The Associated Press recently assigned eleven of its writers to fact-check Sarah Palin's new book "Going Rogue." AP's team of truth-seekers only found six errors the former Alaska Governor's book, most of which were trivial and presumably not worth the time of a team of reporters.
"AP writers Matt Apuzzo, Sharon Theimer, Tom Raum, Rita Beamish, Beth Fouhy, H. Josef Hebert, Justin D. Pritchard, Garance Burke, Dan Joling and Lewis Shaine contributed to this report", reads the sign-off of Calvin Woodward's fact-check. Even with this impressively large crew, the AP seemed to stretch to find objectionable statements in "Going Rogue".
Here's a fact-check that supposedly required a squad of reporters to unearth:
PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor, asking "only" for reasonably priced rooms and not "often" going for the "high-end, robe-and-slippers" hotels.
THE FACTS: Although she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard) for a five-hour women's leadership conference in New York in October 2007. With air fare, the cost to Alaska was well over $3,000.
Mark Steyn notes the absurdity of this statement.
That looks like AP paid 1.8333333 fact-checkers to agree with Mrs Palin: She says she didn't "often" go for "high-end" hotels; they say she "usually opted for less-pricey hotels". That's gonna make one must-see edition of "Point/Counterpoint".Or is AP arguing "four nights" counts as "often"? Is that the point? AP assigned 11 reporters to demonstrate that four is a large number?
The AP also fact-checks something as intangible as Palin's motivations for writing the book.
PALIN: "Was it ambition? I didn't think so. Ambition drives; purpose beckons." Throughout the book, Palin cites altruistic reasons for running for office, and for leaving early as Alaska governor.THE FACTS: Few politicians own up to wanting high office for the power and prestige of it, and in this respect, Palin fits the conventional mold. But "Going Rogue" has all the characteristics of a pre-campaign manifesto, the requisite autobiography of the future candidate.
The AP does unearth a couple interesting--but hardly damning--inconsistencies in Palin's work, such as her criticism of her predecessor in Anchorage for staffing former lobbyists. She did in fact employ her own. But it hardly seems like an efficient use of the AP's resources to task 11 writers with uncovering this truth.
"It appears to be a tribute to the factual accuracy of Palin's book that eleven hostile AP reporters can't come up with anything better than this," writes John Hinderaker at PowerLine.
The AP tried very hard to find things to fact-check in "Going Rogue". 1.83 reporters per mistake is quite an operation for little substantive news gathering. That the story included quips that didn't seem to contradict what she said in the book, or speculated about her emotional and intellectual background, demonstrates the lengths to which the AP will go to criticize Palin and her work.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Talk about the foreign-owned
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 15:42 ET by notonmywatchTalk about the foreign-owned research arm of the democrat party.
___________________________________________________________
Graphical conservative commentary - animations & pictures for posting on forums: http://ubama.org/chucks-pix/
A.P. aka Associated Punks
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 19:18 ET by thedailyzingOf course they sent 11 people to "debunk" Sarah's book, that's why they only got 1 reporter sent out to cover the Fort Hood TERRORIST story!!
Hey A.P., perhaps you should use your time wisely & start reading:
http://thedailyzing.com/ Political satire at its greatest!! In fact, the boys of The Daily Zing discovered what Traficant's hair is made of. Click here: http://thedailyzing.com/373/when-toupees-attack/
But it does fit the
Mon, 11/16/2009 - 08:27 ET by BDBut it does fit the historical mode for the AP. When Palin was nominated the AP did everything but "Snowdrop"* reporters into Alaska to practically go door to door looking for any dirt.
*Footnote - (Soviet WWII practice of flying low and slow and kicking personnel out the door without parachutes to land in snowbanks - extreme High casualties incurred.)
I read that piece,,,
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 15:48 ET by JPR1and figured it was created over at Media Matters. Lotsa fluff and picyune items. They must share research databases.
We found more caches of WMD
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 15:48 ET by BKeyserWe found more caches of WMD in Iraq...
caches of wombats?
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 21:05 ET by konoWhat's that you say? They found Amelia Earhart in the Orion Nebula?
how lame...!
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 15:48 ET by wizardjrThey drank their own Kool-aid concerning Saracuda - she's a dunce, she can't speak without help, she's poison to the Republicans, etc., etc. So I'm sure they thought they were going to get example after example of exaggeration, outright lies, and stupidity. Someone should have given them Barry's book instead then they wouldn't be disappointed.
so how come
Mon, 11/16/2009 - 08:25 ET by AJBWhere were the fact checkers on Algore's book of lies on the global warming scare?
