Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Sep
4
Wow – the Factcheck.org review of Governor Sarah Palin’s speech last night at the Republican Convention shows us what really leads to nowhere – Palin’s assertions.
- Palin may have said “Thanks, but no thanks” on the Bridge to Nowhere, though not until Congress had pretty much killed it already. But that was a sharp turnaround from the position she took during her gubernatorial campaign, and the town where she was mayor received lots of earmarks during her tenure.
- Palin’s accusation that Obama hasn’t authored “a single major law or even a reform” in the U.S. Senate or the Illinois Senate is simply not a fair assessment. Obama has helped push through major ethics reforms in both bodies, for example.
- The Alaska governor avoided some of McCain’s false claims about Obama’s tax program – but her attacks still failed to give the whole story.…
- Finally, Huckabee told conventioneers and TV viewers that Palin got more votes when she ran for mayor of Wasilla than Biden did running for president. Not even close. The tally: Biden, 79,754, despite withdrawing from the race after the Iowa caucuses. Palin, 909 in her 1999 race, 651 in 1996.
Read the whole thing here.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:39 pm September 4th, 2008 in Politics, Sarah Palin
Comments
2 Responses to “Factcheck.org on Palin: “Trips up on her facts””
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
-A lot has been made of Palin’s ‘hypocrisy’ in the bridge to nowhere issue, but the fact is the pork was stopped in that case. Another fact that’s rarely mentioned is she helped cut Alaskan pork by almost 2/3rds in two years once she was governor, in a state that was probably the most reliant on pork in the union.
That sounds outstanding to me, and I’d be interested to hear of a governor who did better in that time.
-I notice that you don’t go so far to claim that her statement that Obama hasn’t authored a major piece of legislation is untrue. Probably because it isn’t.
-When do political attacks give the whole story? You certainly don’t here.
-Huckabee pulled that one out of his you know what, it’s true. But the fact remains Obama picked a proven presidential campaign loser, business as usual D.C. insider who’s got a bad case of foot-in-mouth. The old geezer selected a phenom.
Politicians are notorious for taking credit for things that happen under their guard, the first item infers with the second.
Voting with or supporting what is popular, its not the same as authoring or calling for as in being the procuring cause of the changes.
As far as the legislation goes it is about what happened after that legislation passed, what results occurred because of it, not in theory in reality. Is or would that be the difference between being a journalist and a social advocate?
The candidate did good things…many.
The candidate passed legislation (specifics?) and the actual results of that produced what?
Something was it reduced or was something increased?
Its all twisted and they do that, but you have to drill down…but take it from me they cannot see the truth either side, that’s because there is not any valid verifiable numbers.
We are so socialized into this even if we had the real number in details, the majority of people could not recognize them!
Difficult to explain, if its broke you do process analysis to discover the values to measure, then you do process reengineering to insure the value are recorded, then you use the economist to advise changes and monitor for the desired results. I am still waiting for the day that politicians speak this in a national public forum.
It all equates to me as “my opponent is a goofy dork and I am the coolest thing since sliced bread” and we cheer like retards that where born on a farms.