About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Rogue Facts: Media Matters' ongoing list of falsehoods in Palin's memoir

November 15, 2009 5:14 pm ET — 168 Comments

Media Matters for America has documented numerous falsehoods in Sarah Palin's memoir, Going Rogue: An American Life. Below is a list of what we've found so far.

1. Palin falsely suggests poor will be "hit hardest" by cap and trade

Palin: Obama "admitted" cap and trade will cause "electricity bills to 'skyrocket' " and "those hit hardest will be those who are already struggling to make ends meet." Palin falsely suggests that "those hit hardest [by cap and trade] will be those who are already struggling to make ends meet" and that Obama "has already admitted that the policy he seeks will cause our electricity bills to 'skyrocket.' " She added: "So much for the campaign promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. This is a tax on everyone." [Going Rogue, Pages 390-391]

CBO says poorest quintile will benefit from Waxman-Markey. The Congressional Budget Office found that in 2020, the version of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill that passed the House in June with the support of the Obama administration would result in a $125 average annual benefit to the quintile of households with the lowest income and a $160 average annual cost to all American households.

Obama was talking about a different plan causing energy costs to "skyrocket." As the Associated Press noted in fact-checking Palin's book, Obama was not talking about the cap-and-trade legislation that has since passed in the House when he referred to energy costs "necessarily skyrocket[ting]." When Obama made that statement to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board in January 2008, he was describing a cap-and-trade proposal that would auction off 100 percent of available carbon allowances, and he made no mention at the time of a plan to compensate consumers for potential cost increases. But as PolitiFact.com noted, the Waxman-Markey bill initially would distribute most of the carbon allocations for free and contains substantial provisions to offset costs to consumers, and thus "should reduce costs to consumers."

2. Palin still falsely claiming stimulus money for energy efficiency she vetoed required tougher building codes

Palin: "One-size-fits-all codes" required to get funds "simply wouldn't work." Palin claims that she vetoed a $25 million "earmark for energy conservation" available through the stimulus because Alaska would have needed to adopt "universal energy building codes" to be eligible for the funds. She comments: "Universal building codes -- in Alaska! A practical, libertarian haven full of independent Americans who did not desire 'help' from government busybodies. A state full of hardy pioneers who did not like taking orders from the feds telling us to change our laws. A state so geographically diverse that one-size-fits-all codes simply wouldn't work." [Going Rogue, Pages 361-362]

PolitiFact: Palin's claim that funds were "tied to universal energy building codes" is "false." After Palin made similar comments on Fox News' Hannity, PolitiFact said she was "wrong" because "municipalities are not forced to accept the specific standards and, given that local governments set their own codes, the feds would be satisfied if Alaska merely promoted such building codes [emphasis in original]." PolitiFact also reported that in a letter to Palin's chief of staff, a Department of Energy official "wrote that the provision 'provides flexibility with regard to building codes' and 'expressly includes standards other than those cited so long as the standards achieve equivalent energy savings.' "

3. Palin continues distortion of NY Times article to defend "palling around with terrorists" claim

Palin claimed her "palling around" comment followed report on "friendship" between Obama and Ayers. Palin claims: "In relation to the breaking news about the friendship between the unrepentant domestic terrorist [Bill Ayers] and the Democrat candidate for president of the United States, headquarters issued an approved sound bite about Obama 'palling around with terrorists,' and I was happy to be the one to deliver it. As more information was made public concerning Obama's associations and the fact that he had kicked off his political career in Ayers's living room, the sound bite was written into a rally speech." [Going Rogue, Pages 306-307]

NY Times article Palin cited reported that Obama and Ayers "do not appear to have been close." In the October 2008 speech to which Palin is presumably referring, she cited that day's New York Times article in claiming that Obama is "palling around with terrorists." But, in fact, the Times reported that "the two men do not appear to have been close." From the October 3, 2008, New York Times: "A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' "

CNN Fact Check: Palin statement "false." In an October 5, 2008, Fact Check, CNN's Political Ticker blog found Palin's statement "false," writing: "There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now 'palling around,' or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are."

4. Palin stands by falsehood that Obama opposed "protect[ing] babies born alive after botched abortions"

Palin: Obama "opposed laws that would protect babies born alive after botched abortions." Palin writes that during her September 2008 interviews with CBS' Katie Couric, she asserted that the "real extremism" on abortion comes from people "like Barack Obama, who opposed laws that would protect babies born alive after botched abortions" -- joining other conservatives in misleadingly referencing Obama's opposition to legislation that would have amended the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. [Going Rogue, Page 278]

As Obama and other opponents noted, criminal code already prevented killing of children. Opponents of the bill noted that the legislation was unnecessary, as the Illinois criminal code unequivocally prohibits killing children, and said that the bill posed a threat to abortion rights. When tasked by the Illinois attorney general's office with investigating allegations that fetuses born alive at an Illinois hospital were abandoned without treatment -- the alleged incident that inspired the "Born Alive Act" -- the Illinois Department of Public Health reportedly said that it was unable to substantiate the allegations but said that if the allegations had proved true, the conduct alleged would have been a violation of existing Illinois law. The Obama presidential campaign subsequently cited specific provisions of the Illinois Compiled Statutes in stating that the "born alive principle was already the law in Illinois." Time magazine and The Washington Post's "fact checker" have previously debunked similar claims previously advanced by Palin.

5. Palin falsely suggests she did not support aerial hunting

Palin: Radio host "suggested we get together and hunt from helicopters, which Alaska hunters don't do." Palin falsely suggests that Alaskans do not engage in the aerial hunting of wolves, writing of her phone call with a radio host impersonating French President Nicolas Sarkozy: "Then Sarkozy started talking about hunting and suggested we get together and hunt from helicopters, which Alaska hunters don't do (despite circulated Photoshopped images of me drawing a bead on a wolf from the air)." [Going Rogue, Page 327]

Aerial hunting of wolves takes place in Alaska under program supported by Palin. Under Alaska law, "the Board of Game may authorize a predator control program as part of a game management plan that involves airborne or same day airborne shooting." In 2007, Palin introduced a bill to "simplify and clarify Alaska's intensive management law for big game and the state's 'same day airborne hunting' law," which she stated would "give the Board of Game and state wildlife managers the tools they need to actively manage important game herds and help thousands of Alaskan families put food on their tables."

6. Palin falsely suggested media did not criticize Dems over fashion

Palin: "[M]any wondered at the same time why no other candidates or their spouses were being asked a thing about their hair, makeup, or clothes." Palin noted reports that the Republican National Committee spent $150,000 "to clothe and accessorize" Palin and her family and asserted that "many wondered at the same time why no other candidates or their spouses were being asked a thing about their hair, makeup, or clothes." [Going Rogue, Pages 314-315]

Edwards, Obama, Clinton, and Biden were subjected to frequent scrutiny "about their hair, makeup, or clothes." During the Democratic primary, the media devoted significant attention to John Edwards' "expensive" haircuts -- which were brought up by moderators in two Democratic presidential debates in 2007 -- to Obama's clothing, including during the April 16, 2008, presidential debate and in a Washington Post article stating: "One of the most distinctive elements of Barack Obama's public style comes down to what he so often is not wearing: patriotism on his sleeve"; to then-Sen. Hillary Clinton's clothing, including linking Clinton's "bright colors" to "likability problem" and calling attention to her neckline; and to questions over whether Biden had "taken steps to pre-empt baldness."

7. Palin attacks "Democrat lawmaker" who's actually a Republican

Palin: "Democrat lawmaker ... complained that I wasn't as 'sparky.' " Palin mocks the "political buckshot" her "critics fired" at her, writing: "[L]ocally, the opposition would criticize me for focusing on national issues -- as if I suddenly needed to become parochial and think of Alaska's issues as irrelevant to the nation. In Juneau, one Democrat lawmaker complained that I wasn't as 'sparky' as before and that Piper and I no longer brought around bagels like we used to." [Going Rogue, Page 344]

"Democrat lawmaker" actually a Republican. Palin appeared to be referring to a January 31 AP article that quoted Alaska state Sen. Bert Stedman -- a Republican -- describing Palin as "[n]ot so sparky." The article also reported that a separate Alaska lawmaker, a Democrat, mentioned that Palin, before the 2008 election, "walked around the building with (her daughter) Piper handing out bagels. I think those days are gone."

8. Palin absurdly claims McCain campaign "did not elaborate" on Obama's purported "relationship with ACORN"

Palin: During campaign, "we did not elaborate" on "Obama's close relationship with ACORN, the voter-fraud specialists." Palin writes: "I wish we had talked more ... about Obama's close relationship with ACORN, the voter-fraud specialists. But we did not elaborate on any of that during the campaign." [Going Rogue, page 360]

In fact, McCain, Palin, and rest of campaign advanced ridiculous ACORN/Obama conspiracy theories. For example, during the October 15, 2008, presidential debate, McCain repeatedly raised "Obama's relationship with ACORN." At an October 17, 2008, rally, Palin accused Obama of "fuzzying up his connections to ACORN." And during an October 17, 2008, conference on "Senator Barack Obama's association with ACORN," McCain-Palin campaign manager Rick Davis discussed Obama's purported "relationship with ACORN" while asserting that a "cloud of suspicion" seemed to be hanging "over this election."

9. Palin promotes discredited notion that gov't "force[d] financial institutions" into risky lending that "triggered" the "collapse of our financial markets"

Palin: "[D]esire to increase home ownership among people who could not yet afford to own a home" to blame. Palin writes, "The mortgage crisis that triggered the collapse of our financial markets was rooted in a well-meaning but wrongheaded desire to increase home ownership among people who could not yet afford to own a home." She further writes, "Government cannot force financial institutions to give loans to people who can't afford to pay them back and then expect that somehow things will all magically work out. Sooner or later, reality catches up with us" [Going Rogue, Page 388]. Palin's claim echo conservatives' tireless efforts to blame the financial crisis on affordable housing initiatives, largely centered on the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act.

Experts say CRA did not contribute to financial crisis "in any substantive way." Palin's claim runs counter to the belief of housing finance experts, including Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, who in a 2008 letter stated, "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."

