Sarah Palin blasted the Associated Press yesterday for doing "opposition research," more commonly known as fact-checking, on her new book Going Rogue.
"Amazingly, but not surprisingly, the AP somehow nabbed a copy of the book before it was released," she said. "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."
She wrote this on her Facebook page, which doesn't help her cause, but she is onto something. Going Rogue is embargoed, meaning her publisher will not release advance copies to the press before its on-sale date (tomorrow), and the press, even if it were to happen upon a copy early, is not to review it.
So what did the "opposition researchers" find? Find out after the jump.
Pretty much everything we've already heard: she was not as frugal a traveler as she claims to be; she did not run for governor on small donations; and that she was actually for the government bailouts during the campaign.
Palin claims 11 journalists were on the job, which I was only able to verify on her Facebook page. But even if the number's not right, we can't deny the usually objective-to-the-point-of-insipid Associate Press got a little political by putting so much time into a book by a woman no longer in public office. So the ex-governor has some points, but does that change the facts — or lack thereof?









Monsoon
Cry me a river, Sarah Palin. You know, there's no difference between you and Carrie Prejean - so unfairly victimized, and such an unknowing diva. How dare those reporters fact check your book and hold you up to obloquy!
A Republican claiming that the press is treating them unfairly is so predictable that it contains no information.
1By the way, if Sarah Palin had actually paid attention in her journalism classes like I did - she'd know something about the history of the press attacking public figures in the country. She might have heard of something called the Alien and Sedition Acts. The things they were writing about Adams were a million times worse than fact-checking something he'd written - I'd describe it as pornographic vitriol, slurs about his patriotism, his hygiene and even the size of his genitals.
Yet, even though what they wrote was much worse, these acts were still declared unconstitutional. Criticizing public figures is incredibly protected speech, and it doesn't matter if she likes it. If you don't like being criticized, Sarah, why on earth are you a public figure?
2Oh puleeze. This would be the AP that fact-checked an SNL skit for mocking President Obama? Anyone over there ever get around to factchecking "Dreams of my Father"? The article starts out its Palin fact-check with the "claim" made by Palin that she did not OFTEN go for high end hotels with the "fact" from the AP that "usually opted for less-pricey hotels" - and then dug up one exception. It goes on from there - there are a few misrepresentations - I imagine there are in Obama's books too - but they pad their list with things like Palin's book "Says Obama has admitted that the climate change policy he seeks will cause people's electricity bills to 'skyrocket.'" And then the fact check: "She correctly quotes a comment attributed to Obama in January 2008..." but he's since changed his mind. So she's a liar. Yeah.
The real question in my mind is why all the vitriol against Palin. If she's as stupid and incompetent as all the so-called feminists on the left like to claim - the ones who have hurled absolute garbage at a fellow woman - then why is she a threat? Why not ignore her? The left is keeping her in the spotlight at this point.
BTW, I suspect the claim about the eleven reporters comes from the fact the long list of names listed as "contributing" to the AP report. I'm honestly shocked they didn't come up with anything better than they did - it's a pretty weak attack.
3The vitriol against Palin is because she's an ignorant horror show - just FYI. David Brooks said it excellently this weekend that it's hard to consider her above to post of talk show host.
Also, since when does being a feminist mean I have to support anyone running with a vagina? I can think of legions of women I know who I would not want running for office. So could you. I feel you're giving a straw man argument against feminism.
4How exactly is AP "erroneously reporting on the book's contents"? They are reporting the facts!!! Ugh, Sarah Palin is such a blatant liar.
Hearing about Sarah Palin makes me literally want to break things. She is the most infuriatingly glorified public figure EVER. Mermei, I think this is one reason why many people cannot just ignore her: she may be nothing but a trumped-up, lying, money-stealing beauty queen, but people actually follow and support her in some pretty alarming numbers. If we all don't speak out against her now, we might wake up one day to find her running for president (a thought that makes me want to vomit).
Also, I agree with everything Spacekatgal said. Spacekatgal, you are my hero!
