Tag: Sarah Palin

So what about those death threats?

What is really going on at McCain-Palin rallies? The Times Leader of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., reports that the Secret Service can find no evidence that anyone shouted “Kill him!” in reference to Barack Obama at a recent Palin event (via Little Green Footballs).

The story was originally reported by a competitor, the Scranton Times-Tribune, which is standing by its reporter, David Singleton:

Mr. Singleton said the remark came from his right, amid booing that followed Mr. Hackett’s mention of Mr. Obama.

“[I] very distinctly heard, ‘Kill him!’ Male voice,” he said. “It was definitely back in the back.”

Mr. Singleton said other people were in the bleachers he was behind and in similar orange bleachers to the right.

He moved toward the area where he thought the remark came from to see if the person who said it would repeat it. That didn’t happen, and he was unable to identify the speaker, he said.

“I didn’t hear anything else at that point,” he said.

Singleton, by the way, is described by his employer as a wire-service and newspaper reporter with some 30 years of experience. In other words, he doesn’t sound like someone out to make a name for himself. As his editor put it, “He heard what he heard.”

Conservatives bloggers today are excited over the possibility that Singleton got it wrong, pointing to it as evidence that McCain’s and Palin’s crowds would never, ever yell out death threats, and that Obama and his supporters are wrong to level that accusation.

“It’s as if they’re just making stuff up to make McCain and Palin look bad,” says the InstaPundit, Glenn Reynolds, referring to the media.

But not only is the jury out on the Times-Tribune story; there are other facts to sift through as well.

The first report that Palin’s crowds were getting out of control appeared in the Washington Post in early October, when Dana Milbank covered a Florida event at which “Kill him!” was clearly heard. According to Milbank, though, those words were apparently aimed at former Weather Underground radical William Ayers, not Obama. Which I guess makes it OK.

But wait. On Oct. 8, MSNBC reported that someone shouted “Off with his head!” at a Pennsylvania event when McCain mentioned Obama’s tax plan. That sounds like a death threat aimed at Obama, does it not? I don’t think Ayers has a tax plan.

Finally, the aforementioned Milbank says the Secret Service is now stopping reporters from interviewing people at McCain-Palin rallies — a censorious action that is most definitely not part of the agency’s mission statement, and that makes you wonder about the veracity of its claims about Singleton’s reporting. Milbank puts it this way:

So they prevent reporters from getting near the people doing the shouting, then claim it’s unfounded because the reporters can’t get close enough to identify the person.

I can understand why the Secret Service would do that. More media coverage means more reports of death threats; more death threats mean more nuts reach for their guns. But I also don’t doubt that the agency would rather keep Obama safe than be completely forthcoming with the truth.

Here’s the scorecard, as best as I can tell:

  • “Kill him!” at Florida rally. True, though probably aimed at Ayers rather than Obama. Still, a death threat is a death threat.
  • “Off with his head!” True, and almost certainly aimed at Obama.
  • “Kill him!” at Pennsylvania rally. Probably true, despite the Secret Service’s inability to find the criminal. Definitely aimed at Obama.

Is this how McCain’s defenders really want to spend their time?

Why Ayers instead of Wright?

Tucker Carlson asks something I’ve been wondering myself: Why did the McCain campaign choose to go after Barack Obama’s tenuous ties to the former radical William Ayers instead of revisiting Obama’s long association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright?

Sarah Palin’s accusation that Obama has been “palling around with terrorists” is false on at least two levels: her use of the plural, and her insinuation that Obama had anything more than a passing acquaintance with Ayers.

Yet Obama has clearly been disingenuous about his long, close relationship with Wright, whose “God damn America!” exhortation was one of the recurring hits of the primary campaign. You don’t title your campaign book after one of Wright’s sermons and sit in his church for 20-something years without knowing what the man is about.