They should do a fact check
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 15:51 ET by 10ksnookerThey should do a fact check on Al Gore and his fictional movie. Then go on to fact check his books. And then his hoax companies that are pedaling the scam. I bet they would find some really good stuff ... before they were told to leave Al Gore alone.
The Brits beat you to it
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:50 ET by CO2MakerLast year, a court in Britain declared that book had nine significant errors and could not be distributed in schools in the UK without either correcting them or disclosing the disputed nature of the claims.
Dreams from My Father might pass the fact check test, but will it pass the true authorship test?
Dreams From My Father had
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:54 ET by Mitchell BlattDreams From My Father had many significant ("significat" by MSM Palin standards, anyway) lies in it, including the fact that "Obama" said that he once read an article in Life about a black man who died his skin white, an article that never existed.
It is unlikely that B0
Mon, 11/16/2009 - 01:40 ET by rockyracoonIt is unlikely that B0 wrote any of those books credited to him. The unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers is the likely author of "Dreams From My Father,"
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
Churchill
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 18:20 ET by Jeff in Miami BeachDreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope were written while sitting in front of a mirror. They are very narcissist books, similar in nature to Winston Churchill’s first book about the military. Fortunately Winston got wiser prior to being elected and we have Obama.
Churchill didn't devote an entire paragraph to how wonderful private airplanes are either.
If you think medical care is expensive now wait until it is free!
Just curious...
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 15:58 ET by Iowa BoyHow many reporters did they use to "fact check" Dreams of My Father or Audacity of Hope?
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain." Official Motto of the State of Iowa
how about
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:47 ET by ConservativeClarkHow about they fact check the book that was written by MSNBC fluzzy Richard Wolffe? Oh yea, i forgot, he doesnt ask questions. He only puts lips firmly to Obama ass. Anyone know how bad that book did on the NYT's best sellers list? I bet Glenn Becks worst selling book beat his and Olbermann's combined by about 1000%.
A private citizen writes a book, 11 reporters fact check it.
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:01 ET by Free StinkerA private citizen writes a book, 11 reporters fact check it.
SNL does a skit, CNN fact checks it.
Who's fact-checking CBOTUS(Obama) ?
خال
She's not a private
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:14 ET by Mitchell BlattShe's not a private citizen. She's a politician who gives speeches attacking Obamacare and is on a book tour to promote her political career.
That's a odd assertation.
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:31 ET by SpaceManSpiffThat's a odd assertation. True, she's trying to advance her career, but she's not actually in office, or campaigning for one.
Obama IS in office, and continuing to campaign, but nobody seems to be fact-checking him.
This conversation is about
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:33 ET by Mitchell BlattThis conversation is about Palin, so I'm going to talk about Palin.
Let me just ask you why Christina Matthews and Keith Olbermann are attacked relatively often if they aren't running for office, if that's the standard you have set?
What about Rush? Beck?
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:47 ET by Chris M-GWhat about Rush? Beck? Hannity? O'Reilly? None of them are running for office either, yet they are attacked far more often and far more voraciously than Tingles and Bathtub Boy.
They're supposed to be
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:55 ET by Mitchell BlattThey're supposed to be attacked! They're media figures who put themselves out there, and political figures at that.
Chrisi should also be attacked. Media figures are fair game because they're always lying and trying to influence us.
You're funny. She's not
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 19:17 ET by Free StinkerYou're funny. She's not even in office but "She's a politician . . . "
" . . . and is on a book tour to promote her political career."
As if she wasn't promoting her book . . . what a joke you are.
خال
Not about Palin
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:54 ET by SpaceManSpiffThis conversation isn't about Palin. It's about media bias and double standards. 11 reporters to fact-check the ex-gov of Alaska's book. 0 reporters to fact-check the President's book.
Nope, no bias there. DUH!
Some people thought the
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:57 ET by Mitchell BlattSome people thought the media shouldn't be criticizing Palin, so I was just saying, yes, Palin is fair game, because she's a public figure.
youre right
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:13 ET by ConservativeClarkYes, youre right that she should be criticized, but fairly. I reccommend everyone stick to her politics and her positions on issues. Leave out Levi Johnston, Bristol and her daughter, Trigg, Sarah's looks, the way she speaks, and any other thing that has nothing to do with her political stance on anything. Attacking her personally earns a person no points in a debate. Point of fact, it makes a person look weak and cowardly.