5The idea that she's an "ignorant horror show" does not remotely excuse comments like Wendy Doniger's that she is "not a woman" or Cintra Wilson's that she is a "Republican blow up doll." It does not excuse calling her "Caribou Barbie" or making repeated references to the conspiracy theory that Trig was Bristol's son, or the repeated accusations from the left that by seeking high office she was abandoning her duties to care for her special needs child. It does not excuse the obsession with her hair, clothes, makeup, or the fact that she once participated in a beauty pageant. (So what? Obama once smoked pot. Neither is something I'd do, but people do what they want to do when they're young.) It does not excuse flatly making up things she never said or did or using Tina Fey's impression of her as an accurate, documentary-like demonstration of who she is or what she has said.
To be honest, I'm a little annoyed to be in the position of defending Sarah Palin, because I don't think she's a serious candidate on the national level. She had more executive experience than Obama as of last year, but she was a train wreck on some pretty softball questions from Katie Couric. I can't imagine she wouldn't be annihilated in a national campaign in which she was the headliner.
But for pete's sake, take her on on the issues. Say you disagree with her stance - her real positions, not the rumored positions you're pretty sure she must have because she's "a nightmare" or a "horror show." Stop calling her a beauty queen - like that is remotely relevant to her current political positions - and treat her like a person you disagree with. You know, act like a real feminist.
6BTW, I don't remotely think that being a feminist means you have to support anyone with a vagina. I do think that being a feminist means that you shouldn't implicitly or explicitly support sexism against female candidates who disagree with you.
7Honestly, I am not a Palin fan and I am right there with you Mermei on comment #6...it kinda chaps my hide to defend her....but I won't stand by and let cr@p fly at innocent bystanders.
Is she an innocent bystander? I don't think I'd go that far but then we have full disclosure on everything SHE has ever written both in and out of college
.....which is something that cannot be said about Obama.
There is nothing transparent there---it is all carefully hidden. Smoke and mirrors...ghost writers. Money for nothing and the chicks are free...(sorry thinking about how Obama must be when he is high)
Whups........I am having a Dorothy flashback.........
"Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain! I am the great and powerful OZ"
Whoa.....back to Obama singing "I an't worried about nothing...I want my...I want my....I want my media spree!"
Sorry. That was pretty cheeky of me.
8Mermei,
I think it's fruitless to get into a back and forth about who has said what about whom. The Tea Party attacks on Obama have been horrible, and the birther conspiracy is just incredibly dumb - but that's politics. If she doesn't like criticism, she can quit.
Besides, Caribou Barbie is both funny and an accurate description. I love Stephanie Miller, who coined the term!
I don't agree that feminism requires me to support someone that has received sexist attacks. The right has been attacking Hillary Clinton since 1992 with sexist charges, and I still don't support her.
When it comes to my feminist principles? I care a lot more about stopping the party that wants to deny me health care, wants to not educate my family, that wants to pass Taliban-like laws that control my body, and wants to perpetuate the white, male, Christian power structure.
9Spacekat- Yes!! beautifully written, communicated, etc. Your comments are dead on.
10"Tina Fey's impression of her as an accurate, documentary-like demonstration of who she is or what she has said"
Since when is SNL a documentary-like show?
Also, I will not support any politician, male or female, that doesn't support abortion, sex ed. (not just abstinence only), public health care, and prioritizing education, who lies about her own actions repeatedly (and doesn't have the character to admit it and apologize), and starts rumors about things like "death panels".
All politicians get called names and made fun of. I am sure as heck not going to support a bad one just because she is a girl that got called a barbie.
11Oh and my "beauty queen" comment was me being saucy and using hyperbole. I do in fact realize that she is also a mother, wife, governor, etc. and not just a pagent girl.
12Wow. I'm just surprised at Palin's 'power'/'charisma'/'something' to incite strong emotions.
I didn't even know that she would be running as president in the future.
13I haven't heard anything to say she is.
To imagine/analyze the 'signals' that she might be running for president in the future sounds like it's kind of like an obsession of Palin. Jmo.