10. Palin offers straw men to criticize Democratic proposals' effects on small businesses

Palin: Don't open a business while the "Democrat-led Congress" is dictating to you. Palin writes that she warned her daughter Bristol not to open her own small business because the "Democrat-led Congress" would purportedly dictate "how you should invest your money, the color of your roof, your source of energy generation, and what kind of health insurance you must offer, and even the kind of cars you can have in your company fleet" [Going Rogue, Page 358].

Congress not considering any law "dictating ... the color of your roof." Regarding Palin's claim that the "Democrat-led Congress is dictating ... the color of your roof," at a climate change symposium in May, Energy Secretary Steven Chu noted that painting roofs white would have the effect of increasing their albedo and cutting greenhouse gas emissions. However, the relevant legislation to pass the House, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, does not require roofs be retrofitted in this manner, it simply provides financial incentives to do so.

Under health reform bills, small businesses are protected from the requirement to provide insurance coverage to employees. Contrary to Palin's claim that "the Democrat-led Congress is dictating ... what kind of health insurance you must offer," the bills passed by the House and by the Senate's Finance and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) committees include exemptions protecting small businesses from requirements that employers provide health insurance to their employees or pay a fine. In fact, under all three bills, eligible small business would receive tax credits for choosing to provide health insurance coverage to their employees.

The "Democrat-controlled Congress" has not considered laws dictating "the kind of cars you can have in your company fleet." Neither the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act nor the energy bill "dictat[es]" the "kind of cars you can have in your company fleet." The recovery act provides $300 million for the federal government to make "capital expenditures and necessary expenses of acquiring motor vehicles with higher fuel economy, including: hybrid vehicles; neighborhood electric vehicles; electric vehicles; and commercially-available, plug-in hybrid vehicles," and tax credits for "new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles." Likewise, the House energy bill provides "credits to fleets that repower or convert an existing vehicle so that it is capable of operating on an alternative fuel," but does not require such conversion. Additionally, President Obama has implemented new mileage and emissions regulations that will require cars to increase fuel efficiency.

11. Palin, without elaboration, calls Bridge to Nowhere a "lie"

Palin: Press should have corrected Bridge to Nowhere "lie." Palin writes that shortly after she was tapped as Sen. John McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential race, the media began reporting "one lie after another -- from rape kits to Bridges to Nowhere. All easy enough to disprove if the press had done its job." [Going Rogue, Page 237]

Palin: "Thanks but no thanks" on bridge. In her very first appearance as McCain's running mate on August 29, 2008, Palin gave a speech in which she said: "I signed major ethics reform. And I appointed both Democrats and independents to serve in my administration. And I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress -- I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere."

Palin's statement completely false. Media outlets reporting on Palin's speech noted that Palin, as a candidate for governor in 2006, reportedly expressed support on several occasions for the bridge project and suggested that Alaska's congressional delegation should continue to try to procure funding. Moreover, as governor, Palin was in no position to reject the bridge project -- Congress had already appropriated the money to Alaska and left it to the state government to decide whether to spend it on the bridge. Palin did not refuse the funds or reimburse the federal government; Alaska reportedly kept the federal funds.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Bad News (November 15, 2009 5:57 pm ET)
      6 4
      Sarah Palin sees America as a very Imperfect Place.
      Where only in the "HeartLand" do they Lower their Heads & say God's Grace.
      It would seem that Ms. Palin spends most of her time trying to save Face.
      Lies & Deception Sarah? What a Pitiful & Sad Waste.

      Speak truth to power.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
      • Author by myrmidon (November 16, 2009 9:02 pm ET)
        1 5
        America is an imperfect place. I challenge anyone to point out perfection in America.

        America has great promise but given that humanity is imperfect and capable of error, America being no different, it's simple acceptance of reality that Palin recognizes that.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Bad News (November 17, 2009 4:19 pm ET)
          1 2
          Myrmidon, If you want to see Perfection in America just keep reading my Posts?
          I'm just waiting on a call from The New York Times, until then i will be MMFA's Host.
          When you reply to one of my posts please remember to choose your words Carefully?
          If you think i'm kidding ask Bill O'Reilly, For he Trembles & Shakes at the mere mention of "The Poet's" name Respectfully.

          Speak truth to power.


          Mr. News
          Report Abuse
    • Author by oscar the grouch (November 15, 2009 6:13 pm ET)
      10 2
      Is MMFA using 11 fact checkers, also? ;>)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DAWUSS (November 15, 2009 6:31 pm ET)
        7  
        You betcha!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Lord of Light (November 15, 2009 8:30 pm ET)
        17 2
        According to Palin and the right wing, it's the number of fact checkers that's the issue -- not the facts themselves!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by erock33 (November 15, 2009 11:37 pm ET)
          3 13
          Is that kind of like the left that implements asanine policy that ends up hurting more than it helps but is only judged on the good intentions.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (November 16, 2009 10:46 pm ET)
            9 3
            Wow, a guy who makes accusations without a shred of evidence to back him up.

            Wow, and a guy who does so on a posting by MMFA that documents multiple falsehoods by Palin.

            Wow, and a guy who brings up policy decisions by the left as though that has anything to do with lies from Palin?

            Wow, and a guy who thinks that the left doesn't hold their own to account?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by erock33 (November 16, 2009 10:55 pm ET)
              1 11
              Ok Dolly (LOL cause its TO EASY)

              One example for you dear. Extending unemployment benefits or unemployment benefits at all for that matter. What better way to put people back to work than to pay them not to. Let me know if you need another example, I've got 50-100 years worth.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by peace4all (November 17, 2009 3:45 pm ET)
                9 1
                so helping people out when the "free market" has failed them is a bad thing? the reason the benefits were extended was because the job market has gotten tougher. and it's gotten that way because of corporate greed not because of government. it was your best and brightest corporate barons that got us where we are. too bad that we the people must now fix their mess.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by chazmanr (November 17, 2009 5:39 pm ET)
                8 1
                Yes, most of those people want to receive unemployment benefits rather than get jobs. The last time I had to use unemployment, it was about a fourth of what I was making at the job from which I was downsized.

                Why do conservatives think that unemployed people are unemployed by choice?

                The days of "welfare queens" have been over for about 15 years. You haven't been paying attention.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by justjoe628 (November 18, 2009 10:16 am ET)
                  4 11
                  If you honestly think that the days of the "welfare queen" are over, then you haven't been to the world. I've worked in the same impoverished neighborhood in NE Houston for long enough to see second and now third generations of people who live their whole lives on welfare. These are people who vote over and over for democrats who simply provide them with more entitlements, but no real way out of their situation.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by chazmanr (November 18, 2009 10:32 am ET)
                    3  
                    There is a huge difference between getting wealthy on welfare and surviving on welfare. And yes, generations continue to survive on welfare due to systemic situations that perpetuate the dependence. If you were to speak with some of those impoverished people in the area in which you work, I believe that you will find that most would rather work and make a reasonable living than survive on welfare. Certainly there are those that wouldn't, but I would argue that they represent a minority rather than majority.

                    Further, my post was in response to people wanting to stay on UNEMPLOYMENT which is a short term assistance program. People who are classified as "unemployed" definition were previously employed and obviously had no problem with working for a living at some point. It is unfair to compare the recipients traditional welfare programs to those of unemployment insurance. It is the kind of false equivalency I have come to expect from GOPers.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by chazmanr (November 18, 2009 10:35 am ET)
                    2  
                    PS-I have seen poverty in the world that you cannot even imagine. I'll see your NE Houston and raise you a half a dozen countries in Africa and Asia.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by wzwriter (November 18, 2009 10:43 am ET)
                    7 2
                    Your racism is showing.....
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by justjoe628 (November 18, 2009 12:35 pm ET)
                      2 7
                      I love the race baiting. Did I mention anyone's race. I used to work in SE Mongomery county, just north or Houston. Did ya know I saw the same thing there. Only it was white people. How does the reality of what is going on make me a racist? The fact is, democrats couldn't care less about blacks and hispanics well being. They only want their votes. And they secure those votes by buying them via entitlement programs. Minorities have been voting democrat for decades, yet have we seen their position in life get much better? No! And this entitlement program is no different. So quit the name calling and engage in a legitimate debate.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by wzwriter (November 18, 2009 1:18 pm ET)
                        4 2
                        Why should we engage in legitimate debate with a dittohead moron like you who only spews right-winf talking points and calls it "personal exlerience"?? Go get a life.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by justjoe628 (November 18, 2009 3:37 pm ET)
                          1 2
                          You have no idea who I am or what my personal experience is, but I'll tell you. I've been a paramedic and firefighter for 9 year in the Houston Fire Department. I've spent 7 of those nine years at one station in some of the roughest neighborhoods in Houston. Something you have NO clue about. You sit in front of your computer in your comfortable little suburban home, accusing me of spewing right-wing talking points, meanwhile all you can do is spout liberal rhetoric. You have absolutely no concept of what goes on in the real world.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by egb (November 18, 2009 3:47 pm ET)
                          2 4
                          Talk about people who won't listen to facts, this forum is the place to find them.

                          My wife has the same experiences as justjoe628 and she's been doing Social Services for 30 years. What Joe says is absolutely true. You can go to any inner city whose occupants depend on welfare and you can find second and third generation families that have no other experience than entitlements. The "Great Society" [look it up and read about it] from Lyndon Johnson is one of the most disastrous social programs ever invented and is the origin of those generations of people. Clinton stated to cure it by cutting off aid after a few years. Now, your hero, the great zero, has re-enabled lifetime welfare entitlements.

                          There are some people in this world that truly want to address the problems of the poor. Unfortunately, none of those people is in congress or even your local governments -- especially city governments which are almost exclusively Democratically run.
                          Report Abuse
                      • Author by tinka (November 18, 2009 4:26 pm ET)
                        2 1
                        justjoe628 wrote: democrats couldn't care less about blacks and hispanics well being. They only want their votes.

                        Funny, I would say that about Republicans and Conservatives. What has the Right done for the disadvantaged during this recession?

                        I don't see the Right setting up Free Clinics for all the people who have no insurance.
                        New Orleans One Day Free Clinic-November 14, 2009, LITTLE ROCK CLINIC-NOVEMBER 21, 2009- INFORMATION and Kansas City MO Free Clinic Wednesday December 9 and Thursday December 10, 2009.
                        http://www.todaysthv.com/news/health/story.aspx?storyid=94651&catid=126

                        The Arrogant Right does not care about anything but their selves.
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by wzwriter (November 18, 2009 10:42 am ET)
                7  
                One example for you dear. Extending unemployment benefits or unemployment benefits at all for that matter. What better way to put people back to work than to pay them not to. Let me know if you need another example, I've got 50-100 years worth.
                Would you prefer to have these people and their children starve to death? Hardly what I would call "compassionate conservatism"....
                Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (November 18, 2009 11:40 am ET)
                  3  
                  Would you prefer to have these people and their children starve to death?

