Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sarah Palin"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(Suspect sentence)
Line 260: Line 260:
  
 
This does not match what Gov. Palin has said about Bristol's pregnancy.  In fact, it seems to be a subtle attempt to falsely introduce the idea that abortion was considered.  This seems even more likely considering that the editor who put the sentence in was just caught posting false information. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 
This does not match what Gov. Palin has said about Bristol's pregnancy.  In fact, it seems to be a subtle attempt to falsely introduce the idea that abortion was considered.  This seems even more likely considering that the editor who put the sentence in was just caught posting false information. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
:I don't think it's editorial license to discredit the Palins, just reporting of story-lines from the time.  Back on 9/2, a CNN [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/ report] stated that "The McCain aide emphasized that Bristol decided to keep the baby, a decision "supported by her parents."  This was also described as "A brave choice" in a 9/1 [http://sacredscoop.com/?p=1392 story] on the Christian site SacredScoop.  The point is taht when this was first announced in the official statement from the Palins, it was characterized as matter where Bristol decided to keep the baby and marry the father, with the family's support.  The rest remains the family's private business, but while the campaign has not hesitated to use this as an example of Palin being true to her pro-life values, it's never been described as anything other than a choice Bristol was able to make for herself.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:19, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
  
 
==Problem==
 
==Problem==
 
I uploaded a picture of Sarah Palin meeting with members of the National guard. The section on foreign policy says "the governor is not briefed on situations." But the picture I put in has Palin being briefed by the troops (or at least that's what it said on the governor's website). Which is true? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008
 
I uploaded a picture of Sarah Palin meeting with members of the National guard. The section on foreign policy says "the governor is not briefed on situations." But the picture I put in has Palin being briefed by the troops (or at least that's what it said on the governor's website). Which is true? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008
 
:What this images [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg] implies at the very least is that, as governor, she is being briefed on the troop movements of her state's national guard brigade relative to an excersize going on at the time the picture was taken.  But standing behind her is someone with the rank of colonel; senior officers in all branches of the military are trained in foreign policy, and to think she's not being briefed about the subject at any time is just plain wrong.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 
:What this images [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg] implies at the very least is that, as governor, she is being briefed on the troop movements of her state's national guard brigade relative to an excersize going on at the time the picture was taken.  But standing behind her is someone with the rank of colonel; senior officers in all branches of the military are trained in foreign policy, and to think she's not being briefed about the subject at any time is just plain wrong.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 20:19, September 22, 2008

Sexist

Don't consider me sexist but... she at least looks a woman. Not like that Hillary who'd grow moustaches if she could. --AdamE 11:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Maybe not sexist but decidedly un-gallant and not a little silly. Hilary Clinton looks every inch a woman. If she looks less attractive than Sarah Palin that might just have something to do with the age difference: on the same basis I'd be much more worried if Obama was after my wife than if McCain were! C'mon, if attractivness was relevant you'd be lining up to vote Obama in. --Toffeeman 11:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
Un-gallant and cynical. --UnicornTapestry 15:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

They say Lincoln could never be president now, he was too ugly. When did this turn into a beauty contest? CraigC 14:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Offensive remarks by Sandra Bernhard

Hi. The liberal comedian Sandra Bernhard made remarks which were deeply offensive to Sarah Palin and to Christians in a recent comedy performance. Breadan43 15:50, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Her other son, Trig.

Should such a private and personal happening as that of her second son be brought to the general public? On one hand, it is only her and her family's matter, but on the other hand it shows that her acts are as honorable as her words. At least I was dubious on her at first, but reading more and more on her I am convinced that she is the Vice President America and the world need. I'm sure even liberals aknowledge her courage and that she did the right thing with Trig. But I leave it to those more knowledgeable to include such familiar matters or not in the article. SilvioB 15:17, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

