Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Monday, November 16, 2009

Former Alaska Governor lashed out at the Associated Press Sunday for doing a fact-check on her memoir, "Going Rogue."

"Amazingly, but not surprisingly, the AP somehow nabbed a copy of the book before it was released," she wrote on her Facebook page. "They're now erroneously reporting on the book's contents and are repeating many of the same things they spewed during the campaign and afterwards. We've heard 11 writers are engaged in this opposition research, er, "fact checking" research!"

The AP reported that Palin's account often contradicted her record as well as current events. Her depiction of the McCain campaign is also frequently at odds with internal campaign emails.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

726

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

"They're now erroneously reporting on the book's contents...."

Okay, what, specifically, about the book's contents have they erroneously reported?

-Okay, what, specifically, about the book's contents have they erroneously reported?


That it uses multi-syllabic words?

Fact checking Sarah P would likely out a strain on the entire AP organization.


And Doc, you are a tur'ble person fer puttin' up yet another thread about poor Sarah.... just thought I would get that out of the way.....

Ah knowed that, Corkster, I ben tossin an a turnin thru the nite worryin bout just that, y'know. I mean, it's juss plumb mean to post informashun and noos about Sister Sarah, seein as how shes been fixin fer so long now to stay outta the limelight and live a life of peace n rectitude in the shadows, away from the glare of publicity. It'd be diffrunt if she wuz lookin fer publicity or craved attenshun. But it idn't n it ain't n it's juss a goldarn shame, is what I'm a thinkin.

-a goldarn shame

Lands o' Goshen, Doc, ya'll got that straiter'n a Texas highway! Out'n a near ree-cluse like Sarai is meaner'n a stuck pig.


Wit or without the lipstuck


Shooey! That pig's got more lipstick than a dance hall floozy!

Why don't you two just exchange phone numbers?

She needs to get used to being scrutinized if she's planning a future in politics, God forbid.


Why don't you two just exchange phone numbers?

#7 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-11-16 10:31 AM | Reply | Flag already have

"Okay, what, specifically, about the book's contents have they erroneously reported?"
#1 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

"The AP starts with this one:

PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor, asking "only" for reasonably priced rooms and not "often" going for the "high-end, robe-and-slippers" hotels.

THE FACTS: Although she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard) for a five-hour women's leadership conference in New York in October 2007. With air fare, the cost to Alaska was well over $3,000.

This is frankly pathetic. Palin says she didn't "often" stay at high-end hotels, and the AP counters by saying she did, once. Yes, that's why she said "not often" rather than "never.

Here is another:

PALIN: Rails against taxpayer-financed bailouts, which she attributes to Obama. She recounts telling daughter Bristol that to succeed in business, "you'll have to be brave enough to fail."

THE FACTS: Palin is blurring Obama's stimulus plan--a $787 billion package of tax cuts, state aid, social programs and government contracts--and the federal bailout that President George W. Bush signed.

Palin's views on bailouts appeared to evolve as John McCain's vice presidential running mate. In September 2008, she said "taxpayers cannot be looked to" to bail out Wall Street.

The next month, she praised McCain for being "instrumental in bringing folks together" to pass the $700 billion bailout. After that, she said "it is a time of crisis and government did have to step in."

The AP doesn't quote Palin, so it's hard to say whether she "blurs" the bailouts or not. But by the AP's own account, Palin has consistently opposed bailouts, except that during the Presidential campaign, she loyally supported McCain's position on the initial TARP program. That's what a Vice-Presidential candidate is supposed to do, and this is not a "fact-check."

This one, I simply don't believe:

PALIN: Welcomes last year's Supreme Court decision deciding punitive damages for victims of the nation's largest oil spill tragedy, the Exxon Valdez disaster, stating it had taken 20 years to achieve victory. As governor, she says, she'd had the state argue in favor of the victims, and she says the court's ruling went "in favor of the people."

THE FACTS: That response is at odds with her reaction at the time to the ruling, which resolved the case by reducing punitive damages for victims to $500 million from $2.5 billion. Palin said then she was "extremely disappointed" and it was "tragic" so many fishermen and families put their lives on hold waiting for the decision.

Again, the AP doesn't quote Palin but rather asks us to take their word for the fact that Palin "welcomes" the Supreme Court's Exxon Valdez decision in her book as a "ruling [that] went 'in favor of the people.'"

www.powerlineblog.com

More exapmles for Doc:

"PALIN: Says Ronald Reagan faced an even worse recession than the one that appears to be ending now, and "showed us how to get out of one. If you want real job growth, cut capital gains taxes and slay the death tax once and for all."

