About Sarah Palin: A Letter From Anne Kilkenny

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I'd be interested to see who a moderate right winger would be in your world. Trent Lott?

I'm sure you could go to that hotbed of Socialism called Newsmax and ask them for some opinions.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
IT APPEARS TO BE LEGIT?

I do know that she ran her small town into debt. I heard it was $20 million. This letter says $22 million, and lays out what the money was squandered on.

Other charges fit it with what I've seen of her. She seems to be very sure she is 100% correct on everything. I'm not surprised, therefore, to see charges that she tried to fire a library who refused to ban the books Palin thought should be banned, or that she cleared out all the government workers not hired by her so she could bring in her own toadies. I don't KNOW if these charges are true...but let's see.

[asleepathewheel]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122098339946615609.html?mod=Best+of+the+Web+Today

Putting the 'Lie' in 'Library'
By JAMES TARANTO
September 9, 2008

Sarah Palin seems like a perfectly normal person, but partisans both in and out of the media have been busily trying to depict her as some sort of religious nut. Among other things, Palin's opponents claim that as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, she was a "book banner"--which is to say, that she sought to have books removed from the local public library. This claim has been debunked--but not before it has spread all over the Internet with the help of some in the mainstream media.

The book-banner tale seems to have originated in a widely circulated Aug. 31 email from Anne Kilkenny, who is not a "South Park" character but a Wasilla resident and harsh Palin critic:

While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.

On Sept. 2, Time magazine repeated the tale, attributing it to John Stein, Palin's predecessor as mayor, whom she defeated in the 1996 election:

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

The same day, Blogress Jessamyn West, a Vermont librarian, posted the Time story to her site, Librarian.net, and added that "Mary Ellen Baker resigned from her library director job in 1999."

A reader of the blog named Andrew AuCoin then posted "the list of books Palin tried to have banned"--90 of them in all. Another reader, Charlie Brown, noticed that the list actually seemed to originate at this page--where it appears under the headline "Books Banned at One Time or Another in the United States." But the phony list was already making its way around the Internet. On Sept. 6, a reader forwarded it to us, having received it from a friend, who received it from another friend, who received it from her mother, a librarian.

As it turns out, not only was the list a fake, but when the Anchorage Daily News investigated the story, it found no evidence that Palin had ever sought to remove books from the library. Baker (who was then named Emmons) did tell the local paper back in 1996 that Palin asked her, in the Daily News's words, "about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose." Emmons "flatly refused to consider any kind of censorship."

Kilkenny makes an appearance in the Daily News story, quoting Palin as asking Baker at a City Council meeting, " 'What would be your response if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' " Baker's response was firm and negative, according to Kilkenny, who acknowledges that Palin did not cite any specific books for removal.

The chairman of the Alaska Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee tells the Daily News that there is no evidence in her files of any censorship at the Wasilla library. As for Baker's resignation, it appears to be unrelated to the putative censorship:

Four days before the exchange at the City Council, Emmons got a letter from Palin asking for her resignation. Similar letters went to police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton and finance director Duane Dvorak. John Cooper, a fifth director, resigned after Palin eliminated his job overseeing the city museum.

Palin told the Daily News back then the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor's job, which she'd won from three-term mayor John Stein in a hard-fought election. Stein had hired many of the department heads. Both Emmons [i.e., Baker] and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin.

Emmons survived the loyalty test and a second one a few months later. She resigned in August 1999, two months before Palin was voted in for a second mayoral term.

Yet the myth that Sarah Palin is a "book banner" has taken hold, at least on the left. It shows up, for instance, in two Salon articles (here and here) today.

[RGBVideo]

the voice of reason in the middle of spin-based character assassination

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut

That actually, if anything, endorses the credibility of the email since that's the only thing they can nitpick...?

If you had read to the end of the piece, you would see that they're still working on another piece focusing entirely on the Anne Kilkenny letter. It seems doubtful they'll confirm the contents given the nature of FactCheck.org and this little nugget they threw in at the end...

According to the New York Times, she’s a Democrat. According to Kilkenny herself, Palin “has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah’s attempt at censorship."

