and embellishments out there now on the internet.
Many of these have to been shown to be false, or at least falsely embellished and biased.
I included your email in my blogsite called: DGB Philosophy, American Politics.
Now I am wondering whether I should be retracting it. Although I'm a Democrat -- or at least have stronger Democrat leanings than Republican leanings --I still do not want my blogsite to be associated with false accusations and distorted embellishments...
Check my site if you wish -- and my essay called: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party which was written before your email was forwarded to me.
I know that I am going to make some further modifications to the site with new essays on the work...
So far I have decided to keep your email on board because I think it was well-written and I have not had any of your statements flat-out contradicted yet. The hunting issue, in my mind, is very important. The video shots I saw on CNN that showed aerial hunting and I believe it was a wolf being shot down, in my opinion, is disgusting. This form of hunting should be outlawed. Any person who can support this type of hunting and at the same time call him or herself a 'pro-lifer' -- well, I have to wonder about this type of person. He or she doesn't appeal to me. No wonder wolves have become an endangered species.
Anyways, thanks for the email. Your points on the hunting issue only emphasized what I had already partly written about her based on my hearing her speak at the Republican Convention.
I will stick to this point, and also stick with your email, until and/or unless I am shown -- and you are shown -- to be grossly wrong. But I don't think either of us is.
P.S. I have included this email on my site to show my readers that I am more interested in searching for the truth than in -- 'impaling' Palin -- based on fabricated stories and/or distorted embellishments.
I do not want DGB Philosophy to get caught up in 'Partisan Political Positive and Negative Sophisms'.
DGB Philosophy is looking for as close to the 'epistemological truth' as I can 'objectively get to' -- without my own 'subjective partisan biases' blocking my path so that the American people -- and I -- can make good ethical-moral-political judgments regarding who should be the next President and Vice-President of the United States.
Cheers,
David Bain, author of DGB Philosophy on the internet...
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Newest Democratic Joke....Personally, I love it...
What's the difference between the presidential campaign before and after the national political conventions?
Lipstick.
Lipstick.
Not Everyone Loves Sarah Palin...
This email needs to be taken seriously and investigated relative to its commentary...
It supports some of my quick off the cuff interpretations and judgments relative to her Republican Convention speech...These can be found in an essay below: Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The Republican Party...
The American people need to know more about who may be there next vice president...
Right now she is on a pedestal...but she can still tumble...quickly...if she cannot hold her own and is way above her head... -- dgb, September 9th, 2009
..........................................................
My sister Joyce emailed the following to me. It is forwarded from a dear friend of hers.
READ THIS AND WEEP:
Dear classmates -
As an Alaskan, I am writing to give all of you some information on Sarah Palin, Senator McCain's choice for VP. As an Alaska voter, I
know more than most of you about her and, frankly, I am horrified that he picked her.
The most accurate description of her is red neck. Her husband works in the oil fields of Prudhoe Bay and races snow mobiles. She is a life
time member of the NRA and has worked tirelessly to allow indiscriminate hunting of wild life in Alaska , particularly wolves and bears.
She has spent millions of Alaska state dollars on aerial hunting of these predators from helicopters and airplanes, dollars that should have been spent,
for example, on Alaska 's failing school system. We have the lowest rate of high school graduation in the country.
Not all of you may think aerial predator hunting is so bad, but how anyone (other than Alaska wolf-haters, of which there are
many, (most without teeth), could think this use of funds is appropriate is beyond me. If you want to know more about the aerial
hunting travesty let me know and I will send some links to informative web sites.
She has been a strong supporter of increased use of fossil fuels, yet the McCain campaign has the nerve to say she has 'green' policies.
The only thing green about Sarah Palin is her lack of experience. She has consistently supported drilling in ANWR, use of coal-burning power
plants (as I write this, a new coal plant is being built in her home town of Wasilla ), strip mining, and almost anything else that will
unnecessarily exploit the diminishing resources of Alaska and destroy its environment.
Prior to her one year as governor of Alaska , she was mayor of Wasilla, a small red neck town outside Anchorage . The average maximum education
level of parents of junior high school kids in Wasilla is 10th grade. Unfortunately, I have to go to Wasilla every week to get groceries and
other supplies, so I have continual contact with the people who put Palin in office in the first place. I know what I'm talking about.