For what it's worth I think it should be mentioned, not because it's an invasion of her family's privacy, but because it says something important and positive about her character. She had stated publicly that she and her husband knew of the condition during the pregnancy, and chose not to abort it because of their values. That's a defining statement about her living the values she talks about, and one of the reasons I respect her as a person. --DinsdaleP 15:34, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Please feel free to include that information. Learn together 15:47, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Done --DinsdaleP 16:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
Much of that information is in public release and has been reported in interviews in People and Vogue. I added a couple of comments she made, plus information about her son in the military.
--UnicornTapestry 21:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
The one of the rare times I will make a display of my personal opinions on here. I find this woman to be hypocritical and in fact somewhat repulsive as a mother. I am all for women's rights, adn all for women having a career, but she has a SIX MONTH OLD SON, and is about to go on a campaign trail. The only possible way she can manage a campaign trail is if someone else raises her son. And a special needs son as well. I am heart sick that this woman would put her career before her child. Men are expected to do this, but women are the core of our children's lives. We are central to who they become. Especially for the first 5 years of their life. Work before you have a kid, expand your career after your child is back in school. But the 5 most important years of a child's development are before he or she starts socializing, and this woman is willing to be an American vice president which will keep her on the road over 200 days a year, if you go by averages of other VPs, and often in countries where it's not only "discouraged" to take a child, but out right dangerous. Vietnam and Korea - if you are there to represent the US. Venezuela. Cuba. Georgia. China. not places to be taking a child. I am disheartened, as I said. This is not a good role model for how to be a women in teh US finding a career - when the career comes before your own family. AGain, rarely will you see me make a statement like this, cause I'm not normally into challenges. but this woman makes me so sad for her child, and as a mother, as a woman who believes that a Christian woman (and any woman, frankly) should put her infants first... it is just sad. Would it have killed her to wait 5 years before being in such demanding political positions?--MHayes Michelle13:58, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
Wow, that's heartfelt and does give one pause. I have to confess I didn't put the numbers (dates) together. Thanks for making me think a little more about this.
--UnicornTapestry 15:37, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
Thanks. I get argumentative on topics about things like linguistics, and what languages are related to what languages (what I'm pursuing for my graduate degree). But i rarely butt into political comments. maybe I should. maybe not. but I set aside my studies for my kids, and it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO for me. I really feel that there is an important reason that the Bible (and many other religions, by the way) advocate that a woman make her life at home *until* such a time as her kids are grown. I woudn't even go that far, but I did say that I woudln't go back to teaching till my two were in school, cause then I don't have to be there "9-5". but when they are so little? I truly feel, and maybe this isn't proven by science, maybe it is, that a woman is more emotionally connected to her kids (and vica versa) than the father, and should be there for them at their development. hugs. Michelle. --MHayes 15:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT) (PS, if other than this, you ever want to see me be realllllyyy stubborn, just ask me about the T-D vocalization in Navajo after the move into New Mexico. hehe. (edit conflict)

Oh, boy...

Cue the whitewashing. I'm gonna guess the polar bear section will be deleted or completely rewritten within 24 hours. As it stands, it certainly seems like a good example of "liberal bias". Egen 15:26, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

I suggest to close this article from editing for a few days or at least hours. It's clear that it will become a favorite target for vandals. I'm sure if changes have to be made, Administrators will be able to make them well. I'm not suggesting a long term block, mind you, just to let things calm down. SilvioB 15:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
I think Silvio has nmade a good point. Bugler 15:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
The polar bear status is unclear. International numbers have been increasing, but largely due to numbers now being reported in Siberia and other former states of the Soviet Union. I don't know if different species are involved or that the aggregate is germane. It will be interesting to find out.
kind regards, --UnicornTapestry 21:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Neither polar bears nor polar ice are decreasing at such a rate as to prove the "global warming thesis". Average air temperature fluctuates due to natural causes. There's been a lot of hot air since 1989 aimed at enforcing some socialist ideas of forced redistribution of wealth, but no such system has ever worked out well. --Ed Poor Talk 19:53, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Affirmative Action Vice-President

What is the Affirmative Action Vice-President part about? That is ridiculous. She would be the first woman VP but that has nothing to do with affirmative action. Fsamuels 16:48, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