Given the McCain campaign’s lie-and-deny tactics, it doesn’t seem likely that it was too worried about the Palin family’s own association with the radical Alaskan Independence Party, whose founder’s motto — “I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions” — exceeds Wright in its anti-American vitriol.

So why Ayers and not Wright? It is a mystery. If you’re going to go negative, at least do it competently.

David Brooks tries candor

David Brooks presumably has an idea of what his New York Times column should be about. Apparently telling us what he really thinks is not high on his list of priorities.

In the Times, Brooks has expressed — well, reservations about Sarah Palin. At a public event on Monday, he described her as “a fatal cancer to the Republican Party.” In the Times, Brooks has been skeptical about Barack Obama. On Monday, he said he’s “dazzled.”

Well, at least he’s straight with us when he’s not writing.

The rape-kit controversy revisited

Embedded video from CNN Video
Among the many myths that have enveloped the Sarah Palin candidacy is the notion that the rape-kit nastiness of a few weeks ago has somehow been debunked. It hasn’t. What we knew then holds up quite well. As I wrote on Sept. 11:

The man Sarah Palin appointed to run the Wasilla police department thinks that forcing rape victims to pay for their own forensic tests is just a swell idea. He said so himself a little more than eight years ago.

Every word of that is true. Moreover, as mayor, Palin fired the previous police chief in order to put this guy, Charlie Fannon, into office. It strains credulity to believe that she didn’t bother to read her hometown paper, the Frontiersman, the week that Fannon whined about a new state law ordering that the practice be ended, complaining that it could cost Wasilla taxpayers $5,000 to $14,000 a year.

There is no record — none — showing that Palin ever publicly disagreed with Fannon, reprimanded him or said anything whatsoever about this reprehensible policy. Maybe she was too busy reading the Economist.

Fannon also said this: “In the past we’ve charged the cost of exams to the victims’ insurance company when possible. I just don’t want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer.”

Now, we’ve all seen commentary suggesting that because the bills were sent to the insurance company, there was nothing wrong with the practice. But by treating rape as a medical problem rather than a violent crime, Wasilla authorities were sending precisely the wrong message in a state with the nation’s highest sexual-assault rate. Charging a victim’s insurance company is the same as charging the victim.

Neither the victims of non-sexual assaults nor the families of murder victims are forced to deal with their insurance companies for the cost of police investigations. By singling out rape, Fannon was wallowing in ugly old stereotypes.

We know a little bit more than we did a few weeks ago. We know that Wasilla wasn’t the only community engaging in this practice, although there is still testimony that it was among the most egregious offenders. We still don’t know for certain whether Palin knew, but I (dislocating my shoulders in order to give myself a pat on the back) have been careful about that from the beginning.

Rachael Larimore of Slate has supposedly debunked this story in two parts (here and here), as has Jim Geraghty of National Review. Go ahead and read them. They haven’t. Incredibly, Fannon doesn’t even make an appearance in Geraghty’s piece. Larimore trots him out briefly, for the sole purpose of invoking the insurance rationale.

The best summation of what we know and what we don’t know was reported by CNN on Sept. 22. Read it, watch it. And then try to claim there’s nothing to this controversy.

Instant update: Eric Boehlert weighs in on the rape-kit story in quite a bit more detail.

Palin calls freedom of press a “privilege”

All right, I am assuming far more coherence and meaning in Sarah Palin’s ramblingly incoherent interview with Fox’s Carl Cameron than is warranted. But I do want to call your attention to this amazing passage, flagged by Jake Tapper of ABC News:

As we send our young men and women overseas in a war zone to fight for democracy and freedoms, including freedom of the press, we’ve really got to have a mutually beneficial relationship here with those fighting the freedom of the press, and then the press, though not taking advantage and exploiting a situation, perhaps they would want to capture and abuse the privilege. We just want truth, we want fairness, we want balance.

To which I say: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Thanks to Media Nation reader MTS, who found it on Daily Kos.