These people don't have a concept of the world around them or of the serious issues facing the US . Furthermore, they don't care. So long as
they can go out and hunt their moose every fall, kill wolves and bears and drive their snow mobiles and ATVs through every corner of the wilderness, they're happy.
I wish I were exaggerating.
Sarah Palin is currently involved in a political corruption scandal. She fired an individual in law enforcement here because she didn't
like how he treated one of her relatives during a divorce. The man's performance and ability weren't considered; it was a totally personal
firing and is currently under investigation. While the issue isn't close to the scandal of Ted Steven's corruption, it shows that Palin
isn't 'squeaky clean' and causes me to think there may be more issues that could come to light. Clearly McCain doesn't care.
When you line Palin up with Biden, the comparison would be laughable if it weren't so serious. Sarah Palin knows nothing of economics
(admittedly a weak area for McCain), or of international affairs, knows nothing of national government, Social Security, unemployment,
health care systems - you name it. The idea of her meeting with heads of foreign governments around the world truly frightens me.
In an increasingly dangerous world, with the economy in shambles in the US , Sarah Palin is uniquely UNQUALIFIED to be vice president.
John McCain is not a young man. Should something happen to him such that the vice president had to step in, it would destroy our country and
possibly the world to have someone as inexperienced and inappropriate as Sarah Palin. The choice of Palin is a cheap shot by McCain to try
to get Hillary supporters to vote for him. When McCain introduced her Friday, Palin had the nerve to compare herself with Hillary and
Geraldine Ferraro. Sarah Palin, you are no Hillary Clinton.
To those of you who, like me, supported Hillary and were upset that she did not get the nomination, please don't think that Sarah Palin is a
worthy substitute. If you supported Hillary, regardless of what you think the media and the Democratic Party may have done to undermine
her campaign, the person to support now is Obama, not Sarah Palin. To those of you who are independent or undecided, don't let the choice of
Palin sway you in favor of McCain. Choosing her shows how unqualified McCain is to be president. To those of you who are conservative, I
guess you have no choice for president. But please try to see how the poor choice of Palin tells us a great deal about McCain's judgment.
While the political posturing inherent in the choice of Palin is obvious, the more serious issue is the fact that the VP is, literally,
a heartbeat away from the presidency. Sarah Palin is totally and unequivocally unqualified to be vice president, let alone president.
I know this is a lengthy and emotional email, but the stakes are high. I thought it might help for all of you, regardless of political
affiliation, to know something about Palin from someone who has to live with her administration in Alaska on a daily basis.
Jackie S.
Carole Lavin
clavin@nyc.rr.com
917.312.0987
It supports some of my quick off the cuff interpretations and judgments relative to her Republican Convention speech...These can be found in an essay below: Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The Republican Party...
The American people need to know more about who may be there next vice president...
Right now she is on a pedestal...but she can still tumble...quickly...if she cannot hold her own and is way above her head... -- dgb, September 9th, 2009
..........................................................
My sister Joyce emailed the following to me. It is forwarded from a dear friend of hers.
READ THIS AND WEEP:
Dear classmates -
As an Alaskan, I am writing to give all of you some information on Sarah Palin, Senator McCain's choice for VP. As an Alaska voter, I
know more than most of you about her and, frankly, I am horrified that he picked her.
The most accurate description of her is red neck. Her husband works in the oil fields of Prudhoe Bay and races snow mobiles. She is a life
time member of the NRA and has worked tirelessly to allow indiscriminate hunting of wild life in Alaska , particularly wolves and bears.
She has spent millions of Alaska state dollars on aerial hunting of these predators from helicopters and airplanes, dollars that should have been spent,
for example, on Alaska 's failing school system. We have the lowest rate of high school graduation in the country.
Not all of you may think aerial predator hunting is so bad, but how anyone (other than Alaska wolf-haters, of which there are
many, (most without teeth), could think this use of funds is appropriate is beyond me. If you want to know more about the aerial
hunting travesty let me know and I will send some links to informative web sites.
She has been a strong supporter of increased use of fossil fuels, yet the McCain campaign has the nerve to say she has 'green' policies.
The only thing green about Sarah Palin is her lack of experience. She has consistently supported drilling in ANWR, use of coal-burning power
plants (as I write this, a new coal plant is being built in her home town of Wasilla ), strip mining, and almost anything else that will
unnecessarily exploit the diminishing resources of Alaska and destroy its environment.