It's criticising (in an oblique way) the accusations that Obama would be the first "Affirmitive Action President". I suspect that whoever called Palin that is hoping that you will find it ridiculous and decide that the Obama accusation is similarly ridiculous. --Toffeeman 16:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Help me out here... Obama, if elected, will of course be the first Affirmative Active President. The rationale being: he's being elevated to a level higher that he would have been, primarily because of his race. Yet isn't Palin, a former mayor of a town of 7000, now a governor for all 18 months, also being elevated to a level higher than she would have been, because of her gender? You cannot suggest that she is the best person, male or female, for the job, can you? Is the objection that affirmative action only apples to race? (Because it certainly applies to gender as well.) Is the objection that Palin is in fact the most competent person, male or female, for the position of vice president? (If not, on what basis can you say that Palin is not an affirmative-action candidate?) --Mycosaur 19:44, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

There are several problems with your simplistic analogy. The qualifications for a Vice President are different from that of a President; Palin has stronger executive experience than Obama; Palin was selected to run against Obama; and we never claimed that Hillary Clinton would be the first affirmative action president.--Aschlafly 19:50, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
I think part of the idea is how readily the path was cleared for each person. For Obama, based on that thinking, his position was pretty much given to him along the way whereas for Palin, she had to fight the establishment to accomplish what she did. Now as far as her selection for Vice President, well, that could be a different matter. Learn together 19:54, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
I don't agree with "affirmative action whatever" for either of them. If Obama is the next President or Palin the next Vice-President they will be there because millions voted that way. "Affirmative action" is best kept for appointments: respecting whoever is in charge after the election respects the US electorate. --Toffeeman 09:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Second Picture

I think we should take it down. It's just like the first one and is totally unnecessary. If there is a second picture then it should be her with John McCain. I'm going to take it down. Maybe an administrator could replace it with this. Chippeterson 29 August 2008 http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/palin.jpg

Sorry, link says access denied. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

O.K., how about this one. http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg Chippeterson 30 August 2008

That's better! --UnicornTapestry 11:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
That's a good one.--Frey 14:47, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

It seems to be popular. Anyway an administrator could come in and upload it? Chippeterson 30 August 2008

We have to see the original source of the photo first... not only that link. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 19:00, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Foreign Policy

The section has one compound sentence, and one of the words ("commender") is/was misspelled. Also, saying that the governor of Alaska is the commander of chief of the Alaska National Guard is somewhat patronizing to people who know things about state National Guards. It seems as though it's simply trying to inflate her foreign policy experience, which she doesn't have much of. --DrtyLb8 23:35, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Why shouldn't it say she is the commander of the Alaska National Guard? HenryS 23:39, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
HenryS, your an administrator, I was hoping that you could upload this picture. I would really appreciate it, thanks. Chippeterson 31 August 2008 http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg
It's misleading to feature it so prominently. It implies military experience on her part when there is none. All governors are commanders of their state's National Guard, and that only comes into play in the event of a natural disaster. In times of war when National Guard units are activated to be sent overseas, they instead fall under the command of the United States Army and are treated as reserve soldiers. At that point, they aren't being commanded by the governor, they're being commanded by the Army. It's like saying the Governor of Florida has space policy experience because they launch the space shuttles from Cape Canaveral. To include that under "Military Policy" misleads readers into thinking she commands troops in battle, which is completely inaccurate. Because of that, I've removed the section. --Ampersand 18:21, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
We don't allow deletions like that. Palin is commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard. There's no denying it, and that fact should be included.--Aschlafly 22:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm not denying it, I'm just saying that prominently including it under "Military Policy" implies that it gives her some sort of military experience when it flat-out does not. --Ampersand 22:49, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, maybe you don't think Obama needs any military experience to be Commander-in-Chief either. But the fact is that the position of Commander in Chief does mean something. It means she has some responsibilities, some leadership, and some authority over troops.--Aschlafly 22:54, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
I didn't say anything about Obama. This has nothing to do with Obama. No governor can claim that they have military experience because of their role as commander-in-chief of their state National Guard unit because that's not how they work. When they are used in combat overseas they aren't under the command of their Governor, they're under the command of the United States Army and they're treated as reserve units. That's an entirely separate function from their role as domestic natural disaster relief workers. Saying that she has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard (which is completely honorary when it comes to military functions) is akin to saying Elizabeth II has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the British Army. It's misleading and needs to be corrected. (And yes, I know the Queen actually served during World War II.) --Ampersand 23:06, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Eldest Daughter Pregnant

Palin's response "We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby." Proud to be a Grandmother. Unlike Obama's response of his children "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." -- 50 star flag.png jp 13:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Gossip?