THE FACTS: The estate tax, which some call the death tax, was not repealed under Reagan and capital gains taxes are lower now than when Reagan was president.

Where in her claim did she say that Reagan lowered the death tax? She is simply offering solutions that would lift us out of this recession. Who cares what the capital gains tax rate was in the 1980s?

PALIN: Says Obama has admitted that the climate change policy he seeks will cause people's electricity bills to "skyrocket."

THE FACTS: She correctly quotes a comment attributed to Obama in January 2008, when he told San Francisco Chronicle editors that under his cap-and-trade climate proposal, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" as utilities are forced to retrofit coal burning power plants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Obama has argued since then that climate legislation can blunt the cost to consumers. Democratic legislation now before Congress calls for a variety of measures aimed at mitigating consumer costs. Several studies predict average household costs probably would be $100 to $145 a year.

Show us the several studies. The Heritage Foundation has a detailed explanation of the costs of Obama's climate change policies.

Take a look at this "fact-check":


PALIN: Says she tried to talk about national security and energy independence in her interview with Vogue magazine but the interviewer wanted her to pivot from hydropower to high fashion.

THE FACTS are somewhat in dispute. Vogue contributing editor Rebecca Johnson said Palin did not go on about hydropower. "She just kept talking about drilling for oil."

Um, that was obviously a play on words. "hydropower to high fashion," get it?

More?

She needs to get used to being scrutinized if she's planning a future in politics, God forbid.

#8 | Posted by nanc at 2009-11-16 10:38 AM | Reply | Flag:Muffy'll be a comin' for a cat fight.


"I just don't want to go back to Alaska."
-- Sarah Palin, explaining to aides why she should be allowed to bring up Jeremiah Wright in presidential campaign

I regard Sarah Palin as a tiresome sideshow. However, I don't remember AP ever putting 11 people on a fact-checking mission when the Clinton's books came out, or any other political tomes.

Those were all left to the he-said, she-said talking heads.

Hell, when did AP ever put 11 people on a story, say, explaining in detail what's in one of those 2,000-page bills Congress loves?

Hell, when did AP ever put 11 people on a story, say, explaining in detail what's in one of those 2,000-page bills Congress loves?

#13 | Posted by vernon at 2009-11-16 05:19 PM | Reply |

On a day to day basis, story to story, you have absolutely no clue how many people are working on it. For all you know they had 50 people on it. 11 could be a really low number for AP.


I read on another new story that McCain says her recollection is full of shit.

I'm sorry, they said it was 'revisionist and self serving fiction'. But we all knew that was her modus operandi all along.

www.politico.com

On a day to day basis, story to story, you have absolutely no clue how many people are working on it. For all you know they had 50 people on it. 11 could be a really low number for AP.

#14 | Posted by KnightHawk at 2009-11-16 05:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry, chum, but I worked in the media for many years, both newspaper and radio.

11 people from one organization on a single story? That's the kind of horsepower you save for Nixon visiting China.

Also, these were not a bunch of interns, but some of their more seasoned reporters.

re Palin;

working class America sees themselves in people like Palin

the elite media, inside the beltway types, Doc & Corky . . DO NOT see themselves in Palin or working class America - -

they, in fact view "flyover" working America as ignorant masses - - - it's UNACCEPTABLE that someone from the masses could have the audacity to rise to mational prominence without the blessing of the elites

that's why they attack her with "talking points of the day" - -
I don't fault Doc & Corky, they've been programmed to abandon any critical thinking & do what they're told - - if they do it visiously & loudly they may even gain some favor with their superiors which they desparately seek


not to worry tho - -
when "WE THE PEOPLE" eventually get control of Gvt gone wild, there will STILL be programs for folks like Corky & Doc to help 'em with needs like food & shelter until they can be re-trained to be productive citizens

"WE THE PEOPLE"

Really inclusive definition of the word "We" you got there, Mark.

Not.


when "WE THE PEOPLE" eventually get control of Gvt gone wild,

#17 | Posted by markh

You will reach the same level of corruption in record time.

This lack of intellect is what keeps the teeming masses from ever moving even one step above the socio-economic level they were born into.

Besides someone has to dig the ditches and clean the sewers.

Besides someone has to dig the ditches and clean the sewers.
#19 | Posted by Lipzoidial

Those jobs are worth six figures, imo.

The fact that they aren't demonstrates how we take advantage of the desperate and add insult to injury.

We've heard 11 writers are engaged in this opposition research, er, "fact checking" research!"

~Scary Failin

Cos the AP are an arm of the Democratic party the same way FOX is an apparatus of the GOP?