Prior to her one year as governor of Alaska , she was mayor of Wasilla, a small red neck town outside Anchorage . The average maximum education
level of parents of junior high school kids in Wasilla is 10th grade. Unfortunately, I have to go to Wasilla every week to get groceries and
other supplies, so I have continual contact with the people who put Palin in office in the first place. I know what I'm talking about.
These people don't have a concept of the world around them or of the serious issues facing the US . Furthermore, they don't care. So long as
they can go out and hunt their moose every fall, kill wolves and bears and drive their snow mobiles and ATVs through every corner of the wilderness, they're happy.
I wish I were exaggerating.
Sarah Palin is currently involved in a political corruption scandal. She fired an individual in law enforcement here because she didn't
like how he treated one of her relatives during a divorce. The man's performance and ability weren't considered; it was a totally personal
firing and is currently under investigation. While the issue isn't close to the scandal of Ted Steven's corruption, it shows that Palin
isn't 'squeaky clean' and causes me to think there may be more issues that could come to light. Clearly McCain doesn't care.
When you line Palin up with Biden, the comparison would be laughable if it weren't so serious. Sarah Palin knows nothing of economics
(admittedly a weak area for McCain), or of international affairs, knows nothing of national government, Social Security, unemployment,
health care systems - you name it. The idea of her meeting with heads of foreign governments around the world truly frightens me.
In an increasingly dangerous world, with the economy in shambles in the US , Sarah Palin is uniquely UNQUALIFIED to be vice president.
John McCain is not a young man. Should something happen to him such that the vice president had to step in, it would destroy our country and
possibly the world to have someone as inexperienced and inappropriate as Sarah Palin. The choice of Palin is a cheap shot by McCain to try
to get Hillary supporters to vote for him. When McCain introduced her Friday, Palin had the nerve to compare herself with Hillary and
Geraldine Ferraro. Sarah Palin, you are no Hillary Clinton.
To those of you who, like me, supported Hillary and were upset that she did not get the nomination, please don't think that Sarah Palin is a
worthy substitute. If you supported Hillary, regardless of what you think the media and the Democratic Party may have done to undermine
her campaign, the person to support now is Obama, not Sarah Palin. To those of you who are independent or undecided, don't let the choice of
Palin sway you in favor of McCain. Choosing her shows how unqualified McCain is to be president. To those of you who are conservative, I
guess you have no choice for president. But please try to see how the poor choice of Palin tells us a great deal about McCain's judgment.
While the political posturing inherent in the choice of Palin is obvious, the more serious issue is the fact that the VP is, literally,
a heartbeat away from the presidency. Sarah Palin is totally and unequivocally unqualified to be vice president, let alone president.
I know this is a lengthy and emotional email, but the stakes are high. I thought it might help for all of you, regardless of political
affiliation, to know something about Palin from someone who has to live with her administration in Alaska on a daily basis.
Jackie S.
Carole Lavin
clavin@nyc.rr.com
917.312.0987
Sunday, September 07, 2008
The DGB Philosophy '2008 American Bi-Partisan Executive Dream Team' in Washington
It is 7:30pm. Dinner is in my stomach -- a steak salad -- and I'm ready to go again. My last essay on 'DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party' took a day and a half to write, and it took a lot of energy out of me. But other than this 'sneezing attack' that I'm enduring now from the last coffee and cream that I just downed, I want to finish this next essay here in short order. There is not too much to it other than a few hints as to what directions I may take here in this section in the near future. In some ways, Stephen Harper has steadied the Canadian Government. But with all due respect to the country that I live in, and the Government that runs it, watching, and listening to, and reading about, Canadian Politics these days is about as fun as watching the grass grow. Indeed, with all the rain we have had this summer, I think that watching my backyard grass grow is more exciting.
However, I like watching CNN -- even if The Republican Party thinks that CNN is politically biased -- which I happen to believe that they are not. There is enough ample coverage on CNN -- relative to both parties -- to keep me very busy in this section. It's just I have about 30 or 40 other sections (blogsites) to write as well.
Google...DGB Philosophy. Thank you Google for giving me pretty good philosophical and political coverage.
Let's see.
Regarding my DGB Dialectic Philosophy Bi-Partisan Dream Team in Washington.