Sarah Palin has hardly suffered the worst of the attacks during the campaign or of any politician. We STILL have Republicans claiming that Obama was not born in the United States, didn't graduate from Harvard Law, etc. We have Republicans refering to zoo gorillas as relatives of Michelle Obama. We have pictures of Air Force One covered in watermelon, kool aid, fried chicken. The blatant racism President Obama and his family has faced has been horrendous, and in my opinion, far worse than making fun of someone for being a beauty queen, or having a funny accent and hokey expressions.
Sarah has NO BUSINESS criticizing the AP for "making up facts" when she singlehandedly coined the term "death panels" which is a blatant lie about the proposed health care reform. People are still concerned about her because there are still people who support her and would love to see her run in 2012. She is still making speeches and spreading falsehoods. Legitimate or not, she is a person of influence to some people, and if she is spreading idiotic lies that are going to instill fear in people and prevent legislation from moving forward on important issues, then she is causing problems and needs to be stopped. Sarah needs to do some fact checking of her own before she opens her mouth. I do agree that people need to stop commenting on her day to day actions, and ONLY bother to acknowledge her when she creates a legitamte issue, a la the death panel fiasco.
14Look, we're all basically in agreement here:
Palin is not, nor has she ever been, a serious political candidate. Her knowledge of basic political issues is laughable (death panels, "I read all of the newspapers") and she KNOWINGLY continues to invite scrutiny by intentionally remaining in the media spotlight.
I think everyone can agree on that, no?
The point I'm seeing, though, is that Palin (and also recently Carrie Prejean) feels that all non-Fox media is biased AGAINST her. If it ain't Fox, it's "liberal" and thus inherently biased. I'm interpreting here, but I think her crusade against the AP is her attempt to "prove" that the most unbiased journalism out there is, in fact, a liberal spin machine intent on taking Palin down.
I think any rational human being can see that NEITHER side of news media is totally unbiased. However, simple FACT-CHECKING by a group of journalists is not, nor can it be, biased.
If someone uncovers something negative/inconsistent about you, tough sh*t. That's life. If you're in the public eye, it'll happen A LOT. Again, tough sh*t. That's life. I'm not going to turn my head aside and pretend not to see the inconsistencies of the Obama administration just because I voted for him and he's in my preferred political party--I'll call out ANY politician who doublespeaks. And I expect journalists to do the same. If Palin wants someone to hold her hand and write down warm and fuzzy things about her without looking at the bigger picture, she can ask her kids to put crayon to paper and hang it on her fridge. As for the rest of us, we'll call it as we see it.
And if it talks like an idiot, and lies idiotically, and b*tches incessantly about "unfair media bias" because we all won't kiss her ass 24/7...............
I'll call it Sarah Palin.
15She gave excellent interviews in the last week in which her warmth and faith shines through. I admire both greatly, especially in a worls which seems to have lost both. I was anxious to read the book and found it equally candid and forward, a fresh change from the clever subterfuges of politics as usual. Unlike one commentator, I saw no evidence of whining, but mere explanation, even at her errors. If that's lying, I'll take a double dose, please. I am definitely a fan.
16Now I want to hear her political views this week on the real talk shows. The results will determine whether she is able to become politically viable again. I hope she does very very well as this is the type of woman by whom I would love to be represented.
number 16 sounds like a cruel, sarcastic joke. God, I hope it's a joke.
17I agree with post #6. Calling names is never appropriate. Disagree with someone that's fine, but to lower yourself to calling names or making jokes about a person is just uncalled for. And that goes for both sides of the political fence. It needs to stop somewhere and I think here is a good place. We are a group of intelligent, well spoken individuals. Who cares what the media is reporting about who says what about a person? What matters is what we're saying. Just because a republican gets upset that a democrat is calling someone in their political party names, doesn't mean they should call someone in the dems party names. And visa versa. If the media wants to spew that vitriol let them, but let us be better than that.
18#16--let me break it down for ya, honey:
Whine:(n.) A feeble, peevish complaint.
Example: Sarah Palin WHINED that the liberal media is out to get her.
Feeble? Yes. Peevish? Hellz yes. Does she fit the bill? YES.