                  Probably, he/she would. It's all about personal responsiblity, you know.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by princeofwheels (November 15, 2009 10:08 pm ET)
        7 1
        One would probably be enough.

        Or John Steweart will have his writers take carry of this. Can't wait.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by bmcgarvie (November 15, 2009 6:18 pm ET)
      5 1
      Thank goodness you are fact checking. Wait until tomorrow when Palin appears on the Oprah show. I guarantee there will be a love fest of lies for you to check.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by overmars jr. (November 15, 2009 7:20 pm ET)
      12  
      ... headquarters issued an approved sound bite about Obama 'palling around with terrorists,' and I was happy to be the one to deliver it.


      What a rogue maverick.

      Oops, I'm sorry. I meant full-on marketing concoction.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by MeanMrSpicyMustard (November 15, 2009 8:38 pm ET)
        8 1
        The very definition of "going rogue" is "using an approved sound byte from one's party handlers." I wonder if somebody also fed her "Gosh darn it, Joe, say it ain't so, Joe!"
        Report Abuse
    • Author by diamonds (November 15, 2009 7:46 pm ET)
      4 26
      1. Obama was talking about a different plan causing energy costs to "skyrocket."

      That makes skyrocketing energy costs acceptable somehow?!? The point is that Obama has no problem taxing people already struggling to meet ends meet. Whenever you restrict the availability of goods, like energy, prices need to up somewhere, meaning fewer goods can be produced, and wealth goes down or prices go up. Most of Europe already has similar cap and trade programs, and the costs there are no where near as rosy as the predictions here are.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (November 15, 2009 8:01 pm ET)
        18 1
        "Obama has no problem taxing people already struggling to meet ends meet."

        He must be having some sort of problem, because he hasn't done it yet.

        Let us know when Obama actually taxes poor people in real life. Or on second thought, don't. You've burned your chance and will now have to stay quiet and hope that somebody honest tells us.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Cheney2012 (November 15, 2009 9:12 pm ET)
          4 23
          Ahemm....That thing Joe Wilson said:

          http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/04/02/obamas-cigarette-tax-puts-the-lie-to-his-no-new-taxes-pledge.html

          "Under my plan," Obama said September 12, 2008 in Dover, N.H., "no family making less than $250,000.00 a year will see any form of tax increase." To emphasize the point he continued, "Not your income taxes, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

          He might have well said, "Read my lips." Like a bad April Fools' Day joke, the federal excise tax on cigarettes increased April 1, 2009 by 156 percent (or 61 cents per pack). And this is a tax that everyone who smokes will pay, despite the fact that, according to the taxpayers' lobby Americans for Tax Reform, one in four smokers live below the poverty line and 55 percent of smokers can be defined as "working poor," which means they make something less than $250,000.00 per year."
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Cheney2012 (November 15, 2009 9:16 pm ET)
            4 25
            Let me be clear....

            "not ANY of your tazes" are the exact words that crossed the Messiah's lips. He is now a proven LIAR.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (November 15, 2009 11:42 pm ET)
              15 2
              "not ANY of your taxes" is a cropped statement that he made that leaves out the context of the "taxes" he was talking about.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by SHSZack10 (November 16, 2009 9:38 am ET)
                2 11
                That is 100% incorrect. He shouldn't say "not ANY of your taxes" if he doesn't mean it. Any is all, not the ones we think are in context. So actually, yes, it was the taxes he was talking about.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by DellDolly (November 16, 2009 10:49 pm ET)
                  9 1
                  No, when you look at his comment "in context", he was talking about taxes on income.

                  He didn't say "not any of your taxes" - he said much more than that, and context matters.

                  See, unlike your side, we know that context matters. It's too bad that you don't.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by SHSZack10 (November 17, 2009 9:44 am ET)
                    1 4
                    No, when you look at his comment, he specifically mentioned income taxes, and then specifically said "NOT ANY OF YOUR TAXES." And if my side is somehow wrong for believing what the President says, then so is the country. We want to believe what he said. And yes he did exactly say "not ANY of your taxes" - in addition to other things.
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by jediknight65 (November 16, 2009 12:00 pm ET)
              7  
              i wouldn't be pulling out the "read my lips" line......remember how well that one worked
              Report Abuse
            • Author by wzwriter (November 18, 2009 10:48 am ET)
              4  
              And you're a proven idiot. During the campaign, Obama said that UNDER HIS PLAN, there would be no tax increase. The tax increase was enacted by Congress, and was NOT part of the Obama plan.

              Go back to Free RepubliKKK and talk to the other mental midgets.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by justjoe628 (November 18, 2009 3:50 pm ET)
                1 4
                Ever heard of a veto. The tax increases under Bush 41 weren't his idea either, but he paid a clear political price for them didn't he? Just like earmarks weren't part of Obama's agenda. But he sure didn't veto either bill when they came across his desk. Liberal like to hold republicans feet to the fire when campaign promises are broken, but make excuses when dems do the same. Funny how that works.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (November 15, 2009 9:42 pm ET)
            13 1
            And smoking is a choice, and one that also increases the health care costs for everyone in this country.

            Maybe, 1 in 4 smokers ought to quit? It will save them money, taxes, and increase their chances for being healthier.

            And again, smoking is a choice, it's not something you need to do.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Cheney2012 (November 15, 2009 9:51 pm ET)
              4 21
              Strawman from Mag in 3...2....1....

              I repeat:

              "Under my plan," Obama said September 12, 2008 in Dover, N.H., "no family making less than $250,000.00 a year will see any form of tax increase." To emphasize the point he continued, "Not your income taxes, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

              Barack Obama: LIAR!!!!!!!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (November 16, 2009 1:38 pm ET)
                6  
                Obama has long been on record supporting the cigarette tax increase. During the campaign, Obama often said he supported legislation to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. At the time, that legislation was in Congress, and even then it included higher cigarette taxes. By saying he supported the SCHIP legislation, Obama was supporting the increased cigarette taxes to pay for it.
                SCHIP was among the first pieces of legislation to come to Obama's desk, and he signed it Feb. 4, 2009. We rated it as a Promise Kept .

                Another part of our deliberation was that when Obama was on the campaign trail saying that "no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase," his examples were all federal income or payroll taxes. Cigarette taxes are a federal excise tax, which is a tax on goods. (Other federal excise taxes are levied on things like alcohol, gasoline and firearms.) These are not taxes that affect people based on income level, but rather based on whether they purchase certain goods. So while some families who make less than $250,000 a year will be affected by cigarette taxes, the taxes are based on their decision to buy cigarettes, not based on their income.

                Obama's promise on the campaign trail may have been a bit of rhetorical excess based on his income tax plan, which seeks to exempt lower incomes from tax increases. Obama has taken specific steps to change that tax code, such as creating capital gains taxes that only apply to higher incomes, that are aimed at protecting the middle class from new taxes. Also, the cigarette tax does not hit all families that make less than $250,000 a year, but only those who choose to smoke. Finally, Obama clearly stated during the campaign that he supported legislation that would raise the cigarette tax, and he never mentioned any form of excise tax when making the promise.

                Still, it's a tax increase. People who smoke will pay higher taxes under the measure that Obama signed. We added this promise to our database and rated it a Compromise.


                No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase...
                Report Abuse
              • Author by tinka (November 16, 2009 4:28 pm ET)
                9  
                I don't see where he said he wouldn't raise the tax on cigarettes!
                Please give me a link to Obama saying he wouldn't increase the tax on cigarettes.







                Water Board Cheney!
                Report Abuse
              • Author by wzwriter (November 18, 2009 10:50 am ET)
                3 1
                Cheney2012 - IDIOT!!!!!
                Report Abuse
            • Author by Cheney2012 (November 15, 2009 9:53 pm ET)
              5 25
              Nice try...

              "Not your income taxes, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

              Don't see any 'choice' mentioned here.

              I guess technically you could choose to not have electricity in your home and not to drive a car that runs on a gasoline so that would be choice too according to you.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by princeofwheels (November 15, 2009 10:06 pm ET)
                16  
                You are too funny. Childishly humorous but humorous.
                You make things up like a child. Raising the taxes on a selective item is not raising anyones taxes. You can chose NOT to pay it. Please explain your somewhat murky view of this OPTION stuff.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Cheney2012 (November 15, 2009 10:15 pm ET)
                  4 23
                  The child resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. As well as anywhere anyone believes excessive spending, taxation and price controls are good ideas.

                  I don't have to explain any kind of "option stuff" Magnolialover brought it up. Let him/her explain it.

                  These are Barack Obama's words:

                  "Under my plan," Obama said September 12, 2008 in Dover, N.H., "no family making less than $250,000.00 a year will see any form of tax increase." To emphasize the point he continued, "Not your income taxes, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

                  Nothing here about 'voluntary' taxes only being raised. Obama never gave himself an out on this. By the way, he must have made this statement hundreds of times during the campaign.

                  He is the LIAR. That's what Palin is saying and she is right. I realize that using a liberal's words against him is a capital offense these days, but those of us with common sense will continue to do it until you leftists are politically diminished beyond the point you can do harm to this country.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by The_Cat (November 15, 2009 11:19 pm ET)
                    18 2
                    My plan – all together – is a net tax cut. My plan will cut taxes to a smaller share of the economy than they were under President Reagan. Under my plan, income taxes for typical American families will be the lowest that they've been in more than a half century. Everyone in America – everyone – will pay lower taxes than they would under the rates Bill Clinton had in the 1990s. And under my plan, middle class families will get three times as much relief as Senator McCain is offering. In fact, his plan gives absolutely nothing to over 100 million American households.

                    And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase – not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. My opponent can't make that pledge, and here's why: for the first time in American history, he wants to tax your health benefits Apparently, Senator McCain doesn't think it's enough that your health premiums have doubled, he thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too. That's a $3.6 trillion tax increase on middle class families. That will eventually leave tens of millions of you paying higher taxes. That's his idea of change.
                    President Obama


                    You see, context becomes very important, Cheney2012. He was talking about the tax code of the United States. Will taxes on some things go up? Like gasoline, likely enough? Of course. Was that what he was talking about when he said, "...not any of your taxes." Obviously not, unless you are willing to discard the context of the remarks in an attempt to call our president a liar.