There are no rules here as applies to 'past or present American political structure'. I don't know how the White House works. One day maybe I will. I have a few books to read, and within my easy, private grasp in this respect. I think I have one book in particular on the history and evolution of American Government.
But I am not there yet.
And like Obama and McCain and Biden and Palin -- I wish to change the structure and process of American politics, not to duplicate it.
And I'm not even American, I'm Canadian. However, before we go anywhere -- either away from or deeper into this essay -- let's gets a brief introduction to The American Constitution before we start:
...............................................................................
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
The United States Constitution
Page one of the original copy of the Constitution
Created September 17, 1787
Ratified June 21, 1788
Location National Archives
Authors Delegates of the Philadelphia Convention
Signers 39 of the 55 Philadelphia Convention delegates
Purpose National constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation
United States of America
This article is part of the series:
United States Constitution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original text of the Constitution
Preamble
Articles of the Constitution
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V ∙ VI ∙ VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V
VI ∙ VII ∙ VIII ∙ IX ∙ X
Subsequent Amendments
XI ∙ XII ∙ XIII ∙ XIV ∙ XV
XVI ∙ XVII ∙ XVIII ∙ XIX ∙ XX
XXI ∙ XXII ∙ XXIII ∙ XXIV ∙ XXV
XXVI ∙ XXVII
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitution of the United States of America is the foundation of all law and government in the United States. It provides the framework for the organization of the United States Government and enumerates the powers of the Congress as well as those reserved to the states and to the people, those reserved to the President of the Unites States with the advice and consent of the Senate and to the Judiciary which are tasked to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and to enforce the laws passed by the Congress.
The United States Constitution describes three main branches of government: The bicameral legislative branch is composed of a House of Representatives and a Senate known collectively as the Congress. Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution places the power of the government in the Congress which makes all the laws. Articles II and III address the powers delegated to the President and to the Judiciary so that they may execute the laws passed by the Congress.
An executive branch led by the President, preserves, protects and defends the Constitution and executes the instructions of the Congress with the advice and consent of the Senate. The president also has certain unique powers reserved to him alone such as the power to pardon, and shared powers such as appointments and treaties made with the advice and consent of the Senate.
A Judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court reviews the laws the Congress has made for their constitutionality. Very early on two principles unstated in the United States Constitution, separation of powers and judicial review were inferred, diluting the powers of the Congress and changing what was initially intended to be a Democracy into a Federalist Republic.
Besides providing for the organization of these branches, the Constitution at first carefully outlined the delegation of powers from the Congress to the other two branches. In practice over the years many powers initially intended to be reserved to the Congress such as a Declaration of War and the making of rules for the military have been ursurped by the Executive branch. Where such ursurpations are not resisted or actively encouraged by the Congress they may achieve the status of precedent
The United States Constitution provides that when called into actual service by the Congress making a Declaration of War and mobilizing the militia the president shall replace the Govenors of the States as Commander in Chief of this Federalized Military. In practice, since the Civil War the militia have not been disbanded and have become a standing army under the control of the Department of Defense and the Pentagon which has removed the need for the president to be called into actual service to be Commander in Chief.
The sole power of removal of officers of the government called for in the United States Constitution is impeachment, but in practice the Congress has allowed persons appointed by the president of the United States with the advice and Consent of the Senate to serve at the will of the President.
The Constitution of the United States has been ammended to include a long list of rights known collectively as the Bill of Rights and also reserves numerous rights for the individual states, citizens.
The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and later ratified by conventions in each state in the name of "The People"; it has since been amended twenty-seven times, the first ten amendments being known as the Bill of Rights.[1][2] The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was actually the first constitution of the United States of America. The U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation as the governing document for the United States, and transformed the constitutional basis of government from confederation to federation, also making it the world's oldest federal constitution.[3] The Constitution has a central place in United States law and political culture.[4] The handwritten, or "engrossed", original document is on display at the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C.
...........................................................................
I found an actual online reproduction of The American Constitution but this I will reproduce at another time.
What is important here is knowing that The American Government is broken up into three main branches:
1. The Legislative Branch which is divided up into two parts: 1. The 'House of Representatives' and 'The Senate' which is collectively known as: Congress. What the difference is between The House of Representatives and The Senate -- I shall have to find out at another time.