I'm sure a Democrat who believes Palin has held a grudge against her for more than a decade due to an argument over a non-existent attempt at censorship will prove to be a totally reliable source.

Asher, if you wouldn't have transformed into a worthless partisan hack, this should've been your post.

[Asher]

Re: the voice of reason in the middle of spin-based character assassination

Originally posted by VJ

If you had read to the end of the piece, you would see that they're still working on another piece focusing entirely on the Anne Kilkenny letter. It seems doubtful they'll confirm the contents given the nature of FactCheck.org and this little nugget they threw in at the end...



I'm sure a Democrat who believes Palin has held a grudge against her for more than a decade due to an argument over a non-existent attempt at censorship will prove to be a totally reliable source.
Asher, if you wouldn't have transformed into a worthless partisan hack, this should've been your post.

Why would that be my post? It does nothing but state the obvious -- that politicians have enemies and they come out of the woodwork when one gets the spotlight.

You may find this insightful and interesting, to me it's an old hat.

What point is it that you are trying to make? When an unknown comes to the spotlight of a major position we should only listen to what their friends and running mates say about them? We've heard their bull**** about her (she's a "reformer", she "cuts taxes", and she is a "hockey mom"), most of which we know to be bull****. Now that we've heard that side, it's important we also hear from the other side -- the people who DON'T stand to gain by pretending she is a woman she is not.

You say it is character assassination to hear anything contrary to the official Republican mouthpiece, and I'd say you must be tainted by your proximity to the USSR in your developing years because you know **** about the free press or knowing both sides of the story.

I find it amusing that I'm a partisan hack now for the Democrats, considering:
1) I don't vote, though I could
2) I support the Conservatives in Canada
3) I'm just calling her on bull****. I don't have a real problem with McCain, even called him a big improvement on Bush in any case, but Palin I have major reservations with. She strikes me as a manipulative ***** not unlike the kind of characters the evil women on Desperate Housewives are based off of. The fact that she's knowningly said many lies in setting up her image in the press basically cements it for me. That woman cannot be trusted to run a city of 5,000, why should she be trusted to be VP of the US (and potentially President).

Partisan hack my ass, you ****ing Finn.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
Americans are so gullible...

Someone quotes a Republican website, literally a partisan website set up by a 527 organization, and then claims "Americans are so gullible".

Do you see the link at the very beginning of the OP? Click on it. It's to a highly respected actual news organization. Listening to the article will do you some good.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Someone quotes a Republican website, literally a partisan website set up by a 527 organization, and then claims "Americans are so gullible".

I've found no credible information that indicates that FactCheck.org is a Republican or partisan website, let alone set up by a 527 organization. Do you have any evidence for your claim? I imagine not, since you don't appear to be very fair. Or intelligent, for that matter.

[Dinner]

Sorry, got that one confused with a different site. Still it isn't specifically talking about this letter.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Still it isn't specifically talking about this letter.

They will be soon.

[Asher]

It's taking them an awful long time to discredit it.

I wonder if it'll be as awesome as when they discredited the claim that she fired the librarian for not banning books.

They say that it's not true, but she did fire the librarian on a whim and did discuss removing books "hypothetically" right before it.

You gotta be ****ing kidding me. You call others gullible...

[Wiglaf]

This desperate smear campaign is getting silly. What's really sad is that people who I know aren't stupid (basically, everyone in this thread besides Oerdin) are participating in it.

[Naked Gents Rut]

It's taking them an awful long time to discredit it.

There must be a lot to discredit.

Also, today they were busy factchecking McCain. They probably do that to hide their secret 527 Republican crypto-fascist leanings.

[Imran Siddiqui]

basically, everyone in this thread besides Oerdin

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut




I've found no credible information that indicates that FactCheck.org is a Republican or partisan website, let alone set up by a 527 organization. Do you have any evidence for your claim? I imagine not, since you don't appear to be very fair. Or intelligent, for that matter.

You've posted from partisan websites a few times here claiming them as facts.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
This desperate smear campaign is getting silly. What's really sad is that people who I know aren't stupid (basically, everyone in this thread besides Oerdin) are participating in it.

Hey, sometimes scummy people have a lot of negative traits. It's not so much a smear campaign but a reality check from the lies told at conventions.