It can hardly be "gossip" if the facts of the matter are plainly seen in the official statement. What is gossip is that fairy tale that was reported on the daily kos over the weekend. Marge 14:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't trying to gossip. I got that from yahoo news. Palin says 17-year-old daughter pregnant. This is likely to be a big issue for a conservative campaign. CraigC 15:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Folks, you're clueless about the meaning of gossip. Newspapers and press releases do print gossip all the time. We do not and have had that in our rules since our beginning.--Aschlafly 15:06, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
What's the difference between gossip and CP's article Hollywood values? --Jareddr 15:07, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
What are you referencing specifically? Publicly charged crimes are not gossip, and neither are deaths of public figures.--Aschlafly 15:19, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, to my knowledge, an underage pregnancy, like Palin's daughter, is not a publicly charged crime nor a death. Ergo, I would think that Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy would fall into the same category. --Jareddr 15:22, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Spears is a public figure who profits from public attention.--Aschlafly 15:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Yes, but it's neither a crime, nor a death, but rather talking about is "idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others." It seems she was just as public initially about the pregnancy as Palin has been about her daughter. Both of them brought the topic into the public eye on their own, with the GOP campaign issuing a statement providing the news.--Jareddr 15:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Jareddr, this is my final response to your senseless comments. Palin's daughter is a private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity. Respect her privacy, or leave.--Aschlafly 15:37, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, perhaps then the entry on Barack Obamas half brother should be removed then. Using your logic its also gossip. He didn't seek public attention either. ClarkeD 17:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

What are you specifically referring to? I did a quick look and didn't see any details about Obama's half-brother in his entry.--Aschlafly 18:24, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Here. It is a whole page about him. ClarkeD 18:29, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Palin's "Liberal" Critics

In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I wanted to point out that several of the key critics of Palin's handling of the Gravina Bridge project were prominent Alaskan Republicans, not "liberals". If one reads the referenced article this would be clear, but I've added in the names, titles and supporting quotes from these individuals so I'm not accused of anything unprofessional. I've also left in the comment about earmark money not being returned as common practice, which was unsupported by any reference, but left anyway. --DinsdaleP 18:49, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Personal Background

Are we going to include information about her daughter being pregnant or not? I don't think it is necessary, as Aschlafly said she is a "private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity". Currently, there is mention of this in the article. Any thoughts? HenryS 19:48, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

I say take the high road and leave it out as much as possible. It's a challenge, though, because of new stories like this one, where Palin is shown to have used her line-item veto to cut funding for teen-pregnancy programs. How can you be credibly pro-life, and at the same time cut funding for the very programs that offer teens an option to abortion? I'm starting to question her judgment more and more. --DinsdaleP 19:53, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
You can say she cuts funding for teen-pregnancy problems as part of a discussion of her record as governor, and still leave out mention of her daughter. While it's nice we're having a conversation about it, as Henry mentioned, Aschlafly has made his opinion clear and any attempt to add it will just be reverted, so might as well just skip it entirely. --Jareddr 20:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
Dinsdale, you keeping pushing your point of view at the expense of the daughter's privacy, even on the Talk:Main Page and you should stop it. There is nothing about the simple fact of the daughter's pregnancy that supports your point of view, so stop exploiting it. She was probably in public school where she received all the indoctrination that you support.--Aschlafly 20:04, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm not out to exploit her daughter for the sake of making a political point. While I said that it's a challenge, my very next point about Palin was to contrast one of her policies (against funding pregnant-teen programs) with another (pro-life), and no mention of their family's situation was required to do so. Meanwhile, you immediately start making assumptions about what her daughter did or didn't learn in public school. Which of us was sticking to the Governor and her policies, and which was pulling her daughter into a shot at public schools and accusing her of being "indoctrinated"? --DinsdaleP 21:02, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
Also, there are multiple news reports tonight that the baby's father is being flown to the convention to attend with the Palins. The Governor's children should be left alone, and people can reach their own conclusions about parents who feel a need to pull young teens "facing the challenge of parenthood" even further into the media spotlight. --DinsdaleP 21:10, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Reversion Explained