2. The Executive Branch led by The President: Let's review in brief the responsibliites of this office:
An executive branch led by the President, preserves, protects and defends the Constitution and executes the instructions of the Congress with the advice and consent of the Senate. The president also has certain unique powers reserved to him alone such as the power to pardon, and shared powers such as appointments and treaties made with the advice and consent of the Senate.
3. The Judiciary Branch: Let's review the responsibilities of this branch as well...
A Judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court reviews the laws the Congress has made for their constitutionality. Very early on two principles unstated in the United States Constitution, separation of powers and judicial review were inferred, diluting the powers of the Congress and changing what was initially intended to be a Democracy into a Federalist Republic.
I'm not sure what that means. I will have to explore at a later date.
.................................................................
Anyway, here is my 'DGB Philosophy American Bi-Partisan Executive Dream Team' -- completely disregarding the current 'Executive Structure of The American Government' and ploughing ahead with reckless DGB abandon -- to be modified, enhanced, and/or finessed at a later date...
President: Barack Obama
Special Advisors To The President
1. Foreign Policy: Joe Biden
2. Defense: John McCain
3. Anti-or-Counter-Special-Interest-Lobbyism: Sarah Palin
4. Health, Poverty, and Social Assistance: Hillary Clinton
5. Energy: T.Boone Pickens
6. Environment: Al Gore
7. Ethics and Education: Mike Huckabee
8. Economy and Business: Mitt Romney
9. Honorary Special Advisor To The President: Bill Clinton
That will do for now. I will work on this project at a later date...
-- dgb, September 7th, 2008.
However, I like watching CNN -- even if The Republican Party thinks that CNN is politically biased -- which I happen to believe that they are not. There is enough ample coverage on CNN -- relative to both parties -- to keep me very busy in this section. It's just I have about 30 or 40 other sections (blogsites) to write as well.
Google...DGB Philosophy. Thank you Google for giving me pretty good philosophical and political coverage.
Let's see.
Regarding my DGB Dialectic Philosophy Bi-Partisan Dream Team in Washington.
There are no rules here as applies to 'past or present American political structure'. I don't know how the White House works. One day maybe I will. I have a few books to read, and within my easy, private grasp in this respect. I think I have one book in particular on the history and evolution of American Government.
But I am not there yet.
And like Obama and McCain and Biden and Palin -- I wish to change the structure and process of American politics, not to duplicate it.
And I'm not even American, I'm Canadian. However, before we go anywhere -- either away from or deeper into this essay -- let's gets a brief introduction to The American Constitution before we start:
...............................................................................
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
The United States Constitution
Page one of the original copy of the Constitution
Created September 17, 1787
Ratified June 21, 1788
Location National Archives
Authors Delegates of the Philadelphia Convention
Signers 39 of the 55 Philadelphia Convention delegates
Purpose National constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation
United States of America
This article is part of the series:
United States Constitution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original text of the Constitution
Preamble
Articles of the Constitution
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V ∙ VI ∙ VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V
VI ∙ VII ∙ VIII ∙ IX ∙ X
Subsequent Amendments
XI ∙ XII ∙ XIII ∙ XIV ∙ XV
XVI ∙ XVII ∙ XVIII ∙ XIX ∙ XX
XXI ∙ XXII ∙ XXIII ∙ XXIV ∙ XXV
XXVI ∙ XXVII
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitution of the United States of America is the foundation of all law and government in the United States. It provides the framework for the organization of the United States Government and enumerates the powers of the Congress as well as those reserved to the states and to the people, those reserved to the President of the Unites States with the advice and consent of the Senate and to the Judiciary which are tasked to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and to enforce the laws passed by the Congress.
The United States Constitution describes three main branches of government: The bicameral legislative branch is composed of a House of Representatives and a Senate known collectively as the Congress. Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution places the power of the government in the Congress which makes all the laws. Articles II and III address the powers delegated to the President and to the Judiciary so that they may execute the laws passed by the Congress.
An executive branch led by the President, preserves, protects and defends the Constitution and executes the instructions of the Congress with the advice and consent of the Senate. The president also has certain unique powers reserved to him alone such as the power to pardon, and shared powers such as appointments and treaties made with the advice and consent of the Senate.
A Judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court reviews the laws the Congress has made for their constitutionality. Very early on two principles unstated in the United States Constitution, separation of powers and judicial review were inferred, diluting the powers of the Congress and changing what was initially intended to be a Democracy into a Federalist Republic.