"Wah, wah, wah, I present my story and many people disagree with me and my viewpoints! Instead of seeing that for what it is (the plain and simple truth that there are ALWAYS going to be a lot of people who disagree with ANYTHING ANYONE does) I'm going to play the victim and say that I've been attacked by those who disagree with me. Sure, I've misled people about death panels recently but seriously, I DON'T deserve to be called out on it! Cut me some slack but simultaneously give me a political platform and adore me/my uber-conservative values!"--Sarah Palin
Ugh. I'm dry heaving just writing that.
19re: 11
Since when is SNL a documentary-like show?
I don't know, ask CNN. They fact-checked an SNL skit.
20Eleuthera- or maybe you would like to be represented by the type of woman that would pose for a public photo in a thong with no bra, in the prone position!? (the woman on your profile pic)
21lol @ ladydawg08!!!!
22Ya know, I don't like Obama but never once have I made any comments (or even thoughts really) about his race. I think that's abominable as well as juvenile. I really think we should stick to issues in regards to politicians, and not regress to the point of name-calling, etc.
23eleu, love your avatar. Who wouldn't want a gorgeous body like that!
24"I don't agree that feminism requires me to support someone that has received sexist attacks. The right has been attacking Hillary Clinton since 1992 with sexist charges, and I still don't support her."
Again, I'm not suggesting that feminism requires you to support women who have received sexist attacks. I'm suggesting that at the very least, feminists should not support *sexism*. HUGE difference. If you decide you're okay with sexist attacks against politicians you don't like, then you're opening the way for similarly unfair attacks against the ones you do. I just don't understand why sexism is not only okay when directed at Palin, but actually coming from people who claim to be feminists.
Jocupcake, my full sentence was, "It does not excuse flatly making up things she never said or did or using Tina Fey's impression of her as an accurate, documentary-like demonstration of who she is or what she has said."
In other words, SNL is not a documentary, so stop treating it like one. That's a shout-out to all the people who still think Palin said things like "I can see Russia from my house," which was actually only ever said by Tina Fey. There's so much fiction floating around Palin, I wouldn't be surprised if have the things people here hate about her weren't actually true. Again, not saying you have to support her, but at least argue with the facts.
25I think it's unfortunate Sarah Palin truly believes she is capable of holding such high office as Vice President, and God forbid President in 2012. I watched her on Oprah and all she did was make up excuses for how she acted during the election race, blaming McCain advisors for what she said during interviews. How she thinks she will be President with that attitude I really don't think I'll ever understand. It's called responsibility and holding public office requires a lot of it. Now that her book is out hopefully she will go back to Alaska and keep her mouth shut.
26it is entertaining that the mere mention of her name seems to create such anxiety. Observing our current VP, I scratch my head and wonder "how" - Palin can certainly hold her own when placed beside that silly man.
27Mermei- we all know that snl is pure satire- but there were elements of truth to what tina fey said, and the point that tina fey's skit conveyed was an accurate portrayal of the problem that dems and intellectual conservatives/republicans had with sara palin.
Charles Gibson actually posed the question in response to comments made in previous weeks by the palin camp that Alaska was in close proximity to russia and this proximity was somehow a boost to her foreign policy credentials.
Charles Gibson: "What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?"
PALIN: "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."
Instead of responding to the question posed by Gibson, regarding her insight into our shaky relationship with russia and how to deal with their aggressive behavior in Eastern Europe- she responded by saying that russia was alaska's neighbor and she could see russia from alaska.
28Yes Mermei, I realize that you are saying that people shouldn't treat SNL as a documentary. My point was that anyone who thinks that SNL is "documentary-like" is a little whacked. I personally don't know a single person who has gotten Tina Fey and the real Sarah Palin confused. Re-quoting your full sentence doesn't change the point I was making.
To everyone who doesn't understand why people (including me) take such a dislike to Palin, I will try to explain again: I disagree with her platforms, but the real problem for me is that she lies, quite blatantly, yet manages to convince her supporters that she is telling the truth by distracting them with other issues or complaints about her opposition.