Don't delete history or try to cover up how wrong it has been for liberals on the internet to mock Palin over the founding father's remark.--Aschlafly 20:32, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

You should try to explain in what way they are wrong then. If you just claim 'liberals are wrong' then liberals are going to ignore you, and there is little point in preaching to the choir. Besides, her claim appears dubious to me. 'Under God' really wasn't in the pledge until long after the founding. It was added in the 50s. It doesn't matter if it came from a different founding document, she was refering explicitly to the pledge, and demonstrated she is ignorant of a very minor piece of historical trivia. It may be best to keep quiet on this one until the historical arguments are worked out here. NewCrusader 20:52, 2 September 2008 (EDT)


Drug Use?

Sarah Palin has admitted in the past that she use marijuana, though it was legal in Alaska from 1975-2006. Should this be added into her biography? Granted, it wasn't illegal, but nevertheless I believe conservatives may find it disconcerting to participate in drug use. Reference for the story here. --Jareddr 20:35, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Nah, that just doesn't seem needed. HenryS 20:36, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
If someone does something legal in their private life, then it's private and should be left alone. --DinsdaleP 21:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
Then may we remove references to drug use in all politician pages? --AndrasK 21:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
The key issue is "legal". If politicians are breaking the law in private it may still rate mentioning. --DinsdaleP 21:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
If it's included, it should note that (A) marijuana was legal back then, (B) she was in college at the time, and (C) she has since denounced her experimentation. Jinxmchue 00:16, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
I'd only include it if she did it while in office. Other than that it's kind of irrelevant. --Ampersand 18:11, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
Its irrelevant because it was legal at the time. If she didnt break any laws then it matters not. ClarkeD 18:13, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
It may have been legal on a state level like medical marijuana is today in some states but it certainly was not legal by federal law. Some may consider that bad judgment which is relevant for a politician. --Fsamuels 09:18, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Political Background

This section list non-political items; hockey, marathons, NRA. Move or delete required.-- 50 star flag.png jp 23:24, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Founding Fathers

What documents are being referred to in the statement "and all the Founding Fathers embraced reference [sic] to God in the documents that established the United States."? God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but that great document didn't establish this nation or its government - it was the colonies' statement of secession from British rule. The only document that actually established the United States of America as an entity and defined the operating framework for its government is the Constitution, and God is not mentioned once in it. --DinsdaleP 21:38, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Wasilla Bible Church

Would it be worthwhile to have an article on Sarah Palin's home church?--Nowa 15:39, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Other Criticism