Sarah FAILs again.

self serving fiction?

revisionism?

No duh.

That's wot Sarah does best.

Um, that was obviously a play on words. "hydropower to high fashion," get it?

A "play on words"?

Spud don't think those words mean wot you think they mean.

Sarah's self serving re-imagining of herself in this cheezy ghost written memoir is a transparent attempt to make herself look like a victim instead of wot she actually is.

Which is to say a semi-retarded, deeply ignorant, intolerant, backwards-assed Primadonna with a persecution complex.

/She's also a bigger attention whore than Babbler and that aint easy to accomplish.

Her acting surprised here that a known liar's book would be fact checked before being published and marketed is hilarious though.

TY fer the chuckles, Princess!

Keep 'em coming.

Unintentional comedy is often the funniest kind.

Be Well.

Poor put out and put upon Sarah Palin. I never realized that it was considered "oppositional research" for the press to fact check someone's statments. I thought it was, oh, I don't know, part of their job.

"Going Rogue": The 18 Biggest Falsehoods In Palin's Book"

www.huffingtonpost.com

We've heard 11 writers are engaged in this opposition research, er, "fact checking" research!"

Maybe they wouldn't need so many writers if Palin's nose didn't look like Pinocchio's.

#1 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-11-16 09:21 AM | Reply | Flag: Can I buy you a drink?

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-16 09:26 AM | Reply | Flag: Sure!

#3 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-11-16 09:30 AM | Reply | Flag: Want to dance?

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-16 09:35 AM | Reply | Flag: I've never wanted anything more.

#5 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-11-16 09:36 AM | Reply | Flag: Let's get out of here.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-16 09:42 AM | Reply | Flag: Your place or mine?

#25 | Posted by JOE at 2009-11-17 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag: Had a friend once, but now his zipper is stuck


Joe must really have a hard on for Sarah P, considering the offense he takes at people making fun of her.

I guess airheads have to stick together, eh?

Who said I was offended? Pointing out your online love affair with our other resident Obamaphile is no indication of being offended.

Why don't you two just exchange phone numbers?
#7 | Posted by rightisright | Flag: Likes To Exchange Phone Number With Strangers

#25 | Posted by JOE | Flag: 555-M-Y-P-L-A-C-E

Who said I was offended?
#28 | Posted by JOE | Flag: Offended, Defensive, Just -- Oh, Well -- Out of Sorts

Joe, please confine your lies to the phonebank at LegalBoomerang.oom.
~Ma


I seem to recall seeing you defend your fellow airhead on various threads. Am I wrong about that?

I like to type the name "Palin" because most of the work can be done with one hand. Heh, heh, heh.
~Joe

Joe's Sarah Palin fantasy:

Joe: Can I buy you a drink?

Sarah: Sure!

Joe: Want to dance?

Sarah: I've never wanted anything more.

Joe: Let's get out of here.

Sarah: Your place or mine?

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-17 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-17 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

#29 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-11-17 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

#30 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-11-17 10:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

#31 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-11-17 10:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-17 10:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

#33 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-11-17 10:58 AM | Reply | Flag: Speaking of defensive

#34. I wouldn't vote for her, but I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed!

#34. I wouldn't vote for her, but I sure wouldn't kick her out of bed!

Goat, they say two heads are better than one. It's good to know you sometimes know when to use only one.

#35 So, I see I wasn't wrong about you defending her elsewhere.


Joe's Sarah Palin fantasy:


Joe: Can I buy you a drink?


Sarah: Sure!


Joe: Want to dance?


Sarah: I've never wanted anything more.


Joe: Let's get out of here.


Sarah: Your place or mine?

Joe: No, really! This has never happened before....

#35 | Posted by JOE | Flag: See, Ma? One Hand!

Joe: Hi, gorgeous, my name's Joe.
Sarah (putting skinning knife on bar): Huh?
Joe: Joe. But you can call me "Joe."
Sarah: Yeah, sure, whatever.
Joe: Can I buy you a drink?
Sarah: Like, for free?
Joe: Yeah, like for free.
Sarah: You betcha!
Joe: Can I borrow five bucks?

OH, GOSH! ObaDoc is on the Palin thread! Who woulda ever guessed it!
The poor fool is completely eaten up with this obsession. Look out! I see shades of John Hinckley developing...

Ooooooh! Jest taking exception to a Palin thread? What, AGAIN? Douse him with some more "Obsession."

Yeah and they cite petty "facts"...lol


And I got my copy of Going Rogue!

Early Christmas from the hubby...

mmm mmm mmm good!

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2010 World Readable