Who says she shouldn't be
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 19:19 ET by Free StinkerWho says she shouldn't be criticised?
I just expect the criticism to fair and accurate.
خال
Going to talk about Palin...
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 22:01 ET by JPR1and then you immediately throw Matthews and Olberman into the mix. Let's try and keep the apples with the apples and the rotten tomatos with the rotten tomatos.
Geesh, you’ve really stepped in it here son; better leave those sneakers in the garage for a few days.
Wrong
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:55 ET by ConservativeClarkYoure way off Mitchell. Sarah Palin WAS a politician. She holds no political office and has not stated if she will run for one ever again. We can all assume she will try in the future, but until that statement is made, this is all conjecture.
You are right that she does attack Obamacare. Thats her right as a citizen of this country to speak out about things that they are against. If she wants to promote a political career, then thats her right as well. I dont get mad everytime a liberal democrat does this, or a private citizen like Al Gore goes out and says things that are questionable. I only question them and disagree with them.
Too often, it seems like the left tries to marginalize Sarah Palin simply because she is a conservative woman. This is not a fact, only an opinion. I only wish the left would actually TRY to debate this woman or speak with her on an even playing field , instead of trying to personally attack her or try to tabloidisize (my made up word) the issues by interjecting Levi Johnston.
I agree that she shouldn't
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:19 ET by Mitchell BlattI agree that she shouldn't be criticized for her family but most of the issues that the AP tried to check involved legitimate issues of information not having to do with her family. (Though the AP's conclusions were usually wrong.)
However, she attacks Obamacare from a political position, with a lot of attention driven to herself, and thus she makes herself a public figure. You say in your comments that you "question and disagree" with Al Gore when he says stupid stuff. "Questioning and disagreeing" is what the media and the libs are doing to Palin. (It's only a matter of how intense their disagreements are.)
Al Gore, again, is a public figure who is pushing for political change and who takes it upon himself to put himself in the spotlight, so he too is a legitimate figure for "questioning and disagreeing" as you yourself point out.
My point
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 18:10 ET by ConservativeClarkMy point wasnt in disagreeing with you about her position as a public figure, only that criticizm leveled at her should be fair and accurate. She was a politican, and now she is a private citizen speaking publicly about issues.
The AP's mission here seemed to be more into nitpicking and dirt-digging instead of legitimate fact checking. A fact is hardly ever 100% correct. Just as Newsbusters pointed out, she said she "often" stays at cheaper hotels than more expensive hotels but they looked into one instance to try and draw out a negative. She didnt say that she "never" stayed at one, only implied that she didnt do it very often. A person can draw out many different meanings out of that and say that shes wrong or say shes right. I only want the liberal media to start looking at all politicians objectively instead of hounding one and giving free passes to others. Same goes for any conservative media as well. Im only advocating for fair, real journalism here.
Palin is important
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 18:33 ET by Jeff in Miami BeachPalin must be doing something right. I have read her Facebook postings and they are free to anyone who wants to read them. They seem to be well thought out and in my opinion right on the money! This is not a woman that has a pay as you go web site, this is just a little public Facebook page. The great thing about Mrs. Palin is that we the people flock to her opinion and that scares the heck out of those that disagree with her.
If you think medical care is expensive now wait until it is free!
Sorry Mr. Blatt. We beg to differ.
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 18:21 ET by JWFSarah Palin was a public citizen holding public office. She has resigned and is now a private citizen. Mind you, private citizens can be very vocal. But they are still considered private citizens.
private citizen
noun
a citizen who does not hold any official or public position
source
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
I already proved to a lot of
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 18:23 ET by Mitchell BlattI already proved to a lot of people that Al Gore is a public figure worthy of attack.
Now do I have to go back and prove to you that Al Gore is a public figure? If he's just a private citizen (not holding office) will you stand up for him next time someone criticizes him for lying about global warming?
Yes sir. I just think you are confusing the 2 terms is all.
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 18:31 ET by JWFYou are correct. Al Gore and Sarah Palin can be considered public figures.
public figure
n. A famous person whose life and behavior are the focus of intense public interest and scrutiny.
same source.
It is just that as they no longer hold office, they are now private citizens. I think you are confusing the 2 terms is all.
That last sentence was not fair at all. Private Citizens can be very very vocal. And still remain a private citizen. The only criteria is actually holding an office.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
I agree with you. Public figures and private citizens can be...
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 18:42 ET by JWF...criticized based upon the opinion and policies they advocate. I just think you are confusing the 2 terms. figures and citizens.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
"I already proved to a lot
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 20:02 ET by ckc1227"I already proved to a lot of people that Al Gore is a public figure worthy of attack."