                    Palin is wrong. Almost every time she opens her mouth. You can defend her if you like, but it makes you look a bit foolish. Do Alaskans hunt wolves from helicopters? Yes, they do. Under a program she herself supported.

                    It's not the left that deregulated the financial markets. It's not the left that insisted Iraq had WMDs. It's not the left. It's your namesake, and, with any luck, he is on his way to prison for sullying the name of this land by torturing people.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by oscar the grouch (November 15, 2009 11:39 pm ET)
                      4 14
                      And how do we pay down the debt if taxes (as a % of the economy, as noted above) go down? Taxes went down (%-wise) under Reagan, debt went up. Like a good politican, President Obama is "pushing" the debt load to future generations, when he or they (current members of Congress) will not be around. Government keeps finding more ways of spending money (buying votes) and cutting taxes (buying more votes) than facing the problem. Pay down the debt, free up the monies currently spent on debt service to use in the country rather than going to places like China, etc. This is a problem with both parties and has been, except for few isolated instances since WWII.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mary59 (November 15, 2009 11:59 pm ET)
                        14 2
                        Taxes went down under Reagan? Are you counting the social security taxes in this?
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by The_Cat (November 16, 2009 1:45 am ET)
                        11  
                        Well, let's see. Getting out of Iraq will save us, what, $150 billion a year. So, with a $50 billion tax cut, that nets an increase of $100 billion a year. I'm sure there are other places where we could be spending less money. A big portion of our debt is $700 billion a year buying foreign oil. Since it started getting scarce in 1973, we really should've been on this problem sooner, don'tcha think? And, half of all our health insurance premiums go right down the drain, so that's, what? Another $500 billion or so annually. That's part of why a sustainable energy policy and health coverage reform are so critical, oscar the grouch. Because, in effect, they ARE the economy. They ARE the hope for small business and the middle class, which is where economic growth and job creation really comes from.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by RealTruthseeker (November 16, 2009 12:24 pm ET)
                        5  
                        Interesting point, Oscar. Ever since Mondale got lambasted at the polls for saying taxes would have to be raised to pay down debts, the truth has never been told.

                        However, the proof in the pudding is in governance. President Clinton used revenue from economic growth along with luxury taxes to help pay down debt in his time. President Bush tried to do the same. However, when the economic bubble burst, there was nothing left to support the house of cards on which the tax revenues were built. As long as the economy was growing, and tax revenues came in, no one was willing to step up and actually look at banking practices and the investments using our mortgage money to gamble with.

                        Meanwhile, we're left to see how much of our bailout money will be paid back (some of it is being paid back... some we will have to foot the bill) and what health care reform and its funding mechanisms will look like.

                        Meanwhile, we have to figure out a way to pay back debts incurred with a war in Iraq Bush/Cheney ran off-the-books. Kind of like the banks were doing with the derivatives.

                        Despite the campaign rhetoric, Democrats have done a hands-down much better job that Republicans in paying debts down. In fact, there are some GOP-ers such as Eric Cantor who don't care if debt is paid down, as long as they don't pay more taxes.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by rumpleteasermom (November 16, 2009 4:52 pm ET)
                        4 1
                        "And how do we pay down the debt if taxes (as a % of the economy, as noted above) go down?"

                        Gosh I wish people understood math and statistics.

                        Economy = 1000
                        Taxes = 100
                        Taxes as % of the economy = 10%

                        Economy = 3000
                        Taxes = 150
                        Taxes as percent of the economy = 5%

                        Get it? The trick is to improve the economy.

                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by snoopy (November 16, 2009 7:22 am ET)
                    11 2
                    Seems to me the child is on your keyboard. Really, palin must really be an ignorant moron if you have to go to such great lengths to deflect from the topic at hand to try and cover up her moronishness. But sadly, try as you might, any effort by you to twist a phrase in order to demean one of the best presidents this country has ever had still falls short of covering up the bullpen full of ignorant racist fascist morons that has become the republican base. Your efforts at destroying the department of education has certainly paid off in support, eh?
                    Report Abuse
                      • Author by wzwriter (November 18, 2009 10:55 am ET)
                        6  
                        No - YOU'RE the stupid one. Only a stupid idiot would use Dick Cheney's name as a user name on MMFA.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by uefa81glory (November 16, 2009 8:04 am ET)
                    6  
                    "Not any of YOUR taxes". Tax on tobacco does not have to be "your" tax. You can choose whether it is "your" tax or not.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by prtsimmons (November 16, 2009 4:02 pm ET)
                    6 1
                    Aside from your obvious inability to understand context, how could someone named 'Cheney2012' make a statement like, "...anyone believes excessive spending, taxation and price controls are good ideas [is a child]."

                    I'm sorry, but that really made me laugh. How would you describe Halliburton's Iraqi contracts except as excessive, controlled (no-bid) pricing? Incidentally, they were paid with taxpayer money, in case you were under the mistaken impression that military actions are paid for differently than, say, health care.

                    Oh wait - I bet Dick Cheney's personal code of ethics prevented him from giving any special treatment to Halliburton... oh god, now I made myself laugh. There's milk coming out my nose at the thought of 'Dick Cheney' and 'ethics' in the same sentence.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Cheney2012 (November 18, 2009 1:08 am ET)
                      1 4
                      When all else fails the leftist just shouts: "Halliburton!!"

                      If it makes you fell better, but Halliburton has nothing to do with economic or policy
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (November 16, 2009 6:48 am ET)
                9  
                Don't see any 'choice' mentioned here.
                If the discussion hinges on the income people make, as they do for the taxes mentioned, then the taxes he's talking about must logically be based on income. Taxes on cigarettes are not based on income, so your argument doesn't even make sense.

                By your logic, even something aimed at the wealthy (a $150,000 car for instance) couldn't have its taxes raised because someone who makes 225K a year might have saved up to buy one for some reason. That would also violate the pledge.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by Cheney2012 (November 15, 2009 10:22 pm ET)
              3 20
              Magnolialover wrote:

              "And smoking is a choice, and one that also increases the health care costs for everyone in this country."

              Actually since they die earlier they REDUCE the cost of healthcare, but no matter, lets assume your claim is true and ask:

              Will Obama's health care plan pay for lung cancer for smokers or will we just have them "take the painkiller" (BHO's words) and die quicker?

              And will there be a panel of experts to decide that? Can we call that a "Death Panel."

              DING: Another Palin 'falsehood' comes true!

              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9321534?ordinalpos=1&itool=PPMCLayout.PPMCAppController.PPMCArticlePage.PPMCPubmedRA&linkpos=2

              Report Abuse
              • Author by marco21 (November 16, 2009 1:47 am ET)
                14 2
                Only an idiot would consider end of life counseling a "death panel."

                It explains why you and Sarah believe it, but...
                Report Abuse
                • Author by SHSZack10 (November 16, 2009 9:47 am ET)
                  2 7
                  Not an idiot would consider is as such. When you are at the end of your life you are dying. People who come to counsel you through are on a panel that is selected. Therefore, it is a LOGICAL person that would consider it a "death panel."

                  It explains why 73.2% of American's believe it also. We the people, that is.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (November 16, 2009 10:57 pm ET)
                    5 2
                    It's not a death panel, because the advise is going to be how to make choices as to whether or not to fight to stay alive for as long as possible, to fight a little, or to stop fighting and allow natural disease processes to occur unimpeded.

                    EVERYONE is dying. Everyone dies. We're all dying.

                    Not everyone that gets this counselling will be "dying" in the immediate future, or even dying from the thing that is a medical concern at the moment.

                    And there isn't a "panel". That's a bold-faced lie. What's going to happen is counselling from a doctor, typically the family doctor or specialist that the patient relies upon most. There may be times when there are multiple doctors caring for a patient, and so they may get advice from multiple peiple, but it's still not a panel, nor will it ever be a death panel.

                    I swear, people who have no idea what they're talking about shouldn't come here and try to educate those of us who do.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by SHSZack10 (November 18, 2009 9:18 am ET)
                        1
                      If we advise people that the end is near for them and that they need to just let nature take its course, then why do we need doctors. Why don't we take death these death panels into the childrens ward in St. Jude's and advise these children on whether or not they should try to fight, or just "allow natural disease processes to occur unimpeded."

                      I swear. People who want nature to take it's course should go live in the wilderness with the rest of your hippy friends. Its the 21st century. Medicene has allowed for us to live longer. You should try your death panel in a military or children's hospital. I'm sure those people don't want to keep fighting. Right?

                      And I am fully aware that everyone is dying. From the moment you are born you're dying. I know. I don't need you to "come here and try to educate those of us who do."
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by open_mind (November 16, 2009 3:48 am ET)
                14 1
                Actually since they die earlier they REDUCE the cost of healthcare
                Dying earlier does not offset the expensive health complications from smoking. What any doctor will tell you is that non-smokers not only live longer, but their quality of life is much better and they spend less time and money for the healthcare system even over 10 more years of life on average.

                The talk about "death panels" is beneath discussion. When are conservatives going to give up on these little ideological fairy tales?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (November 16, 2009 1:46 pm ET)
                10 2
                And will there be a panel of experts to decide that? Can we call that a "Death Panel."
                DING: Another Palin 'falsehood' comes true!

                WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions. WHEREAS, in Alaska, Alaska Statute 13.52 provides the specifics of the advance directives law and offers a model form for patient use.

                NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the state of Alaska, do hereby proclaim April 16, 2008, as:
                Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.
                Healthcare Decisions Day...

                Report Abuse
              • Author by kfraz43 (November 16, 2009 3:03 pm ET)
                5 3
                Does it ever occur to you how hard you have to work to make things sound true? The real truth isn't that difficult.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (November 16, 2009 4:31 pm ET)
                  9 1
                  Does it ever occur to you how hard you have to work to make things sound true? The real truth isn't that difficult.

                  REAL TRUTH? You mean the manufactured, completely fabricated LIE Palin told about "death panels"?