What Palin might have said

Sarah Palin’s re-take on what papers she reads and what Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with reveals, among other things, the ineptitude of her handlers. Palin herself deserves most of the blame, of course. But to let her give answers to Fox’s Carl Cameron that sounded like brazen lies was pretty unforgivable.

Imagine, if you will, what the reaction would be if she’d said something like this:

You know, Carl, when Katie asked me those questions I was tired and irritable, and I guess I had something of a brain freeze. I apologize to Katie. Her questions were perfectly fair. And I should have answered them.

When I’m home, I read the Anchorage Daily News, of course. I have to. I am the governor, after all. And believe it or not, the AP makes it all the way up to Alaska, so there’s plenty of national and international news in there, too. Those East Coast liberals seem to think we’re cut off from the rest of the world. I do try to read some of the national papers on the Web, but I’m a pretty busy person, what with five kids and a state to run.

Not that I’m home much lately. Good thing for USA Today — it’s right there outside our hotel room every morning, and I try to flip through it between campaign stops. I catch Fox News and some CNN. I say thanks but no thanks when MSNBC comes on. I’ve got a subscription to National Review, but those back issues have a way of piling up.

As far as the Supreme Court goes, I don’t know the names of cases. Who does? But that decision about the Exxon Valdez outraged every resident of Alaska. And I don’t think they ought to be telling states they can’t execute child molesters, either.

But I’ve got to be honest. How long have I been at this? Five weeks? I’m not going to pretend that I follow the Supreme Court every day; I’ve got enough to do keeping an eye on the Alaska legislature. That will change if I become vice president.

If Palin had said something like this, who would not believe her? Cameron, instead of snickering, would be trashing the mainstream media for not taking Palin seriously.

I’m reminded of Bob Kerrey’s line that Bill Clinton was an unusually good liar. Among Palin’s many problems is that she comes off as an unusually bad liar. And her handlers are making it worse.

Sarah Palin, our well-read legal scholar

I love it. Sarah Palin now says she reads the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Economist, and objects to Supreme Court decisions regarding eminent domain, the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the death penalty. And if only Katie Couric hadn’t pissed her off, she’d have told us earlier.

As you’ll see, even Fox’s Carl Cameron can’t take her seriously.

(Links now fixed.)

Peggy Noonan meant what she said

You’ve got to read Peggy Noonan’s take on Sarah Palin and the debate in today’s Wall Street Journal. Last month, Noonan tried to deny the obvious when an open microphone caught her referring to the Palin pick as “political bullshit.” Well, check this out:

I find obnoxious the political game in which if you expressed doubts about the vice presidential nominee, or criticized her, you were treated as if you were knocking the real America — small towns, sound values. “It’s time that normal Joe Six-Pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency,” Mrs. Palin told talk-show host Hugh Hewitt. This left me trying to imagine Abe Lincoln saying he represents “backwoods types,” or FDR announcing that the fading New York aristocracy deserves another moment in the sun. I’m not sure the McCain campaign is aware of it — it’s possible they are — but this is subtly divisive.

There’s gold in every paragraph.

Noonan is scheduled to appear on “On Point” on WBUR Radio (90.9 FM) at 11 a.m.

Live-blogging the Palin-Biden debate

10:37 p.m. I tend to be really bad at picking up on what most people think is important — not just the pundits, but ordinary people, too. So I’m fully prepared to see my instant reaction torn down tomorrow morning.

But I honestly don’t think Palin did anything other than stand there and say stuff for an hour and a half. “How long have I been at this? Five weeks?” she asked. Yeah. And with few exceptions, everything she said tonight was crammed into her head during that time.

Biden was authoritative, knowledgeable and spoke in clear, complete sentences. He was able to point out discrepancies in Palin’s statements. And when he nearly broke down in talking about his family, he humanized himself in a way he hadn’t managed to do up to that time.

That’s all for tonight. I’ll be wrapping up media commentary tomorrow morning for the Guardian.