By your own definition, he's a politician.
algore is actively trying
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 20:03 ET by Willis_Leon_Johnsonalgore is actively trying to drive political agenda in his pursuit of profits at the expense of the United States TAXPAYER.
The same cannot be said of Mrs Palin.
Her desire may be for profit, to pay for the legal expanses driven up by an attack media deliberately trying to do her harm, both financially and politically.
Why has the AP refused to 'fact check' anything put out by gore of moore?
"no matter how low you set the bar, liberals can never quite measure up." -Me
http://gjresult.com
No, Michell
Mon, 11/16/2009 - 02:48 ET by Seabeach4348Algore has proven that he is a public figure worthy of attack.
Yeah, so? What's your
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 20:18 ET by Scuba DudeYeah, so? What's your point? Are you going to be Pop Tech II, attacking Gov Palin in every thread? LOTUS is still on tour trying to promote his political career instead of actually doing his job.
The bias here is that the AP will throw 11 reporters to "fact check" the book that Gov Palin wrote, yet they appear to not be able to fact check anything that the Dems/ Liberals put out.
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
خال - Scoob
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 20:23 ET by Free StinkerScoob - I like that.
Are you going to be Pop Tech II, attacking Gov Palin in every thread?
I like that even better than my first thought, PopTech jr.
Mark Levin was right about certain types of "conservatives". They keep attacking the real Conservatives so they can get some "cred" with the MSM. "See! See! I'm not like *them*" (as they point to Reagan, Thatcher, Cheney, Allen, and Palin)
خال
Thank Free, I have my
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 20:42 ET by Scuba DudeThank Free, I have my moments every now and then. : )
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
I think the AP reporters
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:12 ET by ThisnThatI think the AP reporters were trying to come up with a zinger. Like Palin possibly mis-spelling potato, or something even worse.
Although -- how could there be anything worse than mis-spelling potato, eh?
__________
"mmm, mmm, mm. Barrack-Hussain-Øbama↓." - The liberals coolaid drinking song
One of the "facts" they
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:13 ET by Mitchell BlattOne of the "facts" they "checked" was that Palin doesn't stay at fancy hotels very often, and they called it a lie, because they said Palin doesn't stay at fancy hotels very often, but she did once.
English 101
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:28 ET by Candance MooreThat's why Palin did not say "I never stay at nice hotels." That kind of absolute assertion would have been easier to refute. Instead, she said "I don't often stay at nice hotels." One example is not enough to claim she did so often.
And it doesn't matter if Palin wants to promote a book. She's not in public office, has not expressed interest in running again, and is therefore a private citizen.
She is a politician, because
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:31 ET by Mitchell BlattShe is a politician, because she's promoting a political book that, in many ways, could be used to launch her attempted run for office. No one expresses interest in running for office this early but she has a powerful PAC, and her endorsement pushed thousands to Hoffman. Political candidates have PACs at this time of the campaign season.
Furthermore, she gives speeches on political issues, and she has major influence over politics (as evidenced by Hoffman, by some of her healthcare comments), so even if she doesn't run for office she's still a political figure.
And finally, even if she weren't a political figure, she'd be a legitimate target because she's a media figure. If she's not a legitimate target because she isn't president, then why is Christina Matthews a legitimate target?
Mitchell, mitchell, mitchell
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:38 ET by BO STINKSJust because YOU say she is a politician does not mean that she is. What political office does she hold? H-m-m-m. Perhaps look up a word in the dictionary before you use it next time.
edit: Just because you changed the wording from 'politician' to 'political figure' does not make your argument more cohesive.
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the Plain Meaning of Words!" ~Sam Adams
She's a politician in that
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:39 ET by Mitchell BlattShe's a politician in that she uses her political influence to affect political issues. Maybe it would be better to say that she's a "political figure."
Her endorsement of Hoffman was key to getting him big bucks and continuing his gain in support.
It's kind of funny that some people are attacking George Soros and Andy Stern, even though they aren't elected to political office, just using those same standards.
Out of curiosity -
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:41 ET by BO STINKSWhat would you consider 'attacking' Soros and Stern?
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the Plain Meaning of Words!" ~Sam Adams
Why are you putting
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:48 ET by Mitchell BlattWhy are you putting "attacking" in quote marks? Do you not know what attacking means?
This post, and every post about Palin on conservative blogs, accuses the media of attacking her, because they criticize her.
