List of Books Palin Tried to Have Banned

[Mrs Mungo]

i agree. But unfortunately it happens a LOT in both parties.

 

big cities, small towns.

state and federal levels.

Republican and Democrat.

and probably Libertarian ;)

 

and Palin didn't fire the librarian, either. She ended up quitting.

 

But she threatened to fire people and said she was just "testing their loyalty." That's just as bad.

 

Obama will dismiss Bush's cabinet members and appoint his own.

political plurality? or Constitutional [executive] authority?

 

A presidential cabinet is not the same thing and you know it, don't play obtuse just to obfuscate the issue. If Obama kept threatening to fire all the Republicans in government until they gave up and resigned, I would say the same thing. That's what they do in fascist countries, it's not how we do business in the US.

 

What other appointed positions will the new President shake up?

 

Librarians are not "appointed" by the mayor.

[Storm Bay]

Every single place I've lived since 1992 has had a library where almost everything that didn't toe an evangelical Christian line mysteriously "disappeared" shortly after being put into circulation. Some were "lost", some were "checked out" (by one person) for 5 years and never returned, some actually said "checked in", but the librarians admitted they hadn't seen them in years (eg: stolen).

Don't ever forget - Hitler's FIRST move was banning/burning books. And he was democratically elected.

 

 

asta

 

 

 

 

I wonder who makes the books disappear where you live--the librarians or some of the patrons?

 

If Palin did indeed ban those books, did she do it on her own, or was that part of her election platform? Because, right or wrong, if she did do this and it was something she was elected in part to do, then she did serve those that voted her in, which would have been the majority in that area.

 

 

As for comparing Palin to Hitler based on this, I think that's a bit of a stretch. Hitler was also a strong social Darwinist (please--don't confuse this with Darwinian evolution--this was an offshoot that most evolutionists hated and were afraid of. Another offshoot was Eugenics, for eg) who believed that some races were superior than others. He also wanted to rule the world, etc. I wouldn't put Palin in the same shoes as Hitler. I think you can allow all books and still be a megolomaniac, because there is more than one way to control what the "masses" think;) Commercial marketing in this country uses propaganda all the time, and just look how greedy we've become as a result ;) (this was to inject humour, not to compare TV commercials with Hitler Youth!)

[Peek a Boo]

But she threatened to fire people and said she was just "testing their loyalty." That's just as bad.

 

actually, she asked for their resignation.

I don't recall seeing her saying that a "threat to fire" was the "test of loyalty" --it is my understanding that there was likely more discussion to this than that.

 

Librarians are not *elected* -- they are hired by city administration.

 

 

 

A presidential cabinet is not the same thing and you know it, don't play obtuse just to obfuscate the issue. If Obama kept threatening to fire all the Republicans in government until they gave up and resigned, I would say the same thing. That's what they do in fascist countries, it's not how we do business in the US.

I was referring to your statement about people who work for the government --that's uh, what Cabinet members do, right?

 

There are lots of positions where philosophical ideology comes into play. Especially if the person in that position has already stated publicly that they do NOT support you. I'm not going to make any judgments about palin's intentions or motives here --"a test of loyalty" indicates she was likely fielding some serious vitriol.

 

there have been other instances --already mentioned in this thread-- where people come in and fire appointees or other hired gvt officials. And yeah, i agree it certainly has fascist leanings. However, Palin did not go through and oust everyone.

 

fascism:

1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

and that's one reason i don't want gvt-run healthcare that i can't opt out of :D

[LizzyBee]

I'm not sure why it really matters what was on the list. The simple fact is that she tried to have some books removed from the library.

 

Based on the reading I've done, that has not been shown to be a fact. She inquired of the librarian "what would you do if?" Maybe she wanted to make sure the librarian wouldn't give in if/when asked to remove books.

[Storm Bay]

"official Obama website"--

 

 

he doesn't appear to be an official member of the Obama campaign.