                  The counseling would have offered patients an opportunity to make their wishes known, while they are healthy, NOT when the patient enters the hospital seriously ill. The patient would be in control of his/her health-care decisions, not some panel created in the minds of Palin.

                  YOU and Sarah "lipstick on a pig" Palin obviously slept through, was the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill which passed with the votes of 203 REPUBLICAN House members AND 42 REPUBLICAN Senators!

                  Guess what was in that bill? COUNSELING FOR END OF ISSUES AND CARE!!!!!!!

                  And the ONLY difference between the REPUBLICAN APPROVED counseling, was it was limited to terminal ill patients only and the one purposed in the health-care reform bill would expand funding so that people could VOLUNTARILY receive counseling BEFORE they became terminally ill!

                  This hypocritical, ignorant woman wants to run this country and YOU want to defend her hypocrisy and ignorance!

                  Does it ever occur to YOU how hard YOU work to IGNORE the truth?
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (November 15, 2009 11:41 pm ET)
            10 1
            Context is everything.

            How like rightwingers like you to take Obama's comments out of context.

            He wasn't talking about cigarette taxes when he said that. He had specifically said the kinds of taxes he was talking about, and those aren't one of the ones he was talking about.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by SHSZack10 (November 16, 2009 9:48 am ET)
              2 9
              No, he specifically said "NOT ANY TAXES." What is so hard to get about that?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (November 16, 2009 11:00 pm ET)
                6 1
                He was talking about not any taxes on income.

                If you read his comments in context, it's clear. It's too bad you are so wedded to the lies.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by SHSZack10 (November 17, 2009 9:48 am ET)
                    3
                  Wait? Its "too bad" that I am "so wedded to the lies" of Obama? It was his statement that was said. His comments in context were about many different taxes, but he did in fact say "not ANY of your taxes." Apparently you think his context changes such a powerful statement. You want to twist around what he said, and bend it to your sides will. That's what's wrong with your side.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by SHSZack10 (November 16, 2009 9:40 am ET)
            2 11
            Don't you just love the way that 9 people can give you a thumbs down, but only one has the guts to try to unsuccessfully disprove you.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (November 16, 2009 11:01 pm ET)
              5 1
              Looks like he stole someone else's work without attribution - see the post below this.

              And many have disproven what Cheney2012 said.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by SHSZack10 (November 17, 2009 9:50 am ET)
                  2
                Looks like the liberal media also stole Sarah Palin's work without attribution. Her book isn't even released yet, but the liberal medea doesn't care, and they posted it for all to see without her permission.
                Many have unsuccessfully tried to dsprove that.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (November 17, 2009 9:59 am ET)
              4 1
              You know, if you're going to try to make a point about the partisanship of the posters here, then there should really be some defense of the argument at hand instead of the repeated citation of the word "any" over and over again. My argument, for instance, was never addressed in any way. If it doesn't apply, then someone should let me know how and why that is the case. And "any" does not trump the concept of context either, because the word can be applied to a specific set of things.

              So it's plainly partisan to say that there haven't been successful efforts to debunk the argument until the point where those efforts are adequately refuted. You're just cheering on your team while criticizing the left for cheering on theirs.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by bilbo_dies (November 16, 2009 2:12 pm ET)
            4  
            Aw, come on Darth. At least post your our thoughts rather than stuff from Peter Roth.

            Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. A former senior political writer for United Press International, he is currently a senior fellow at the Institute for Liberty and at Let Freedom Ring, a non-partisan public policy organization. His writing has also appeared on Fox News' Fox Forum.

            Of course, I am sure that Roth would not have a partisan viewpoint.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by tinka (November 16, 2009 4:23 pm ET)
            4  
            Smokers have to pay because they smoke, even the very rich have to pay the tax. Since cigarettes cause cancer maybe the higher price will convince them to quit!








            Waterboard Cheney!
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Cheney2012 (November 15, 2009 10:07 pm ET)
          2 16
          STEEVE..

          Consider my post as "Letting you know..."
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jediknight65 (November 16, 2009 12:03 pm ET)
            7 1
            know what? that you like to take words out of context and when someone you support says something that is quoted you cry "thats taken out of context!".

            i consider your post as letting us all know of your hypocrisies.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by steeve (November 16, 2009 6:50 pm ET)
            4 1
            Thanks. A conservative being able to back up a charge with something, no matter how negligible, is impressive and should be encouraged.

            The tax was increased as part of the SCHIP extension, which passed with veto-proof majorities in both houses. Asking Obama to veto the bill because it included a pay-as-you-go provision (which the cigarette tax was) is ridiculous.

            Still, thanks. I learned something.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by diamonds (November 15, 2009 7:53 pm ET)
      2 20
      6. Palin falsely suggested media did not criticize Dems over fashion

      That is really pushing the truth to it's limits. A quick Google News check shows she received more coverage over that wardrobe than all the other candidates combined.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (November 15, 2009 8:02 pm ET)
        15 1
        Funny how the truth is stretched to its limits by a series of completely accurate statements.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Brian in FL (November 15, 2009 9:08 pm ET)
        13 2
        Because it was 1., a possible campaign finance violation (which is why she famously returned the wardrobe to the RNC in garbage bags), and 2., it went to the heart of her claim to be so fiscally conservative. She tried to use things like putting the Alaska plane on Ebay to show her fiscal discipline, but there were countless examples of her reckless spending during her public service (which includes her personal campaign spending).

        Palin was trying to play the victim of discrimination when in fact the "wardrobe" issue was about ethics and spending discipline.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Cheney2012 (November 15, 2009 9:13 pm ET)
          3 19
          Your 1 and 2 here have absolutely no relevance to yhe phony 'falsehood' caim by the Soros Stenographers
          Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (November 15, 2009 9:45 pm ET)
            12 2
            Nobody works for Soros on here. Again, you're factually challenged, not that we expected anything less.

            As Brian said above, why don't we look at the context of Palin's 150k wardrobe. She was supposed to be like "normal" people remember? She was one of us! Except, I don't know anyone who has a wardrobe worth 150 thousand dollars do you? Also mentioned, she is supposed to be a fiscal conservative, and how is blowing $150k on clothing fiscally conservative to, well, anyone? It's not.

            We heard and still hear endlessly about Edwards' haircut. We heard endlessly about how Clinton getting a haircut on AF-1 supposedly tied up air traffic at LAX (guess what, that never happened). And so on and so forth.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Cheney2012 (November 15, 2009 10:01 pm ET)
              4 15
              "Nobody works for Soros on here"

              Interesting tell in your words here. Did you just inadvertently admit that you get paid to post here? But you don't work for Soros.

              1) Media Matters gets plenty of cash from Soros, though mostly indirectly. That fact is indisputable.

              2) Anyone who toes the Dem party line as a Progressive foot-soldier works for Soros by default. He is the Democratic money man. Once again, indisputable.

              Ok, let's look at context, to the extent it matters. The woman had to dress in a manner to be ov TV 24/7 for 3 months straight. It is a campaign expense and your 'normal' people reference isn't relevant.

              Again, context: What was the pricetag on Hillary Clinton's wardrobe from last year? Anybody see that reported? Clearly Palin was held to a different standard. Her statement on no scrutiny for others is correct.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by RKAllen (November 15, 2009 10:23 pm ET)
                9 2
                1) Media Matters gets plenty of cash from Soros, though mostly indirectly. That fact is indisputable
                If it is indesputable then you should have no problem finding and providing proof to your claim. We await your indesputable evidence. By the way, that stupid and rediculous chalk board diagram that Glenn Beck threw up one day proves nothing and can hardly be considered "indesputable."

                2) Anyone who toes the Dem party line as a Progressive foot-soldier works for Soros by default. He is the Democratic money man. Once again, indisputable.
                Once again, I am sure you would be glad to provide us with indisputable evidence that Soros is, "the Democtatic money man." Also, I am looking forward to your evidence that anyone working for the Democratic party is "by default" working for Soros.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Cheney2012 (November 15, 2009 10:31 pm ET)
                  3 16
                  Since 'desputable" isn't a word I don't have much to say.

                  I will say the "by default" comment is what is commonly termed an opinion and requires no evidence to prove anything.

                  However I will say that my "by default" statement is true to the same extent that EVERYONE who protests the health care boondoggle or higher taxes or whatever is working for Dick Armey's Freedom Works or the evil Insurance companies.

                  I know people like you believe that right? It's all I've heard for 6 months.

                  I know Barack and Nancy and Harry believe that. So..I'll stand by my statement.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by RKAllen (November 15, 2009 10:48 pm ET)
                    10 2
                    Since 'desputable" isn't a word I don't have much to say.
                    First of all, you cannot defend your statements by attacking my spelling. That is just petty and sad. You said that the facts were "indisputable," and I called you on it. Prove it or admit that you have no proof of your claim.

                    [quote]I will say the "by default" comment is what is commonly termed an opinion and requires no evidence to prove anything.[quote]"By default," is not an opinion statement.

                    However I will say that my "by default" statement is true to the same extent that EVERYONE who protests the health care boondoggle or higher taxes or whatever is working for Dick Armey's Freedom Works or the evil Insurance companies.
                    Well then, since no one here has made that claim or believes that to be true, then "by default" the statement you made about anyone toeing the Democratic line works for Soros must be inaccurate. So your statement you numbered "2" would be false if you are trying to use the Dick Armey argument to defend yourself. Right?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by RKAllen (November 15, 2009 10:50 pm ET)
                      8 2
                      Correction of my tags so you ca properly respond...

                      I will say the "by default" comment is what is commonly termed an opinion and requires no evidence to prove anything.
                      "By default" is not an opinion statement.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by uefa81glory (November 16, 2009 8:10 am ET)
                    7 2
                    "an opinion...requires no evidence"
                    that should be the new slogan for Fox News!!
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by oscar the grouch (November 15, 2009 11:44 pm ET)
                  1 13
                  rkallen09, Soros has as much as promised to "go after" candidates that don't toe the line. Now we can be pretty sure that he does not see any R's toeing the line, so where does that leave us? Sure, there are a couple of degrees of separation between Soros and MMFA (Tides Foundation, any one?), but can the same be said for certain higher-ups in the Democratic structure?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by princeofwheels (November 16, 2009 12:14 am ET)
                    16 1
                    "Soros has as much as promised to "go after" candidates that don't toe the line." Gee, I'd like to read that or do you stand by those definitive words --"has as much as promised"--which are your words.