Conservative bloggers are often (rightfully) attacking Soros and Stern.
Just in case you don't know what "attacking" means, attacking, in political terms, is a synonym for "criticizing," and you can go look up criticizing on dictionary.com if you don't know what it means.
I've never heard anyone
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:59 ET by ThisnThatI've never heard anyone call Soros a politian. But because he attacks America (you can look up the definition of attack if you don't know what it means), does that make him a polititian?
Your logic really, really sucks, you know.
__________
"mmm, mmm, mm. Barrack-Hussain-Øbama↓." - The liberals coolaid drinking song
Wow, you make no sense.
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:02 ET by Mitchell BlattWow, you make no sense. You're basically saying, Oh, lets keep attacking libs like Soros, but lets not let anyone attack Palin because I support her.
If you don't think we should be able to speak honestly about public figures, then we shouldn't speak honestly about Soros either, but Soros and Palin are both public figures, so it is in America's interest for people to speak honestly about them.
Thanks, TnT, and I think Mitchell has more problems
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:10 ET by BO STINKSthan his logic. The reason, little Mitchie, I put quotes around 'attacking' is that I wanted to hear your example of the attacks on Soros and Stern. You see, I have an inkling that Mitchie is a raving liberal and not the semi-literate libertarian he is pretending to be.
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the Plain Meaning of Words!" ~Sam Adams
I'd love to respond to you
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:22 ET by Mitchell BlattI'd love to respond to you when you actually make a statement in response to my statement, but as it is, you ignored my statement, so let me restate it:
Do you think it is wrong for the media to criticize Palin, considering that she does not hold office? If so, do you think that it is wrong for people to criticize Al Gore?
The media attacks Palin's
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:27 ET by ThisnThatThe media attacks Palin's personal live, not her policies. We attack Al Gore because he's a liar and has been pushing policies based upon junk science. Sometimes we attack him personally -- but mainly because he's living in a mansion that consumes a lot of energy; or he travels around in personal jets -- and yet he tells us we shouldn't do that.
__________
"mmm, mmm, mm. Barrack-Hussain-Øbama↓." - The liberals coolaid drinking song
Okay, so now we're getting
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:31 ET by Mitchell BlattOkay, so now we're getting down to the bottom line:
There is nothing wrong with attacking Palin as long as you base it on a legimate issue.
I agree.
Good. All policies should
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:35 ET by ThisnThatGood. All policies should be subject to honest review and debate. What drives us crazy here on NB is that the MSM refuses to do that. If Palin has a policy that sucks, then she shouldn't get our support for it.
__________
"mmm, mmm, mm. Barrack-Hussain-Øbama↓." - The liberals coolaid drinking song
Mitchell needs some
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:23 ET by ThisnThatMitchell needs some practice on how to separate logic from talking points. Throwing mud at the wall to see if it sticks isn't a very good way of conducting a dialog -- at least here on NB. He can't quite figure out that the attacks on Palin have nothing to do with her policy. They are all personal, designed to denigrate her. No one on the left seems to be able to attack her core values.
__________
"mmm, mmm, mm. Barrack-Hussain-Øbama↓." - The liberals coolaid drinking song
The attacks on Palin have
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:24 ET by Mitchell BlattThe attacks on Palin have largely been about how she allegedly doesn't know anything about the issues or about how she allegedly hates polar bears, and both of those issues have to do with policy.
Hates polar bears?! OMG.
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:33 ET by ThisnThatHates polar bears?! OMG. That does it! Now I hate Palin more than ever. What a fiend.
Spot on there, Mitchell. Now that your sensational remark has been answered, go back and do your research. There are several articles available in the Internet that even you should be able to read and understand.
__________
"mmm, mmm, mm. Barrack-Hussain-Øbama↓." - The liberals coolaid drinking song
First of all, I said
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:36 ET by Mitchell BlattFirst of all, I said "allegedly," and secondly, I'd like you to use a little bit of intelligence when reading responses.
Do I have to go through with you how liberals are concerned with her environmental policies?
And the fact that she "allegedly hates polar bears" is really no exageration: You, having followed the campaign, know that the liberals making stupid claims about polar bears and wolves.
By the way, are you going to
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:37 ET by Mitchell BlattBy the way, are you going to criticize my grammar, too, in your next response?
I don't criticize grammer.
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 18:10 ET by ThisnThatI don't criticize grammer. Then I'd have to be perfect myself.
As for polar bears, here are the facts. (1) Palin filed a lawsuit, argueing that the government’s move to list polar bears as endangered is not based on sound science. (2) The Interior Department had put the bears on the list in response to a lawsuit filed by environmental groups, who argued that the bears are being threatened by global warming.