 

It's always important to verify the source of a site as fans and even imposters often set up blogs, websites, facebook pages of famous and even not-so-famous people. Even my brother, who is not famous, but has a very small fan based due to a couple of horror movies he did (oh, those horror movie buffs--good fans many times) has had an imposter do this before. He had the webpage removed, but first he had to know about it. There are even photos of this imposter on the internet (from the back) saying my brother was in places he wasn't. Now, take someone famous like Barack, and fans might go crazy and do things to discredit others.

[Peek a Boo]

Based on the reading I've done, that has not been shown to be a fact. She inquired of the librarian "what would you do if?" Maybe she wanted to make sure the librarian wouldn't give in if/when asked to remove books.

 

this is kinda what I was thinking. Esp if the previous administration had a record of trying to have books banned surreptitiously. maybe that's why the librarian won't comment --it could dig up dirt on the guy she was supporting.

but that's purely a hypothetical scenario.

maybe Palin did try to ban books.

maybe the librarian was caught banning books.

maybe

maybe

maybe

[Mrs Mungo]

actually, she asked for their resignation.

I don't recall seeing her saying that a "threat to fire" was the "test of loyalty" --it is my understanding that there was likely more discussion to this than that.

 

Forcing to resign v. firing-semantics as far as I'm concerned.

 

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html

 

*from Time magazine*

news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

 

*from Peek a Boo*

they are hired by city administration.

 

I was referring to your statement about people who work for the government --that's uh, what Cabinet members do, right?

 

So, you admit there is a difference between political appointees and people who work in non-political government jobs? What's your point then?

 

There are lots of positions where philosophical ideology comes into play. Especially if the person in that position has already stated publicly that they do NOT support you.

 

NOT when it comes to non-political positions. It shouldn't matter. Is the librarian somehow going to thwart what the mayor wants to accomplish in government? No, it's not a political position.

 

there have been other instances --already mentioned in this thread-- where people come in and fire appointees or other hired gvt officials.

 

Again, librarians are not political appointees.

 

And yeah, i agree it certainly has fascist leanings. However, Palin did not go through and oust everyone.

 

She did oust a number of people though and was sued for wrongful termination *and* is under investigation for the same. I think it raises enough questions to be concerned.

[Peek a Boo]

It's always important to verify the source of a site as fans and even imposters often set up blogs, websites, facebook pages of famous and even not-so-famous people. Even my brother, who is not famous, but has a very small fan based due to a couple of horror movies he did (oh, those horror movie buffs--good fans many times) has had an imposter do this before. He had the webpage removed, but first he had to know about it. There are even photos of this imposter on the internet (from the back) saying my brother was in places he wasn't. Now, take someone famous like Barack, and fans might go crazy and do things to discredit others.

 

absolutely! that's why I thought it was important to point that out.

This isn't an official Obama tact.

 

that we know of :D

[Saille]

MY.barackobama.com website --that's not "the official" website. It is a blog.

 

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/markbrickman/gG5rK5/commentary

 

however, i did notice that it is giving an error message now, so unless someone took a screenshot of it, it's gone. But even if it WAS perpetuated on the blog, that does not make it endorsed campaign material.

 

Yeah, I have one of those, too. Anyone can sign up and have one, but I'm sure they'd be pulled down for objectionable or harmful content. Probably there are staffers sitting there reading latest posts who caught it.

[Saille]

I highly doubt that Palin tried to have all of the books on this list banned. Maybe these books were controversial when they were written. But there are a lot of books on here that are now widely considered classics. It's hard for me to believe that she's out trying to ban To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn. :glare:

 

Those are pretty common on banned book lists, both of them.

[Old Dominion Heather]

This list seems to be exactly the same as the list of "Books Banned at One Time or Another in the United States" and here "Banned Books 2006". I expect someone just lifted that and attibuted it to Sarah Palin.

[Mrs Mungo]

This list seems to be exactly the same as the list of "Books Banned at One Time or Another in the United States" and here "Banned Books 2006". I expect someone just lifted that and attibuted it to Sarah Palin.