                    By the way, you and Cheney haven't mentioned any thing about Palins distortions..are they true or false? Isn't that the reason for this post?

                    Or should we get to WMDs real fast?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by bintx (November 16, 2009 11:02 am ET)
                    12 1
                    Soros went after George W. Bush because he knew, as a former business associates, that George W. Bush was incompetent and intellectually lazy. After he did that, he became the DEVIL . . . according to Fox.

                    One more time . . . Soros does NOT fund MMFA. The documents have been presented to the liars on Fox, specifically, Bill O'Reilly, but it's low-information folks like you who continue the lies for them.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by fairliberal (November 16, 2009 10:11 pm ET)
                      2 10
                      A mere technicality.....
                      Matters for America, the group headed by conservative turned liberal writer David Brock, has changed course on its stated association with billionaire liberal financier George Soros.

                      After initially claiming on Dec. 1, 2004 that “neither Media Matters nor its president and CEO David Brock has received any money from Soros or from any organization with which he is affiliated,” the group is no longer disavowing any connection with groups “affiliated” with Soros.

                      The Media Matters shift came after Cybercast News Service questioned the group’s financial ties and demonstrated that there were numerous and extensive links between Media Matters and several Soros “affiliates” like MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress and Soros ally Peter Lewis.

                      Media Matters for America (MMA) spokeswoman Sally Aman responded to Cybercast News Service’s questions with an e-mail. “In response to your query regarding donor funding Media Matters for America has never received funding directly from George Soros,” Aman stated, no longer denying any relationship with organizations affiliated with Soros.

                      She went on to reference the “early support from Moveon.org, and the New Democrat Network,” that Media Matters had received
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by fairliberal (November 16, 2009 10:12 pm ET)
                        1 7
                        MMFA took a page from acorn's playbook on laundering money.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Brabantio (November 16, 2009 10:36 pm ET)
                        3 1
                        You should cite your source.

                        MMfA getting money from organizations that Soros gives money to is not the same as Soros funding MMfA. It's the same principle that keeps the police from arresting you if one of your employees gets caught buying illegal drugs, even though the money came from you.
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by upnorth (November 15, 2009 10:50 pm ET)
                6 1
                How can anybody that voluntarily names themselves Cheney2012 be taken seriously about anything. He's an embarassment to the country. Real big on sending other people's kids to fight in wars that he lied to get us into, but "had other priorities" when it was his turn to fight. He's a coward. Did he pop up from his hidden bunker and permit you to use his name? The only other female who is even in the same league of pathologically lying everytime she opens her mouth with your hero, Sarah Palin, is the coward's daughter, Liz. Your party wraps themselves around the flag, and it's like pulling teeth to actually support the soldiers AFTER they get home from fighting your wars. Sorta like wrapping yourselves up in the Bible, and then having policies that are the antithesis of Christianity. I love having you spit your ignorant messages between parsing someone's words and the exact meaning of them, and then say the genius Sarah had to dress in a manner "ov" TV 24/7 for 3 months straight. I don't think she was on TV for 2184 hours, straight. Your side claimed it was treasonous to say ANYTHING negative about Georgey Boy during a time of war, and have spent the entire last ten months calling our President names and lying about him. Go back and hide in your bunker, you hypocrite. At least til 2012, because the one way your side can GUARANTEE losing, is for your namesake to be the Republican nominee.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Cheney2012 (November 18, 2009 1:17 am ET)
                  1 6
                  OK...I guess names like snoopy, Col. Sanders and foghornleghorn are worthy being taken seriously.

                  The name exists specifically to anger you left-wing lunatics. I see in your case that it works.

                  Please cite just ONE Liz Cheney lie. When you guys are challenged you have NOTHING.

                  I personally never said nor thought that chellenging George Bush was treason. The arguments were laughable, but not treasonous.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (November 18, 2009 6:02 am ET)
                    4 1
                    The name exists specifically to anger you left-wing lunatics. I see in your case that it works.
                    You just admitted to being a troll.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by The_Cat (November 18, 2009 11:57 am ET)
                    3  
                    All right, since you ask, Cheney2012:
                    On an issue like will you be able to keep your own health insurance if you like it, the president is out there asserting in these townhalls, yes, you can keep your own health insurance, but then in a conference call with liberal bloggers, when he's asked about a particular provision in the legislation that sounds like it wouldn't allow to you keep your own insurance, he had to admit he hasn't read the bill so there's a deeper problem here.
                    (here)

                    There's a lie Ms. Cheney told about President Obama.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by The_Cat (November 18, 2009 12:05 pm ET)
                    3  
                    Of course, Glenn Beck can't even admit that President Obama addressed town hall audiences, so she's just barely ahead of him there in truth telling, even if she lied about what he actually said.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by Lord of Light (November 16, 2009 1:12 am ET)
                13 1
                Media Matters gets plenty of cash from Soros, though mostly indirectly. That fact is indisputable.


                And if this is true (you still have offered zero evidence), the point is what? Is there a law that says George Soros can't fund a cause he believes in? Right wingers continually say "George Soros" as if that's supposed to immediately discredit whoever/whatever he might support. Seems like an empty kindergarten argument to me.

                And when are you going to get to the point of this post, which is Sarah Palin's falsehoods? Enlighten me, oh great Cheney.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by bintx (November 16, 2009 11:00 am ET)
                11 1
                Media Matters is NOT supported by Soros. That's a lie that Bill O'Reilly KNOWS is a lie but continues to spout as truth. Do you EVER look at anything factual?

                "Ok, let's look at context, to the extent it matters. The woman had to dress in a manner to be ov TV 24/7 for 3 months straight. It is a campaign expense and your 'normal' people reference isn't relevant."

                The reason there was questions regarding the "wardrobe" issue is that there was a potential campaign finance law broken.

                With every post, you show your ignorance. I'd stop . . . you're just digging a bigger hole for yourself.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Cheney2012 (November 18, 2009 1:11 am ET)
                  1 5
                  "The reason there was questions regarding the "wardrobe" issue is that there was a potential campaign finance law broken."

                  Oh yeah...that was the reason.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (November 18, 2009 7:00 am ET)
                    3  
                    So is that what qualifies as "refuting" something for you? Others here explain how your logic is flawed for your argument, and that somehow doesn't count, but you can just respond with a "nuh-uh" and that's supposedly a brilliant refutation.

                    The woman took clothes back with her to Alaska. Here's my favorite quote in the story:
                    "She was just frantically ... trying to sort stuff out," Heath said. "That's the problem, you know, the kids lose underwear, and everything has to be accounted for."
                    Children's underwear has to be accounted for? If she really needs 150K worth of outfits for the sake of appearance, fine. But there are rolling wardrobe trunks that hold clothing. I've seen them myself in concert hall dressing rooms, and she had to have something to transport her wardrobe in, anyway. She could keep the outfits and shoes organized in trunks and then have them picked up from the last venue when she was done campaigning, instead of taking the stuff back with her and having to look for children's underwear at the demand of RNC lawyers.

                    The point mentioned above about how she is supposed to be fiscally responsible is a good one, too. Neither of these things are really issues of fashion, because they go well beyond whether what she's wearing is trendy or fitting for her, or whatever other nonsense. It went to legal issues and political appearances.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by soze169880 (November 17, 2009 4:37 pm ET)
                   
                Anti-Semitic troll is anti-Semitic.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by JW, Denver (November 15, 2009 11:07 pm ET)
        4 1
        I certainly criticized her. However, I did not criticize her because of fashion or the way she spoke or the way she sounded or because of where she was from. I criticized her because she is a freaking moron. We are facing some serious problems and, god help us, we need to start hiring politicians with more brains than money.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (November 16, 2009 10:56 am ET)
        7 1
        Palin wasn't criticized for her "fashion," she was criticized for the potentially ILLEGAL use of campaign funds for purchasing outrageously expensive clothing, accessories, makeup and hairdressing for herself and her family.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Samurai Cowboy (November 15, 2009 9:11 pm ET)
      10 1
      The Neo-Con mantra: When you have no substantive facts, lie and make things up.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Cheney2012 (November 15, 2009 10:23 pm ET)
        1 17
        The Liberal matra: When you have no substance, run for President. The ignorant will vote for you.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by The_Cat (November 16, 2009 1:40 am ET)
          13 1
          And the Bush/Cheney mantra, since we're on that kind of roll: When WMDs fail to magically appear in a country you've invaded without any justification whatsoever, start immediately torturing people to make them say what you want to hear to give you the phony evidence you need to support an invasion you've already undertaken! Huzzah for "Ready! Shoot! Aim!" diplomacy at it's finest and most damaging to the one country these fools claim to love: America.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (November 16, 2009 11:05 am ET)
          9 1
          Is that why you voted for George W. Bush and support Sarah Palin? And here I thought you were a "conservative." Guess not, because, based on your statement above, voting for either of those two mental lightweights would make you a liberal.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by Boxer1979 (November 16, 2009 1:15 pm ET)
          9 1
          When you have no substance, run for President. The ignorant will vote for you.

          PROJECTION!

          I think the people went down that road twice starting 8 years ago.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Cheney2012 (November 15, 2009 10:04 pm ET)
      1 16
      The 'falsehoods' case here by Media Matters may be thinner, than the case they made for Bernie Goldberg's book, Slobbering Love Affair.

      And that set an MMFA record for flimsy evidence.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (November 15, 2009 10:30 pm ET)
        12 1
        Someday you might have to back up what you say. Obviously you feel no need to do so in this forum.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Cheney2012 (November 15, 2009 10:34 pm ET)
          1 18
          I only need to point out the flimsy evidence used by Media Matters for Tyranny.

          I think I've backed up plenty above. So, if you are curious enough -- which your vote for Obama puts in doubt -- you can scroll up and read, otherwise try and have a point when you post.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (November 15, 2009 11:40 pm ET)
            12 1
            Ah, Dick Nobrainy, you're goin' rogue tonight! Pointing out how soros funds all us liberals on here so we can post stuff. I await my check. Please George, send gold. Thanx.