Palin's response was in no way because she "hates polar bears". Allegedly or not.
__________
"mmm, mmm, mm. Barrack-Hussain-Øbama↓." - The liberals coolaid drinking song
It's just an opinion over
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 18:16 ET by Mitchell BlattIt's just an opinion over whether or not polar bears are threatened by global warming. Lots of liberals think so, so they aren't off base in criticizing her for that. I'd argue that they are wrong, but that's my opinion.
Liberals probably think she doesn't care about the environment. I know quite a few conservatives who think that Obama doesn't care much for American principles.
Sorry little buddy, but
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 20:10 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonSorry little buddy, but there is no factual data that shows a steady, long term decline in the populations of Polar Bears. Unless you drink too much purple koolaid, in which case you lose all control over your powers of reasoning and submit to any, and all, radical, whacky ideas that your handlers shove down your throat.
"no matter how low you set the bar, liberals can never quite measure up." -Me
http://gjresult.com
Personal - - not Policy attacks
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:20 ET by ThisnThatWhen did a late-night comedian attack Soros for wearing waders on a fishing trip, like Letterman did?
Has Soros been attacked for keeping his kids up late, like Palin has?
Has anyone accused Soros of not fathering his children, like Palin has?
How about questioning Soros parenting skills?
Anyone accused Soros lately of not going to an Ivy league college? Well, Palin has been attacked on that score.
How about calling Palin a pig, with lipstick? Did Soros have to deal with that?
The list is long. I'll leave it at that.
__________
"mmm, mmm, mm. Barrack-Hussain-Øbama↓." - The liberals coolaid drinking song
This AP Fact check doesn't
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:23 ET by Mitchell BlattThis AP Fact check doesn't fact check any personal issues. It's focused on legitimate issues. (Although it got most of the facts wrong, in it's fact check.)
Some people were criticizing the media for criticizing Palin, saying she's a "private citizen" and not a legitimate figure for discussion, so that's what I was addressing.
I'm sorry, Mitchell, but
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:29 ET by ThisnThatI'm sorry, Mitchell, but you don't know what the heck your were addressing. All over the place here. LOL - you are a funny guy.
__________
"mmm, mmm, mm. Barrack-Hussain-Øbama↓." - The liberals coolaid drinking song
You didn't ask me that statement, Mitchie.
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:28 ET by BO STINKSBut I will answer it and won't hold me breath for you to answer my 'statement.'
No, I do not think it is wrong for the media to criticize Palin for her views on actual issues. But, of course, they will not do that because they always avoid discussing (truthfully) all sides of issues.
And yes, it is perfectly acceptable to criticize Soros for his stance on issues.
Now answer my question, Mitch.
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the Plain Meaning of Words!" ~Sam Adams
Hear Mitchie, Mitchie, Mitchie
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:40 ET by BO STINKSI answered your question, aren't you going to answer mine?
Give me some examples of the attacks on Soros and Stern. Come on, big boy, surely you can do that?
***crickets***
Typical lib: takes, takes, takes and never gives back.
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the Plain Meaning of Words!" ~Sam Adams
You know full well that
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:43 ET by Mitchell BlattYou know full well that there are vast examples of articles critical of Soros and Stern. Here are just a few:
-Stern is running a corrupt union
-He is in bed with the White House/He visits there often
-He has ties to corrupt ACORN organizations
-He is ruining the economy and shaking down businesses
Soros:
-He's a hypocritical billionaire supporting socialism
-He helped the Nazi's during WWII
-He funds a bunch of corrupt interconnected organizations
Since I already defined what "attack" means, you can't respond by saying these aren't attacks.
How odd that you think I would say these are not attacks.
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 18:01 ET by BO STINKSOnly libs have trouble with the definition of words. (i.e. BJC and his trouble defining the word 'is')
And I thought Sam Webster defined 'attack' in his dictionary a few hundred yrs ago. Didn't know it was you! Congrats.
Those are pretty good examples, not great. Since you are being attacked (hah, hah I crack myself up) by so many people - I'll give ya a pass.
The reason I asked you that question is that I wanted to see if you agreed that Soros and Stern are deeply corrupt?
edit: have to go now. TnT and others - please don't bruise the troll too much because he won't be any fun to play with tomorrow. And please, when you are done demolishing his 'logic' put him back in the toy box. Thank you and good night.