 

Yep, I agree (and said the same on the bottom of page 8 :D).

[Peek a Boo]

Forcing to resign v. firing-semantics as far as I'm concerned.

 

I'm sure a lot of people shrug it off as semantics. apparently Palin kept her on for a while befiore the librarian quit. yeah, i'd be interested in hearing more FACTS about that.

 

So, you admit there is a difference between political appointees and people who work in non-political government jobs? What's your point then?

The librarian works for the city. That's uh, the LOCAL government.

 

when you stated "There is a word for firing everyone who works for government who doesn't agree with the dominant party but it's not Democracy."

My point is I was responding directly to your wording. That's all. If you want to amend it to be "non-political positions hired by administrations" we can do that too.

The librarian entered the political realm by publicly endorsing the opposing candidate in a campaign advertisement.

 

i agree that librarians really SHOULDN't have to deal w/ political issues. But unfortunately they do. I've already seen it on our little library board. I shudder at what goes on in the bigger cities.

 

 

She did oust a number of people though and was sued for wrongful termination *and* is under investigation for the same. I think it raises enough questions to be concerned.

 

I agree that questions should be asked. Is that suit settled yet? I'll be happy to wait for the facts of that investigation to be made known before judging her character on allegations.

[Storm Bay]

absolutely! that's why I thought it was important to point that out.

This isn't an official Obama tact.

 

that we know of :D

 

Yes, I got that--I was agreeing with you--sorry if I didn't make that clear. Or maybe you know I was agreeing but...

[asta]

"official Obama website"--

 

as i was googling, i came across this website

http://www.fightthepalinsmears.com/smears/banned-books-and-fired-librarian/

 

that says "Also, Obama's own website is furthering this fraudulent list [7]."

 

but when you click on the #7 footnote, it takes you to a MY.barackobama.com website --that's not "the official" website. It is a blog.

 

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/markbrickman/gG5rK5/commentary

 

however, i did notice that it is giving an error message now, so unless someone took a screenshot of it, it's gone. But even if it WAS perpetuated on the blog, that does not make it endorsed campaign material.

 

 

eta:

i posted too soon --someone DID capture a screenshot, lol!

 

http://www.okieonthelam.com/?p=2296

 

another edit:

 

this is the poster on the Obama blog that perpetuated the list:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/markbrickman

 

"Mark Brickman is a member of Obama San Mateo/California 12th Congressional District, a grassroots organization that is dedicated to the election of Barack Obama in California and ultimately the United States."

he doesn't appear to be an official member of the Obama campaign.

 

Actually, "my.barackobama.com" is part of the official Barack Obama website.

 

If you go to the main site, on the right hand side, there is a clickable for it that says "sign up now" - "make friends, host events, help fundraise, your own blog, and much more...". It has the official campaign symbol and everything.

 

Now, do I think Sen. Obama can possibly keep track of everything that is being written on those blogs? No, of course not. I'm sure he has moderators that are very busy right about now.

 

What I find disturbing isn't the fact the blog was written (the moderators caught it and took down the offensive post - stuff happens) but rather that it has disappeared from Google's cache. I have found stuff I wrote on bulletin boards in 2001 on Google's cache; it seems to take an act of God to get something off of Google. Yet *poof* this story is gone from the cache.

 

Even more disturbing to me is that Obama's followers aren't listening to him. He came right out, right at the beginning, and said that families were off limits, yet here we are. The Guardian UK did an article about how his own followers may cost him the election.

 

I just find the whole thing sad. People should be determining elections, not media outlets.

 

 

asta

[Cheryl in NM]

*deleted*

 

I'm against banning books, but I believe, like someone else said, that some books should have a warning. There are so many books and if you have an avid reader it's hard to keep up with what they are reading.

 

I think this list is probably not Sarah Palin's and it is being touted as so for inflamatory reasons.