For instance I first commented on this post because I thought it was absurd of Sarah Palin to complain about fact-checking. Think about this, if you wrote a book why would you care if every media outlet wanted to fact-check the crap out of it? Obviously, if you are telling the truth, fact-checking should not pose a threat to you. Palin then goes on to say that the AP is erroneously reporting on her book. So apparently AP has made up their facts. That is a pretty serious claim, and seeing as how there clear proof for the APs statements, I would have to conclude that Palin is lying about lying in the first place.
Of course, lying about how much money she spent on clothing is not a huge deal. I'm more concerned about her ability to manufacture a "truth" that has no basis in reality, and then sell it to the country.
So yeah, I think Sarah Palin is a huge problem not just because of the things she says or does, but because a portion of the population is willing to blindly follow her without doing any independent thinking or fact-checking of their own. It is very upsetting to realize how easily fellow Americans can be taken in. But what bothers me most of all, and what makes me most willing to speak out against her is that many of her fervent supporters would be the ones most hurt by her economic, educational, and health care policies. I normally keep to myself when it comes to politics, but I really don't want to just sit by and watch while I feel like people are being misled and used.
29Targeting Sarah Palin in my opinion, is nothing more than the left's lame attempt to divert attention away from the miserable state of affairs we currently face- such as a bogus trillion dollar so called stimulus package and frightening national health care plan & the disgusting decision to bring terrorists to NYC for a civil trial (just for starters).
It's high time to get back on the real troubles that haunt this nation- Obama's Socialist, terror loving agenda and stop worrying about an ex Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin.
30It is clear nothing will keep the naysayers from focusing on her admitted mistakes (and she did make a few) but we will have to disagree on whether she explained or whined. Ellis Hennican thinks she wined.. but then he complains about all conservatives. From what he said I doubt he even read the book.
31On Oprah, and I differ here respectfully, I felt she explained her points rather well, came across as warm and forthright, without any guile. i suspect this is something which has long been lacking in politics. Holding the governorship of Alaska and doing a better than decent job seems to qualify her in my book.. far more than being a junior senator and a social organizer.
I suspect the real dislike of her has to do with her position on God and abortion rights. Of course if one takes the Lord out of the picture where he was somewhat secure even in America until about 25 years ago, then everything is fair game... even personal derision when argument fails.
What I don't understand is why people feel the need to protect her from criticism and fact checking. The AP is there to fact check and call politicians out on it.
How about bringing up how she behaved while campaigning. She incited a racist mob mentality about Obama - hinting at his citizenship. At a campaign in Florida, she said that "Obama palled around with terrorists" and that she is "so fearful that this is not a man who see America the way you and I see America". When the crowd started to chant "kill him", she smiles and says nothing.
32She's not the innocent little politician she would have her followers believe. She's a very cold, calculating woman who will pull stunt and say anything to achieve what she wants.
33Does she have followers? appears to me she has sucessfully ticked off the left just by being a smart woman who has risen in politics.
How about focusing on the mess at hand and let her have her opinions just like all of us. I am amused by those who are diverting their anger at her while the man they voted in as Prez is tearing up our nation and spending us into oblivion!
34lawdawg/jocupcake:
http://www.tressugar.com/5323923
People have fact and fiction mixed up when it comes to Palin. It's worth thinking about why. But my larger point is still that you don't have to support her - I don't - but at least don't support sexist attacks against her. I happen to think the "factchecking" research was politically motivated and their results were ultimately quite weak - "she said 'often' and we found it was actually 'mostly'"! What she's doing well is speaking over the tops of the media and government establishment's heads and going straight to the people, I but I still do not believe she is enough of a threat to be as reviled as she is.
35Elllla- i agree with you about trying KSM in the civilian fed. court in ny, because of the obvious problems with fed. rules of evidence, civ. pro, crim. pro, and millions that will have to be spent on security. But saying she ticked off the left is not accurate. Further, most republicans see her as a joke, as do i.
36lawdaw, I see her as an former governor who ran as VP candidate who was and still is hounded & considered a joke by many.
While other conservatives may want to back her as a future candidate, I tend to agree with you~not that I see her as a joke but she probably will never be regarded with the respect one would need to be considered for VP or Pres (altho look at what we have in the White House now!)
37Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.