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the Plain Meaning of Words!" ~Sam Adams
I happen to agree that Soros
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 18:18 ET by Mitchell BlattI happen to agree that Soros and Stern are corrupt, but that's not relavant to whether or not they are being attacked.
Well Gosh!
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:25 ET by BlondeI stayed at the Ritz Carlton once and the Bellagio once, but by golly, that's where the company events were.
That's so far gone, the media is so stretching the truth....their lies aren't even very believable any more.
I hope he fails, too.
The AP should look into Bill Ayers--
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:13 ET by carolina09There's piles of evidence that he was the actual author of Dreams of My Father. Now there's an interesting and explosive story--
And when exactly was the
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:49 ET by lsudolemiteAnd when exactly was the last AP fact check of Matthews and Olberman? Palin is a legitimate target; her family is not. And the fact is that they were frequent targets of gratuitous pot shots. I didn't see such intense interest in debunking or "fact-checking" any of the lefty blog claims, or for that matter, any of the convenient crap coming out of Levi Johnston's mouth by the AP. He's a public figure now, so why is that?
Cal Woodward: Give back your degree in journalism - if you have
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:12 ET by LindamaeMy response to Cal. There are several more facts to add but I just feel as if shooting fish in a barrel is not fair.
Cal neglects to mention that one of the first things Palin did when
Governor was to sell the Governor's jet for @ $2 million dollars. That
savings makes the $20,000 expenses for travel seem piddling. I remind
you that Obama dissed visiting the wounded soldiers in Landschule, Germany, and worked out at the posh ritz Carlton instead. Cal also neglects to mention the cost of Obama's grand tour of Europe
prior to his election. It was our tax dollars which paid for that
extravagance. I remember reading about $500 meals for Obama. That
alone convinces me that Cal had a "hit" piece in mind when he reviewed
Palin's book. I call it skewed - or screwed - "sorry, mom. He also
neglected to compare Palin's house "problem" with the Tony Resko
scandal surrounding Obama's house purchase. That has been conveniently
swept under Cal's rug. He should have been honest and declared that he
had written a love letter
to Obama and a mash note to Palin. This is journalism? No! Well, he
does not claim to be honest and fair in his comments. I've taken the
time to review both Palin and Obama. Palin wins.
One reporter of the AP has
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:23 ET by eaglewingz08One reporter of the AP has found more things wrong with what Obama has said on health care in one speech, than eleven so called reporters have found about Gov. Palin's lengthy tome. Why doesn't AP do the same with Joe Biden? They don't have enough reporters to fact check the current VP. It would cause a melt down of geologic proportions.
Both Steve Schmidt, who headed McCain's campaign, and
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 18:08 ET by Rush FanNicolle Wallace, a McCain campaign advisor and spokesperson, are claiming that Sarah Palin's account in her book of aspects of the McCain campaign are not true.
CNN's Political Ticker reports:
From the leftist Huffington Post:
The conservative blog Free Republic has an interesting thread on Nicolle Wallace/Sarah Palin. Blogger RobaWho writes:
For what it's worth, I believe Sarah Palin.
------------------------------------
“They have plunged to such depths of incompetence and unprofessionalism and ignorance, it's actually hard for me to come up with accurate words to describe what has happened to them,…” ~ Rush Limbaugh on the media
SARAH: AVOID THE SNAKES
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 18:49 ET by reelman46SARAH: STAY CLEAR OF THE SNAKES!
“Clinton Says She’d Be Glad to Meet Palin Over Coffee
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she’s never met the one-time Republican vice presidential hopeful and former Alaska governor and thinks it would be very interesting to sit down and talk with her.”….Nov 2009 excerpt
==========
I sincerely hope conservative Republicans with any national ambitions stay clear of the secular socialist Party snakes. They hate you for what you believe (smaller gov-meant, lower taxes, basic morals) and that is never going to change. The socialists have no ethical or moral boundaries. They will lie or at least distort anything a conservative says…plus they will pass on their venom to the minion media (whether its a private meeting or not).
As I used to say to my college Biology students, “What can you learn from a C student”? (ans: how to make a C) Even that is more than you will ever learn from the secular socialist snakes. Eventually we should all learn nothing good or honest can result…so why bother?
The minion media unleashed 11 reporters to “fact check” Sarah’s book. They, of course, nitpicked with snarky comments. Heck, the angry socialists even produced a trashing book to release that looked like a clone of Sarah’s book. What should that tell all thinking Americans?