[Saille]

I'm sure a lot of people shrug it off as semantics. apparently Palin kept her on for a while befiore the librarian quit. yeah, i'd be interested in hearing more FACTS about that.

 

Yes, and based on the news sources I read, she backed off because of public outcry. Period.

[Cheryl in NM]

She did oust a number of people though and was sued for wrongful termination *and* is under investigation for the same. I think it raises enough questions to be concerned.

 

Go here if you want the facts in the Palin investigation. *deleted*

[Peek a Boo]

Or maybe you know I was agreeing but...

 

 

.....but wanted to reiterate that this was NOT an officially endorsed Obama tact, so any statements saying that it is "on Obama's official site" are bunk.

 

I like Mrs. Mungo's idea of trying to avoid blogs :)

 

i do think the screenshot of an Obama blog actually helped tho --it verified it came from a blog and not his official site.

 

The only time you can really "trust" a blog is when it offers links to credible sources. i do appreciate the blogs that compile a list of credible links [gvt sites, news organizations, timelines, etc] for specific issues. Those are handy.

 

---------------

but asta, even tho the blogs are "part of" the official site, that's a far cry for it being listed as Official Obama Stuff. I can't stand Obama, but I'm not going to accuse him of something that he had no real part in.

[Cheryl in NM]

I don't think "The email that I received with a list of books Sarah Palin may or may not have tried to get banned" would have fit.

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

How about "Books that people have tried to ban in the US"? Obviously, it's been proven that this isn't Palin's list. She didn't come up with it and no other allegations have been proven. We need proof, people! I'm so sick of all the allegations without ANY back up! As someone else said earlier, it truly is disgusting.

[Peek a Boo]

Yes, and based on the news sources I read, she backed off because of public outcry. Period.

 

*ah!* a politician who actually listens to the concern of the people!

 

how refreshing!

 

:lol:

 

[did y'all catch the snark there? I'm not even voting for the McPain ticket. I'm just discussing allegations vs known facts. and we still have heard darn little from HER. But I couldn't resist trying the positive spin, lol.]

[Phred]

Well, Sunday just went by and she hasn't appeared on one of the news shows yet. Tick tock...

[hsmamainva]

Well, Sunday just went by and she hasn't appeared on one of the news shows yet. Tick tock...

 

Yahoo just reported that she's agreed to sit down with Charles Gibson from ABC Nightly News, but they didn't give a date or time (that I could see)

 

.......

 

Here's a link to the news story -- says that Palin will sit down with him sometime this coming week in Alaska

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080907/pl_politico/13227

[Mrs Mungo]

when you stated "There is a word for firing everyone who works for government who doesn't agree with the dominant party but it's not Democracy."

My point is I was responding directly to your wording. That's all. If you want to amend it to be "non-political positions hired by administrations" we can do that too.

 

There is a huge difference between "everyone who works in government" and "political apointees." If you want to imply that the cabinet of the president of the United States apointed by the president and a local librarian hired by city government are the same, you can make that argument but don't pretend it's the argument I was making.

 

The librarian entered the political realm by publicly endorsing the opposing candidate in a campaign advertisement.

 

That shouldn't matter. People have the RIGHT to campaign for the candidate of their choice. There are very few government jobs that curtail those activities. My husband's is one of them; his duties, responsibilities and restrictions are laid out in law. If the activity isn't restricted by law then you are free to do as you wish. You shouldn't run the risk of getting fired (or forced to resign) as the town's librarian because you take part in a political campaign. It's against the nature and principles of our country.

[Mrs Mungo]

Yahoo just reported that she's agreed to sit down with Charles Gibson from ABC Nightly News, but they didn't give a date or time (that I could see)

 

.......

 

Here's a link to the news story -- says that Palin will sit down with him sometime this coming week in Alaska

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080907/pl_politico/13227

 

Whew...just thinking as a person? If I knew *I* had to sit down with the press and be accountable for everything I've ever said or done I'd be having a heart attack.