            Anyway, tell us all how you will conduct all the wars you want with exhausted troops and using none of your tax dollars.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by SoloPocono (November 16, 2009 12:10 am ET)
            6 1
            LMAO!! Oh my, Thank You "2012" for supplying so many with some *wonderful* Laughs today!! Good heavens, these conservaNuts are all SO transparent!! LOL-ask them for "FACTS", and they'll mumble every excuse in the book--OR, if it's in person, face to face, either:
            1. tuck their tail between their legs and find something they're "late" for.
            or 2. (yes, yes, their Guru Beck's favorite practice), SHOUT you down!! (or hang up on them!! ;).
            I swear, SO predictable!! And the poor uninformed and misguided vulnerable people they've managed to brainwash, actually needed a printed LIST of things to do and shout out for the Town Hall meetings!! That is SO much more effective than a civil discourse!! To HECK with the FACTS!! :)
            Oh, LOL, Thank You again "2012"!! Although I live in a VERY small, 98% Ultra-Conserv. town, (die-hard Beck and Palin groupies, "You Betch'a"!!), due to health problems, I haven't been able to get out much lately. You reminded me of all the fun I'm missing!!
            Report Abuse
          • Author by eweston8542983 (November 16, 2009 12:53 am ET)
            11 1
            I see a lot of opinion and snide, but no backed up information.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by marco21 (November 16, 2009 1:43 am ET)
            11 1
            Cheney = fail.

            Not even able to throw one viable defense up for Palin.

            Here's the right wing's future playbook when unable to defend their ridiculous claims put forth by their ridiculous leaders ship.

            Socialism
            Soros
            Marxism
            Birth Certificate
            Rev. Wright
            Nazis
            Communism
            Muslims
            Did I mention Soros?

            Notice it's the same playbook they're been running with for the last 15 months or so.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Brian in FL (November 16, 2009 10:40 am ET)
              6 1
              And earlier "Cheney" accused President Obama of lacking substance, which is obviously a projection of his/her own character traits.

              On the bright side, at least we finally uncovered the one Dick Cheney fan left in the world....other than his daughter.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by historygeek001 (November 16, 2009 11:53 am ET)
            8 1
            Cheney, you say that you've pointed out flimsy evidence used by "Media Matters for Tyranny." You haven't provided ANY evidence. Once again, you're lying and you prove the point that it it is impossible to have a rational conversation with somebody that is deliberately irrational.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by RealTruthseeker (November 16, 2009 2:15 pm ET)
            6 1
            LOL!!!!!

            You say you've backed up plenty by what you've posted above... and have offer nothing to back your claims up... then say you don't have to back it up because it's your opinion!!

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
            Report Abuse
          • Author by TheSarge (November 17, 2009 12:14 am ET)
            5 2
            The only thing "flimsy" about the evidence Media Matters cites is that some of it is written on paper. Flimsy, flimsy paper.

            Speaking of paper, Sarah Palin should invest in some. With all the "facts" she keeps pulling out of her ass, she's gonna needs a roll or two.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Cheney2012 (November 18, 2009 12:34 am ET)
              1 7
              Not a single person has refuted a single thing I've stated. NOTHING.

              Keep laughing all thw way until next November.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (November 18, 2009 6:20 am ET)
                3  
                I didn't see you address this, nor did I see you pursue your argument against other posters who pointed out the relevance of the context. You can't just say "any" again and count that as a legitimate argument. You have to actually address the points, otherwise your argument is refuted. This is how it works in the adult world.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Tiredog (November 18, 2009 11:42 am ET)
                4  
                Check here for refutations: http://mediamatters.org/research/200911150010

                Report Abuse
    • Author by erock33 (November 15, 2009 11:33 pm ET)
      1 7
      Extremely interesting. I have never seen so much focus to destroy an individual that the opposing side finds so idiotic and insignicant. Why is that?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (November 16, 2009 11:11 pm ET)
        5 1
        She's destroying herself - we're just documenting it.

        It's not our fault that your side has gone ga-ga over an insignificant idiot. You keep following them, we'll keep knocking them down. It's your choice, dum-dum.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (November 15, 2009 11:46 pm ET)
      8 2
      Wow, the paid troll derailers were out in force tonight. It must really scare them to have Palin's falsehoods mentioned here like this.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by princeofwheels (November 16, 2009 12:20 am ET)
        7 1
        Looks like the tea kettles will need refills.

        Cheney2012, do you ever have sources or do you just make things up as you go along? Tell me, did Iraq really have those hidden WMDs'? That your crowd was so darn sure about?

        And for a person with your intelligence, how can you support this woman from Alaska? She is doing nothing more than promoting herself just as Madonna did,who was fantastic a PR, for the almighty buck. But to earn it, she needs a flock. Why join her flock? She is a twitter.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by LORISNJ (November 16, 2009 11:33 am ET)
      5  
      Please everyone - this article is about Palin and her factless book - this is not about Cheney2012 and his circular arguments.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (November 16, 2009 12:22 pm ET)
        6 1
        Oh, but don't you know, Lori, that the lefty posters here at MMFA don't need to be told about troll posts? That's what I've been told, anyway, that my posts warning against feeding trolls do no good, or that I'm just trying to be a bossy person and I don't have the right to do that, or that I am wrong about them being troll derailing posts, or that it's fun, fun, fun to feed the trolls, so leave them alone, or ....

        The trolls are really scared by a fair evaluation of Sarah Palin's book. She lied in a bunch of ways, and they can't stand to have her be seen as a liar and a dunce, so they have to distract us from her lies. What they don't seem to realize is that the powers that be in the Republican Party know that she's a dunce. Pretty is fleeting, stupid is forever. Those leaders won't come out and admit that Palin has no chance at national office, but she has no chance at national office. It is likely that she'll skew the race towards the right, but I think that they were already going to nominate a guy like Mike Huckabee anyway.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by diogenie27611 (November 16, 2009 1:22 pm ET)
          5 3
          I think most trolls are not particularly educated people and don't really understand the notion of fair, honest discourse. The objective is to "win" which is defined in fairly dubious terms. Truth does not have really anything to do with their efforts. The best troll rebuttals are the ones that point out the red herrings and the underlying rhetorical strategy at play. That way at least others are aware of the kind of deception they seek to employ.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (November 16, 2009 11:15 pm ET)
            6 1
            The best way to defeat a troll who is trying to derail the subject is NOT to respond to what they say, but to point out their derailing attempt to others and encourage them to stop feeding the troll.

            Pointing out red herrings just gives them another post to reply to, then another, then another. And then when they get a couple of replies, they then have multiple strings to work off of.

            Rebuttals don't work. Or you don't understand what a troll post really is. Not sure which is appropriate here.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by myrmidon (November 16, 2009 2:24 pm ET)
      4 6
      Two words for Democrats: "We Won!"
      Two words for Sarah Palin: "Best Seller!"

      Liberal Democrats and progressives are obsessed with Sarah Palin. She's like the ex you can never quite get over. Over 13,000 news accounts of Sarah Palin in the last month but only 8,000 of the guy who actually won the vice presidency (Joe Biden in case anyone forgot).
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Tbone Slickens (November 17, 2009 7:39 am ET)
        1 7
        Joe's on Ice in some Delaware fish house...

        Gotta keep that guy on ice...he moves slower that way!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (November 17, 2009 12:18 pm ET)
          4 1
          Being on ice is probably preferable to having one's pants on fire, as the liar Palin finds herself.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by SpacePedestrian (November 16, 2009 4:43 pm ET)
      6 1
      Oh Sarah, you just lie lie lie. Why are we giving you so much attention?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by coldteablues19577325 (November 16, 2009 8:59 pm ET)
      6 1
      Pertaining to "death panels.

      As an adult child of parents who died of differing forms of cancer, I fully appreciate the chance we were given "as a family" to discuss what they/we wanted when the time to die came. The doctors were wonderful as we discussed no feeding tubes, no heroic measures, DNIs etc. It was a very painful time but also an important one as we were able to make these choices before they were incapable of doing so.

      Pshawwwww ... death panels, my a$$. My parents were treated with nothing but dignity and respect throughout the whole process. My mom died at home with me and dad at her side (with Hospice help) and my dad died at a local nursing home after a few days stay with me, my sis and his 2nd wife at his side. Beautiful. Nothing scary.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dragonfly967 (November 18, 2009 12:51 pm ET)
        2 1
        coldteablues, thank you for your post. I had the same issue with my mother, when she was diagnosed with terminal breast cancer. She was immediately directed to nurses from a local hospice to let her know her options and who were there for us 24 hours a day, especially the night she died. It was through their willingness to give us all the pertinent information we needed before we needed it, to be completely candid with Mom and me about what would happen and availability to come when needed that I was able to honor Mom's choice to die at home. Palin's repulsive distortion of the truth, her cynical attempt to terrorize Americans into opposing health care reform and pimping her Down's Syndrome baby to drive the point home illustrate that there are no limits to the depths to which she will stoop. This is something all the members of her fan club should realize - and fear, because in the end it will work against all of us.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by myrmidon (November 16, 2009 8:59 pm ET)
      2 6
      So much of this "fact checking" is speculation rather than an incontrovertible disproval of what Palin actually said in her book.

      It's almost as if the fact checkers don't understand what was actually said in the book and instead work on their own inaccurate interpretations of Palin's plain-language statements.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Stevetbob (November 17, 2009 12:16 am ET)
      2 5
      I am surprised that anyone on the left has brought up fact checking. Just reading through this BS I saw many things that were supposed "facts" that were complete lies. If this is the extent of the ability of Media Matters to provide facts then I understand the ignorance from the left.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Tbone Slickens (November 17, 2009 7:38 am ET)
      2 6
      Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are."


      Well I guess that is a good thing, but to get off the hook on a technicality and now claim that he was just a "little" terrorist, well that speaks volumes.

      Tell that to the family of the dead NY cop the Weather Underground killed.

      Barry is the company he keeps.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Ruby (November 17, 2009 9:46 am ET)
        5 2
        Actually, the Weather Underground is not responsible for the deaths of any police officers (or anyone else for that matter, unless you include the three WU members who accidentally killed themselves).

        Several years after the dissolution of the Weather Underground, three former members were involved in the robbery of a Brinks Armored car. A shootout followed, which resulted in the deaths of two police officers and a security guard (I believe). By this point in time, the WU no longer existed and most former members (including Ayers) had already turned themselves into authorities.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (November 17, 2009 9:48 am ET)
        5 1
        Give us all a break with this garbage. Ayers was mainstreamed into society. He became a professor. He rubbed elbows with Republicans at the same time he worked with Obama. There's nothing to criticize Obama for there.