Were unleashed reporters assigned to fact check that book or Gore or Kerry or Obama? You get it. They leaked nothing as Obama’s life was sealed from the voters as no other candidate’s ever has been. (Now we know why)
Sarah, you can’t get the “snake vote” so do what Reagan did…go directly to the voters, to Americans…Couric and Gibson should be lessons enough for you. Also avoid the loser Republicans…we all know what you can learn from them.
http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish
Isn't "fact checking" by
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 18:56 ET by celatorIsn't "fact checking" by the AP a lot like having an orangutan do your brain surgery?
It would take 17 batallions of "fact checkers" constantly raking through AP stories before I believed anything they wrote.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
celator,
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 19:25 ET by Chris Norman"Isn't "fact checking" by the AP a lot like having an orangutan do your brain surgery?"
If that orangutan happened to be one of your proven avowed enemies - yes. :)
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Someone ask William Shatner
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 19:20 ET by Chris NormanPalin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel...With air fare, the cost to Alaska was well over $3,000."
Am I missing something here? If they stayed four nights at the quoted price, that would be over $2,800 alone. Add in NY hotel taxes, etc. and the total of the hotel stay would probably be "well over $3,000" alone. If the total of the entire trip was "well over $3,000", either the hotel rate or the air fare must have been cheap. Since air fare from Alaska to NYC is probably very expensive, I'd guess that the hotel bill was deeply discounted. Face it - a four night/five day visit to NYC for two from Alaska for $3,000 doesn't sound like too much. Something doesn't seem right to criticize here. Maybe they got the hotel at Priceline.com.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Well, if we want to play
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 20:24 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonWell, if we want to play with numbers....
Little johnnie salazar, third district of Colorado, reportedly went through over a million TAXPAYER dollars . And, according to him, he ate at McDonalds and stayed at cheap hotels.
When asked about his expenses, he told a Denver TV station reporter to shut up and sit down because Denver isn't in his district.
Apparently Sarah actually ITEMIZED her expenses so they could be checked by HER constituents.
oooohhh, I forgot to mention the really big D in front of his name. He actively represents pelosi.
"no matter how low you set the bar, liberals can never quite measure up." -Me
http://gjresult.com
Hypocrisy/bias is
Mon, 11/16/2009 - 14:41 ET by bigtimerHypocrisy/bias is never-ending with the leftist press/msm.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
Must be nice to for a
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 19:55 ET by RR GOPMust be nice to for a business to have money to burn like that given this economy and the failing bottom line of many news agencies.
Of course, remember a bunch of these news outlets flew reporters and other assorted snoops up to Alaska trying to dig up dirt on the Palins.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
The Truth About It All
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 21:22 ET by justbob223These people are scared spitless of Sarah Palin.
This Proves It
Mon, 11/16/2009 - 04:13 ET by DoktorFrankenConservative book writers create more jobs in the Fact Checking area than even the Left's presidential candidates can conjure up.
Sarah Palin: The Most Dangerous Conservative In America
I just checked the cost of
Mon, 11/16/2009 - 12:52 ET by Jack BauerI just checked the cost of booking the Essex House for OCTOBER 2010, single room for 2, I adult plus 1 child.
Oddly enough, the price the AP used as an EXAMPLE just happens to be the current rate for a SUITE. But why did they assume she ordered a suite?
I just got back from Paris for a few days. Let me assure y'all, it was way MORE expensive than the Essex.
Re Hotel Room
Mon, 11/16/2009 - 14:34 ET by slickwillie2001Folks should ignore that goofy hotel room-rate nonsense. This often happens when stupid or wilfully stupid reporters 'investigate' travel costs. The rate quoted in the story is likely the legal 'rack-rate' posted on the back of the hotel room door. By law it has to be there, so hotels always put up the highest most ridiculous rate imaginable. It is possible that no one has ever paid that rate for that room. As well, Palin would have qualified for a standard government discount which is significant.
Sol -- yep. I think it's
Mon, 11/16/2009 - 14:41 ET by Jack BauerSol -- yep. I think it's telling theat the rate the AP quotes just happens to be the same as the 2nd most expensive currently displayed on the official Essex House website.
Coincidence. I don't think so. Just a lazy arsed reporter with an agenda who cOuyldn't even be bothered to go back to the 2007 rates.
But as you say. Who pays that UPFRONT rate.
associated press
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 10:18 ET by NotFondOfLibsThe associated press is a scum sucker organization with ZERO journalistic integrity. The American public ought to virtually ignore this band of so called journalists. It seems they have no shame about illegal copying of someone's book in order to distribute it to reporters to find some dirt.