[Jill- OK]

Until they came for a book you valued. If we stand by as books we see no value in are taken from libraries then we've let the precedent be set by which others can be removed as well.

 

Didn't you see this part of Sarah's post?

 

Much as I find redeeming and beautiful in Lewis's "The Horse and His Boy," I would not cry foul if a school district with a heavy Muslim population decided to take it off a "recommended reading" list, or asked a teacher not to use it in her 4th grade reading group.

 

She's not exempting herself from the kind of thoughtful, sensical approbation of what books might best be used where.

 

There are only so many books and shelves in the world.

 

I totally share Sarah's frustration with the word 'censorship' being used to describe both governmental restriction of authors, and taking a wildly questionable book off of a school shelf. (Some of the books on the 'banned' books lists fall into that category.)

 

I'll go a step further and say I'm embarassed for us when I see a Mom's/community's request to remove an explicit book from a school shelf right next to a title of Solzhenitsyn's on a 'banned' book list.

 

The only lists of those sort that I pay attention to, in fact, are those that clearly differentiate, and explain the situation behind each attempted 'banning'.

 

I'm including a link to something I read recently that captures my frustration; a dad asking that Jodi Picoult's Nineteen Minutes be removed from a high school library. (That 7th and 8th graders have access to. In the article, it mentions towards that end that they've now started requiring 7th and 8th graders to have permission slips signed in order to check out books from the high school...I'm just wondering if that would have ever happened without a parent making a fuss.)

 

I don't support true censorship. But I also believe that not every situation that's labeled such in our society today fits that description. And...I believe that watering down the gauge might actually pave the way for more *real* censorship, or a society that can't be brought to make any kind of judgement about 'inappropriateness' for certain ages of children and situations.

 

JMO.

[Jill- OK]

I don't think they are always stolen by Evangelicals with an agenda.

 

I don't know too many Evangelicals who would steal books with references to the Bible. :-)

[Storm Bay]

I totally share Sarah's frustration with the word 'censorship' being used to describe both governmental restriction of authors, and taking a wildly questionable book off of a school shelf. (Some of the books on the 'banned' books lists fall into that category.)

I'm including a link to something I read recently that captures my frustration; a dad asking that Jodi Picoult's Nineteen Minutes be removed from a high school library. (That 7th and 8th graders have access to. In the article, it mentions towards that end that they've now started requiring 7th and 8th graders to have permission slips signed in order to check out books from the high school...I'm just wondering if that would have ever happened without a parent making a fuss.)

 

I don't support true censorship. But I also believe that not every situation that's labeled such in our society today fits that description. And...I believe that watering down the gauge might actually pave the way for more *real* censorship, or a society that can't be brought to make any kind of judgement about 'inappropriateness' for certain ages of children and situations.

 

JMO.

 

Censorship is a tough subject, because once you start, where do you draw the line? With the particular book you linked, I think age restrictions may appropriate if we're going to have them on movies (only with parental/guardian permission under a certain age.)

 

I remember having a long debate about this with a philosophy professor (feminist--female) who was writing on this years ago. It had to do with pornography, which no feminist I've ever actually discussed it with, agrees to be right. Her point, and it was tough for me to swallow at my young age, was that if you started to censor, how far would it go? I still think there needs to be a line (snuff films are and ought to be illegal, X movies ought to be in places teens can't get them on their own), but just who gets to make that line?

 

As for books, it's one thing to ban a book from a school library, and another to ban it from being printed or sold anywhere in the country. I think children have a right to avoid violation from overt violence, horror, abuse, s*x, and, honestly, that can come in the form of printed matter as well as movies, etc. We allow far more books on library shelves now than we did 100 years ago, but Americans overall have lost many rights even as women and minorities have gained a few.

[Dawn E]

I'm assuming that someone has addressed that this has been deemed a hoax. I haven't read the entire thread, but Obama has taken the list off his campaign site. Here is a link.

[mcconnellboys]

Wow, most of these make no sense to me whatsoever, so I guess I would question the source....