Besides providing for the organization of these branches, the Constitution at first carefully outlined the delegation of powers from the Congress to the other two branches. In practice over the years many powers initially intended to be reserved to the Congress such as a Declaration of War and the making of rules for the military have been ursurped by the Executive branch. Where such ursurpations are not resisted or actively encouraged by the Congress they may achieve the status of precedent
The United States Constitution provides that when called into actual service by the Congress making a Declaration of War and mobilizing the militia the president shall replace the Govenors of the States as Commander in Chief of this Federalized Military. In practice, since the Civil War the militia have not been disbanded and have become a standing army under the control of the Department of Defense and the Pentagon which has removed the need for the president to be called into actual service to be Commander in Chief.
The sole power of removal of officers of the government called for in the United States Constitution is impeachment, but in practice the Congress has allowed persons appointed by the president of the United States with the advice and Consent of the Senate to serve at the will of the President.
The Constitution of the United States has been ammended to include a long list of rights known collectively as the Bill of Rights and also reserves numerous rights for the individual states, citizens.
The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and later ratified by conventions in each state in the name of "The People"; it has since been amended twenty-seven times, the first ten amendments being known as the Bill of Rights.[1][2] The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was actually the first constitution of the United States of America. The U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation as the governing document for the United States, and transformed the constitutional basis of government from confederation to federation, also making it the world's oldest federal constitution.[3] The Constitution has a central place in United States law and political culture.[4] The handwritten, or "engrossed", original document is on display at the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C.
...........................................................................
I found an actual online reproduction of The American Constitution but this I will reproduce at another time.
What is important here is knowing that The American Government is broken up into three main branches:
1. The Legislative Branch which is divided up into two parts: 1. The 'House of Representatives' and 'The Senate' which is collectively known as: Congress. What the difference is between The House of Representatives and The Senate -- I shall have to find out at another time.
2. The Executive Branch led by The President: Let's review in brief the responsibliites of this office:
An executive branch led by the President, preserves, protects and defends the Constitution and executes the instructions of the Congress with the advice and consent of the Senate. The president also has certain unique powers reserved to him alone such as the power to pardon, and shared powers such as appointments and treaties made with the advice and consent of the Senate.
3. The Judiciary Branch: Let's review the responsibilities of this branch as well...
A Judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court reviews the laws the Congress has made for their constitutionality. Very early on two principles unstated in the United States Constitution, separation of powers and judicial review were inferred, diluting the powers of the Congress and changing what was initially intended to be a Democracy into a Federalist Republic.
I'm not sure what that means. I will have to explore at a later date.
.................................................................
Anyway, here is my 'DGB Philosophy American Bi-Partisan Executive Dream Team' -- completely disregarding the current 'Executive Structure of The American Government' and ploughing ahead with reckless DGB abandon -- to be modified, enhanced, and/or finessed at a later date...
President: Barack Obama
Special Advisors To The President
1. Foreign Policy: Joe Biden
2. Defense: John McCain
3. Anti-or-Counter-Special-Interest-Lobbyism: Sarah Palin
4. Health, Poverty, and Social Assistance: Hillary Clinton
5. Energy: T.Boone Pickens
6. Environment: Al Gore
7. Ethics and Education: Mike Huckabee
8. Economy and Business: Mitt Romney
9. Honorary Special Advisor To The President: Bill Clinton
That will do for now. I will work on this project at a later date...
-- dgb, September 7th, 2008.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
On New American War Powers Legislation...
From the internet...an article -- and an idea -- that I liked...dgb, July 9th, 2008.
........................................................................
Panel calls for new war powers legislation
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 48 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The next time the president goes to war, Congress should be consulted and vote on whether it agrees, according to a bipartisan study group chaired by former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher.
ADVERTISEMENT
Email:
ZIP / Postal Code:
In a report released Tuesday, the panel says the current law governing the nation's war powers has failed to promote cooperation between the executive and legislative branches. It says the 1973 resolution should be repealed and replaced with new legislation that would require the president to inform Congress of any plans to engage in "significant armed conflict," or non-covert operations lasting longer than a week.
In turn, Congress would act within 30 days, either approving or disapproving the action.