        And I find it difficult to believe that if Obama had quit because of Ayers' presence that he wouldn't be criticized for the lack of priorities in abandoning educational goals in lieu of a future political advantage. The mere existence of Ayers would seem to make Obama a poor choice for the Presidency.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Ruby (November 17, 2009 9:38 am ET)
      6  
      I am no fan of Palin's. I think she's incompetent, inflammatory, and truth-challenged.

      However, I did think that the amount of media attention devoted to her wardrobe was a bit absurd. And I think it's fair to say that male political figures don't face that same kind of scrutiny. While there were things said about Edwards's haircut and etc., Hilary and Sarah got criticism for their outfits and appearance that men just don't get. Despite my distaste for Sarah Palin, I have to say that I think both her and Hilary were victims of sexism in the media during 08.

      I'm sure her wardrobe had a hefty price tag but do you know how much men's custom suits cost? Thousands! I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's and McCain's and Biden's wardrobes were similarly expensive.

      If there is substantial evidence that the purchase of Palin's outfit violated laws about campaign finances then that is, of course, information the public should know. However, scrutinizing the cost of her clothes just to do it (and not subjecting male candidates to that same scrutiny) seemed to me, at the time, a bit silly.

      And if Sarah was truly disturbed by that sexist trend she would be defending not only herself but all other female political figures who face the same unnecessary inspection and dissection of their appearances (Nancy Pelosi comes to mind). And she should be likewise opposed to the amount of media discussion of her attractiveness. Female politicians, just like their male counterparts, should be judged on policy, not fashion or beauty or the price tag on their pantsuits.

      Sarah is whining and playing the victim on this one. However, I won't allow my aversion to her to overwhelm my need to demand fairer treatment by the media of both men and women in the political arena.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (November 17, 2009 12:21 pm ET)
        3 2
        I did think that the amount of media attention devoted to her wardrobe was a bit absurd.
        The attention was to the funds used to pay for the wardrobe, not the wardrobe itself.

        Other than that, I agree with you.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mookie von zipper (November 17, 2009 9:52 am ET)
      1 6
      the absurdity that media matters displays in genuflecting their way thru these 11 points is quite amusing... and it's a joy to watch the collective pain the left endures at palin's popularity...

      reporting from murderland ranch,
      i'm mookie von zipper
      massmurdermedia

      Report Abuse
      • Author by congero6189599 (November 17, 2009 12:05 pm ET)
        4 1
        Mookie the stuff you smoke must be good. It probably got you to believe George Bush was a war hero and Sarah "popular" Palin won the last election. Some good "shisnit" huh?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mookie von zipper (November 17, 2009 4:30 pm ET)
            5
          i am choosy about the quality of weed i smoke, and i'm here to tell ya that dubya's hbo special, you're welcome, america, was awesome...

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Cheney2012 (November 18, 2009 8:46 am ET)
              4
            Ongoing list?

            I think MM has added 2 in the past 5 days.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mookie von zipper (November 18, 2009 9:15 am ET)
              2 4
              go easy on mm, they're just a lowly non-profit outfit, but they mean well... they don't have the resources of, say, the associated press and their army of fact checkers... i just wonder where this army was during the release of obama's books...

              Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (November 18, 2009 1:22 pm ET)
                2 1
                Dang Mookie put down the bong and read MMFA mission statement, I think you'll find your answer there.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mookie von zipper (November 18, 2009 2:19 pm ET)
                  2 2
                  i was referring to ap's army, not mm's... they assigned 11 fact checkers to palin's book, none to either of obama's, or any other liberal's tome for that matter... however weak that is, cnn still takes the prize for fact checking an snl sketch of obama's lack of accomplishments in high office...

                  speaking of high office, if you'll now excuse me...

                  Report Abuse
      • Author by diogenie27611 (November 18, 2009 3:34 pm ET)
        2 1
        "and it's a joy to watch the collective pain the left endures at palin's popularity..."

        Is it the same joy you felt when George Bush wrapped himself in the American flag and drove this country right into the ground?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ksu_aviator (November 17, 2009 12:28 pm ET)
      2 3
      Let's break this down...shall we?

      Let's do some fact checking of the fact checking:

      Rogue Facts: Media Matters' ongoing list of falsehoods in Palin's memoir

      1. Palin falsely suggests poor will be "hit hardest" by cap and trade

      According to the CBO:

      Market Forces Would Determine Who Bore the
      Costs of a Cap
      Obtaining allowances—or taking steps to cut emissions to avoid the need for such
      allowances—would become a cost of doing business for firms that were subject to the
      CO2 cap. However, those firms would not ultimately bear most of the costs of the
      allowances. Instead, they would pass those costs along to their customers (and their
      customers’ customers) in the form of higher prices. By attaching a cost to CO2 emissions,
      a cap-and-trade program would thus lead to price increases for energy and
      energy-intensive goods and services, the production or use of which contributes the
      most to those emissions. Such price increases would stem from the restriction on
      emissions and, except in limited circumstances (for electricity in states with price
      regulations, for instance), would occur regardless of whether the government sold
      emission allowances or gave them away. Indeed, the price increases would be essential
      to the success of a cap-and-trade program because they would be the most important
      mechanism through which businesses and households would be encouraged to make
      economically motivated changes in investment and consumption that reduced CO2
      emissions.
      The rise in prices would impose a larger burden, relative to income, on low-income
      households than on high-income households for two reasons. First, low-income
      households spend a much larger fraction of their income than do high-income households.
      In addition, energy-intensive items compose a greater share of low-income
      households’ total expenditures. Data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
      indicates that, measured as a share of income, spending on energy-intensive items by
      households in the lowest income quintile averages more than five times that by households
      in the highest income quintile (see Table 1).
      http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc..._Testimony.pdf

      So the CBO says that Cap and Trade will bare the biggest burden on the lowest incomes...hmmm...Palin 1, Media Matters 0

      2. Palin still falsely claiming stimulus money for energy efficiency she vetoed required tougher building codes

      According to the following sources, every state will have to change their building codes:


      The stimulus package passed in February aims to do this, by requiring that states receiving certain types of energy monies pledge to bring their codes up to an internationally accepted standard — and draft a plan to achieve 90 percent compliance in new and renovated buildings by 2017 (see Section 410 in the law).

      http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/20...uilding-codes/

      For states to receive additional funding from the $16.8 billion allotted to the Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, governors would be required to work toward implementation of a building energy code at least as stringent as Standard 90.1-2007 and to develop a plan for achieving 90 percent compliance with the code, including provisions for training and enforcement programs.

      http://www.ashrae.org/pressroom/detail/17050

      AUSTIN - At least $200 million in federal funding for energy efficiency measures in Texas hinges on the state adopting the latest building codes for energy efficiency, according to an analysis by Environment Texas of the economic recovery package recently signed in to law by President Obama. The building codes would require home builders to improve the minimum efficiency of new residences by approximately fifteen percent.

      http://www.environmenttexas.org/news...building-codes

      Ohio could miss out on millions in federal stimulus money unless the state quickly adopts building codes with stricter energy-efficiency requirements, environmentalists warned yesterday.

      http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live...D.html?sid=101


      So four seperate sources say that Palin is correct. Palin 2, Media Matters 0

      3. Palin continues distortion of NY Times article to defend "palling around with terrorists" claim


      So did the NY Times indicate that Bill Ayers was a terrorist?


      CHICAGO — At a tumultuous meeting of anti-Vietnam War militants at the Chicago Coliseum in 1969, Bill Ayers helped found the radical Weathermen, launching a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and United States Capitol.

      ...

      “I don’t think there’s a statute of limitations on terrorist bombings,” Mr. Chapman said in an interview, speaking not of the law but of political and moral implications.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us...ll&oref=slogin

      Depends...do you call bombing the Pentagon and US Capitol, to promote a radical agenda, terrorism? I think you do. Palin 3, Media Matters 0


      4. Palin stands by falsehood that Obama opposed "protect[ing] babies born alive after botched abortions"

      So how did Obama vote on the bill in question?

      During the Democratic primary, Mrs. Clinton's campaign criticized Mr. Obama for voting "present" — instead of "no" — on the "Born Alive" bill in Illinois, which did not contain a provision protecting the Roe v. Wade decision.

      http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-...bortion/84059/

      Here is an instance where both Palin and Media Matters have a point. Palin is right in that Obama didn't take a stand for babies that are born alive and Media Matters is right in that Obama didn't vote against the bill. Palin 3.5, Media Matters 0.5 (hey...they got on the board!)


      5. Palin falsely suggests she did not support aerial hunting

      So what did Palin support?

      Wolf Control Program
      Programs are conducted by selected resident citizen pilot/gunner teams that receive discretionary state permits authorizing same day airborne landing and shooting and/or aerial shooting from aircraft. To obtain one of these permits, an application must be submitted to the department, and authorized pilots and gunnners will be notified if selected. Nonresidents cannont participate in the wolf control program. Note that this program is wolf control, not wolf hunting.
      http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/manag...supplement.pdf

      The word hunting is specifically denied in the Alaska Wolf Control rules. Media Matters is mischaracterizing the program she supported. Palin 4.5, Media Matters 0.5

      6. Palin falsely suggested media did not criticize Dems over fashion

      Hmm...what did the media say about clothes during the election?

      The soon-to-be first lady has forged a unique look, mixing designer labels and mall classics. And there are signs she might get America shopping again.

      http://www.latimes.com/features/imag...,4703670.story


      Wanda Routier, a proud hockey mom in Hewitt, Wis., who spends her time in sweatpants, turtlenecks, ankle boots and heavy coats, had no idea that looking like a hockey mom could be so expensive.

      She was dismayed to learn yesterday that the Republican Party had spent about $150,000 over two months on clothes, hair styling and accessories for Sarah Palin and her family from such upscale stores as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus.

      http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08297...#ixzz0X81RxNPQ

      So Michele was going to reignite the economy with her dress while Palin was the symbol of excess and waste. Palin 5.5, Media Matters 0.5


      7. Palin attacks "Democrat lawmaker" who's actually a Republican

      Ok...Media Matters gets one...Palin didn't know the affiliation of one state senator. Palin 5.5, Media Matters 1.5.

      I don't need to go further. Media Matters is only right about #7. Everything else is just a lie.
      Report Abuse