[LauraGB]

I really want to like Palin. I was impressed with the speech and wanted to find info from the residents of the state of Alaska. I was sad to hear about the book banning and went in search of more info. I didn't find any, until tonight when I was digging through a fishing forum (I get around, ladies, I do! - I was checking on dh's behalf) when the subject of the Pebble mine came up. Here is a link, an article that was published in the W Post, written by a person who was on the committee that opposed her trying to fire the librarian over the whole book banning thing. (This thread got pretty lengthy pretty quickly, so if someone else posted a link to the article, I'm sorry.) http://my2bucks.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/a-letter-from-someone-who-has-known-sarah-palin-since-1992/

 

I never post in the political threads. I rarely read past the first page - just don't usually want to be influenced. This book thing really got to me, though, so I thought I'd share the only thing I could find on it. Its interesting, although it is written by someone who has obviously been burned by her.

 

Also, disclaimer: I should also say that I know absolutely nothing about the blog that the article is posted in - like I said, I found the link on a fishing forum, so I can't comment about anything other than what is on that one page because I didn't look past that one page. Judging from the right side, its a fairly liberal blog, nothing creepy ;).

[ekarl2]

Based on the reading I've done, that has not been shown to be a fact. She inquired of the librarian "what would you do if?" Maybe she wanted to make sure the librarian wouldn't give in if/when asked to remove books.

 

 

I've also thought it could be a backgrounder question asked so that, if she were asked by a constituent about banning a particular book, she would be able to speak in an educated way about why she couldn't. You never know.

 

I find it AMAZING, though, that NO ONE has mentioned Little Red Riding Hood! C'mon people ... Little Red Riding Hood by the Brother's Grimm???? WHy on EARTH would you want to ban that????

[RenayofRohan]

I really want to like Palin. I was impressed with the speech and wanted to find info from the residents of the state of Alaska. I was sad to hear about the book banning and went in search of more info. I didn't find any, until tonight when I was digging through a fishing forum (I get around, ladies, I do! - I was checking on dh's behalf) when the subject of the Pebble mine came up. Here is a link, an article that was published in the W Post, written by a person who was on the committee that opposed her trying to fire the librarian over the whole book banning thing. (This thread got pretty lengthy pretty quickly, so if someone else posted a link to the article, I'm sorry.) http://my2bucks.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/a-letter-from-someone-who-has-known-sarah-palin-since-1992/

 

I never post in the political threads. I rarely read past the first page - just don't usually want to be influenced. This book thing really got to me, though, so I thought I'd share the only thing I could find on it. Its interesting, although it is written by someone who has obviously been burned by her.

 

Also, disclaimer: I should also say that I know absolutely nothing about the blog that the article is posted in - like I said, I found the link on a fishing forum, so I can't comment about anything other than what is on that one page because I didn't look past that one page. Judging from the right side, its a fairly liberal blog, nothing creepy ;).

 

Wow, thank you for the link to this amazing article. I will go ahead and believe everything I just read. What a terrible person Sarah Palin must be! :eek::smilielol5:

[RenayofRohan]

Yeah, great article. But I just have to disagree with one point:

 

"Basically, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have only 2 things in

common: their gender and their good looks."

 

I never considered Hillary Clinton much of a babe. :lol:

[Peek a Boo]

There is a huge difference between "everyone who works in government" and "political apointees." If you want to imply that the cabinet of the president of the United States apointed by the president and a local librarian hired by city government are the same, you can make that argument but don't pretend it's the argument I was making.

 

it certainly might not have been the argument YOU were making - i never pretended it was. i simply pointed out that there are plenty of government employees who routinely face losing their jobs at the turn of an administration --and that's not limited to cabinet members. YOU might not have heard of any librarians or other city staff being dumped w/ a new administration, but it happens a lot. There are over 50 thousand cities in the US.

 

 

 

That shouldn't matter. People have the RIGHT to campaign for the candidate of their choice. ..... You shouldn't run the risk of getting fired (or forced to resign) as the town's librarian because you take part in a political campaign. It's against the nature and principles of our country.