Baker, who served as secretary of s`tate in the first Bush administration and co-chaired the 2006 Iraq Study Group, said the proposal isn't intended to resolve constitutional disputes between the White House and Congress on who should decide whether the nation fights.
"What we aim to do with this statute is to create a process that will encourage the two branches to cooperate and consult in a way that is both practical and true to the spirit of the Constitution," Baker said in a statement.
A new joint House and Senate committee would be established to review the president's justification for war. To do so, the committee would be granted access to highly classified information.
The panel has briefed the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain, as well as congressional leadership.
Spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama commends the panel "for advocating that the president consult Congress more closely on issues of critical national importance like the use of military force."
McCain did not provide comment.
Congress' involvement in approving combat operations became a central issue in the Iraq debate last year, when Democrats tried to force President Bush to end the war. While Congress had authorized combat in Iraq, Democrats said the resolution approved only the invasion and not a five-year counterinsurgency.
After taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats tried to cap force levels and set a timetable for withdrawals. While they lacked a veto-proof majority to put the restrictions into law, the White House argued that such legislation would have violated the Constitution by infringing upon the president's right as commander in chief to protect the nation. Democrats disagreed, contending there was ample precedence.
The one surefire way for Congress to have ended the war was to cut off money for combat operations — a step most Democrats weren't willing to take because they feared doing so would have hurt troops in harms' way, or at least be perceived by voters that way.
The plan identified by Baker and Christopher, who served as secretary of State under President Clinton, would not necessarily resolve such issues in the future. But it would create a consultative process between the White House and Congress that currently does not exist. Also, calling on Congress to respond would exert significant political pressure on a president if he ignored lawmakers' wishes.
The panel studied the issue for more than a year and consulted more than three dozen experts. Other members of the panel include former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who in 2006 led the Iraq Study Group with Baker; former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state.
The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia sponsored the study.
___
........................................................................
Panel calls for new war powers legislation
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 48 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The next time the president goes to war, Congress should be consulted and vote on whether it agrees, according to a bipartisan study group chaired by former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher.
ADVERTISEMENT
Email:
ZIP / Postal Code:
In a report released Tuesday, the panel says the current law governing the nation's war powers has failed to promote cooperation between the executive and legislative branches. It says the 1973 resolution should be repealed and replaced with new legislation that would require the president to inform Congress of any plans to engage in "significant armed conflict," or non-covert operations lasting longer than a week.
In turn, Congress would act within 30 days, either approving or disapproving the action.
Baker, who served as secretary of s`tate in the first Bush administration and co-chaired the 2006 Iraq Study Group, said the proposal isn't intended to resolve constitutional disputes between the White House and Congress on who should decide whether the nation fights.
"What we aim to do with this statute is to create a process that will encourage the two branches to cooperate and consult in a way that is both practical and true to the spirit of the Constitution," Baker said in a statement.
A new joint House and Senate committee would be established to review the president's justification for war. To do so, the committee would be granted access to highly classified information.
The panel has briefed the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain, as well as congressional leadership.
Spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama commends the panel "for advocating that the president consult Congress more closely on issues of critical national importance like the use of military force."
McCain did not provide comment.
Congress' involvement in approving combat operations became a central issue in the Iraq debate last year, when Democrats tried to force President Bush to end the war. While Congress had authorized combat in Iraq, Democrats said the resolution approved only the invasion and not a five-year counterinsurgency.
After taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats tried to cap force levels and set a timetable for withdrawals. While they lacked a veto-proof majority to put the restrictions into law, the White House argued that such legislation would have violated the Constitution by infringing upon the president's right as commander in chief to protect the nation. Democrats disagreed, contending there was ample precedence.
The one surefire way for Congress to have ended the war was to cut off money for combat operations — a step most Democrats weren't willing to take because they feared doing so would have hurt troops in harms' way, or at least be perceived by voters that way.
The plan identified by Baker and Christopher, who served as secretary of State under President Clinton, would not necessarily resolve such issues in the future. But it would create a consultative process between the White House and Congress that currently does not exist. Also, calling on Congress to respond would exert significant political pressure on a president if he ignored lawmakers' wishes.
The panel studied the issue for more than a year and consulted more than three dozen experts. Other members of the panel include former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who in 2006 led the Iraq Study Group with Baker; former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state.
The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia sponsored the study.
___
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