10:29 p.m. They’re wrapping up.

10:24 p.m. If I’d been playing a drinking game based on the word “maverick,” I’d be passed out on the floor right now.

10:21 p.m. Oh, my God. I don’t want to cheapen genuine emotion. But Biden nearly broke down talking about his family — and given his story, that’s all we’re going to be talking about tomorrow. Say good night, Sarah.

10:20 p.m. Biden gets the question, but other than being self-deprecating, he doesn’t answer, either.

10:18 p.m. Ifill: What is your real Achilles’ heel? Palin responds by talking about how wonderful she is. In Palin’s defense, Ifill’s question was a little hard to scan.

10:11 p.m. Biden: “The people in my neighborhood get it.” Here’s his neighborhood.

10:09 p.m. Live-blogging now being powered by an alternative energy source — Harvest Moon Pumpkin Ale. Surprisingly undistinguished. Oh, no wonder. Coors makes it.

10:02 p.m. Did Biden just call Bosnians “Bosniacs”? [Post-debate update: Bosniacs, or Bosniaks, are Bosnian Muslims. Biden knew what he was talking about.]

9:55 p.m. Biden debates the Palinbot. Random, Palin-like phrases come tumbling out of her mouth in response to every question.

9:51 p.m. Biden’s doing a good job of pointing out that McCain is now well to the right of Bush.

9:49 p.m. By saying Ahmadinejad is “not sane or stable,” Palin shows that she fundamentally misunderstands the real issues. Just because he’s dangerous doesn’t mean he’s crazy.

9:44 p.m. Northeastern journalism student Candice Springer is live-blogging the debate.

9:42 p.m. Palin’s doing a pretty good job of driving a wedge between Biden and Obama on Iraq. Biden’s comeback: Bush and the Iraqi government take our position; McCain’s the only one who doesn’t.

9:39 p.m. Palin says she’s “tolerant” of adults “choosing their partners.” Does she know what she’s saying? She probably does. Biden: Obama and I oppose same-sex marriage, too.

9:35 p.m. AP reports: “The two debated for 90 minutes with little more than one month remaining in the campaign and McCain struggling to regain his footing.” A little premature? Thanks, Mike B1.

9:33 p.m. Ifill asks Palin about “climate change.” Obviously biased!

9:30 p.m. Biden’s flashing some serious signs of cockiness when Palin’s talking. Careful, Joe — disaster ahead?

9:27 p.m. Biden: Obama and I support a windfall-profits tax on oil companies. So did Palin in Alaska. Maybe she can talk McCain into joining us.

9:25 p.m. Palin: “How long have I been at this? Five weeks?”

9:23 p.m. Wow. Palin’s taking a pass on Biden’s health-care attack, which was pretty effective: McCain wants to tax your employer-provided medical insurance. And Palin’s got nothing to say? I think I know why: It’s Gwen Ifill’s fault.

9:21 p.m. Biden calls McCain’s health-care plan “the ultimate bridge to nowhere.” Pretty good line.

9:19 p.m. Good grief. Palin just accused Obama of wanting to “mandate” health care. Didn’t Hillary beat him up for not wanting to mandate health care? (Answer: Yes.)

9:15 p.m. Palin repeats the lie that Obama wants to raise taxes on “families” making as little as $42,000. PolitiFact: False.

9:13 p.m. Biden’s looking right at Palin. I suppose he would anyway, but he’s making sure he doesn’t repeat McCain’s mistake with Obama.

9:11 p.m. Biden is flat and boring tonight. Is it deliberate? I’ll bet it is.

9:09 p.m. Biden lets Palin get away with the fiction that McCain “suspended” his campaign. What did he suspend?

9:02 p.m. Audio and video are out of sync on C-SPAN. Palin: “Mind if I call you Joe?”

I wasn’t going to, but oh, why not? If you’re interested in my almost-real-time ruminations, please tune in around 9 p.m. And if you’re not, I understand.