 

 

I'm betting that there WAS more to this than "just" endorsing a candidate. We are not privvy to all the statements made by this librarian. Librarians are not infallible. But apparently she was pretty vocal in her opposition to Palin. What that looked like exactly? i dunno.

 

It is not logical to assume that only the following happened:

the librarian participated in endorsing Palin's opposition.

Palin asked for her resignation before taking office.

Palin questioned her about banning books.

The librarian quit.

 

we know NOTHING about the motives of ANY of these people.

we know NONE of the back stories, side comments, or personal dealings "off teh record" in this situation.

do we really think that there's NOT more to this story?

 

If a co-worker's campaigning is being vitriolic, they are likely to be fired if they continue to make the workplace unbearable. NOT because they were "exercising their freedom to campaign" --but because they are not giving full support to the company by creating such an unproductive inefficient workplace. If a librarian [or any other city staff] is going above and beyond what is considered appropriate in their duties and dealings w/ city staff, then I can absolutely understand a "test of loyalty." The librarian's lack of statement on this issue bothers me --if Palin was really trying to get books BANNED, I expect she would have spoken up decisively at this point --she'd have a lot of support ;)

 

having been through and personally watched a small town have HUGE upheavals in the mayor, city manager, and police chief, I would almost say it is FACT there's more to the history of this story. i am thankful i had the opportunity to question off the record several people who were involved when that happened, including a City Councilman that I meet with regularly, a Parks and Rec board member that was elected to City Council -i took his place on the P&R board-, a Planning and Zoning board member, and our current mayor: a homeschool dad that lives down the street. It revealed a LOT that never made it to our local city or county paper --or council meetings. Our long-time city secretary resigned cuz she was THAT wrapped up in working for only a particular administration. There was dirt uncovered, people fired, and some let go quietly so the "dirt" wouldn't follow them officially and affect their family. The guys in charge looked horrible, but were actually pretty darn gracious considering.

 

political turnovers in city staff?

especially when a few people have been in a position of authority for a while?

oh. yeah.

 

This could be the beginnings of a new thread..... ;)

 

But regardless, there's a lot to politics, even in a small town.

 

not that i like it, but I'm beginning to at least get the chance to SEE it from the inside.

[Storm Bay]

I really want to like Palin. . (This thread got pretty lengthy pretty quickly, so if someone else posted a link to the article, I'm sorry.) http://my2bucks.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/a-letter-from-someone-who-has-known-sarah-palin-since-1992/

. Its interesting, although it is written by someone who has obviously been burned by her.

 

Also, disclaimer: I should also say that I know absolutely nothing about the blog that the article is posted in - like I said, I found the link on a fishing forum, so I can't comment about anything other than what is on that one page because I didn't look past that one page. Judging from the right side, its a fairly liberal blog, nothing creepy ;).

 

I haven't decide about Palin yet, but my qualms about this article (which, if the allegations are true, certainly make Palin look like a lying hypocrite) are:

 

1. there is no surname given, only a first name

 

2. there isn't one link or footnote to prove her case

 

3. She said that she didn't want the letter posted on the internet, but there it is on a blog.

 

However, if she's even done one of these nefarious things, she's no different than anyone else running, IMO. I'll bet you you can find disagreeable things each and everyone of them has done and drag it out in the open. Or you can take something out of context and put shades into it that were never intended. Plus, no matter what someone does, someone else will think it's wrong. For me it's always voting in the lesser of 2 evils, which I hate, but that's how it is. The question is, who is worse, Obama or McCain? Which VP is worse? Will I ever really know? While there are some wonderful journalists, I lost all respect for journalism's coverage of politics at 19 when I saw jokes recorded as serious statement, etc, etc by someone the media didn't like (but who was the elected premiere.) I've seen the same kind of thing in the media regarding homeschooling and other areas.

 

Guess you could call me a political & media skeptic.