I am removing this section which was cited by WaPo for misleading statements. Read the counter post Sarah Palin's Expenses As Governor Scandalously...80% Lower Than Her Predecessor's!-- 50 star flag.png jp 22:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to restore that section with some modification. First off, Palin took the per diem on top of the airfare spent to fly between Juneau and Wasilla - it was not to cover the cost of an 18-hour drive, because she didn't drive. Second, you can compare Palin's expense record to her predecessor's, but since that person was the corrupt Republican she was fighting to replace on a reform platform, it's not all that surprising she'd look better. What's a better comparison is to compare Palin's use of the per diem allowance for stays at her home to those of the Democrat who preceded Murkowski, Tony Knowles. Knowles was against such expenditures and issued an executive order barring commissioners on his staff from taking the per diem reimbursement when staying at their own homes instead of the capital. --DinsdaleP 00:23, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Also, please do not remove the new post about Wasilla charging rape victims for their forensic kits unless proven false with equally valid evidence. I was skeptical of this one too when I first read it, but the source was the local paper, and contained quotes from Palin's Sheriff confirming that the policy was in place to save taxpayer money. I'm appalled that someone who was willing to raise sales taxes to build a hockey rink & recreation center and hire lobbyists to secure federal earmarks for the town couldn't find a few thousand dollars a year to pay for the forensic tests required to do effective police work. To then go and tell a victim of sexual assault that she had to pay for her own test - words fail. I only hope this comes up in an interview with Palin so she has a chance to answer to this in her own words. --DinsdaleP 01:28, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Ridiculous manufactured liberal smears. I am sure WP will list it. --50 star flag.png jp 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
As the citations showed, these are not ridiculous internet rumors like the supposed "list of banned books" that are going around; these are statement--AndrasK 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)s of fact, drawn from reputable news sources. In the case of the rape-kit issue, the article includes a quote form the sheriff she appointed complaining that the new state law was going to increase the cost to taxpayers (instead of victims). That's her guy making the statement, so there's no unfair smear going on. The simple truth is that even if Palin didn't create the policy, she could have changed it at any time while mayor. Unfortunately it took action from the Democratic Governor to force Wasilla to bring change.
These stories may not be flattering, but they are true and backed by reputable sources. They should not be removed unless equally reputable evidence is presented to the contrary; otherwise it's censorship of the truth. --DinsdaleP 20:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
I stand my assertion, ridiculous. WaPo may be reputable to you, but not conservatives. The counter from redstate is clear to the stupidity in the story. Where there is no wrong, make it seem as wrong. She acted proper and Alaskains agree.
As for the rape-kit. Why is this an issue that she be tagged to as mayor of Wassila? Trying to demonize her is stupid. If it took the gov of that era to straighten it out, how did Palin as mayor act so evil? I am sympathetic with victims of any crime. Insurance companies are the source of the problem for they get to choose to pay or not pay the costs associated. What percentage of false rapes were reported and kits paid for? I stand by my claims and am sick of deleting this crap. I leave to others.--50 star flag.png jp 21:37, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Wrong. We do not blast people for sins of omission. Somewhere buried in the books is a bad law -- and Palin didn't change it. No. Learn together 21:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

So JP, what you are basically saying is that any source that does not explicitly promote the conservative agenda is unreliable? By that logic, Fox News, the de-facto conservative news haven, is not reliable because it reported Ted Steven's indictment. How is it that to the conservatives, some 85% of the mainstream media is unreliable but then obscure little internet blogs serve as sources for news articles? As DinsdaleP said, denying the validity and credibility of a source just because it shows unflattering details, for any candidate or public figure, is a sign of indoctrination and a complete lack of objectivity. --AndrasK 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)


(unindent)

The Wasilla policy towards having victims of sexual assault was not a "sin of omission". If you read the New Frontiersman article I had referenced (the local paper there, not the "liberal Washington Post", it states that Wasilla was the only town actively following such a policy? It fails any credibility test to pretend Palin didn't know of the policy when the sheriff she appointed knew about of it and defended it, and the state had to pass a law to get Wasilla to change their practice since they were the only town still doing it.

I'm not out to mock or smear Palin - just to search for the truth about her, both positive and negative, and put those truths in the article to improve its value to readers seeking to learn about her. I had added the initial positives about her pro-life stance, and the comment that despite having fundamentalist personal views, she has kept her pledge to keep those views out of public policy. I'm balancing those edits by adding some others that are not flattering, but just as based on truth.

I can accept Conservapedia having a policy to filter its "news" stories to only publish those that are flattering to conservatives and disparaging to non-conservatives, but that standard can't apply to encyclopedia articles if they are to be trustworthy. I'll recast these points as "Controversy over Positions" instead of "Criticisms", which is more neutral, end encourage both sides of these controversies to be presented. If anyone can find evidence from reputable sources that Palin positively did not know of the rape-test policy, or presents her reasoning for why Wasilla held onto that policy until the state law was passed, then please add it. --DinsdaleP 13:31, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Not newsworthy, the truth according to whom? New Frontier, Drudge, far left websites and most likely WP are the only places listing story. Should we include Obama snorted cocaine and smoked weed? He admitted it but we have not and assume, we will not. Some things just don't get posted. It should not be placed within this page. --50 star flag.png jp 13:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
I'd be careful with that line of reasoning. We use a lot of conservative websites to back positions that won't show up anywhere else. HelpJazz 13:47, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
This isn't about it being newsworthy or not - this is an encyclopedia article, and the edit is appropriate in that context. It's the truth according to two valid references. The first is the local paper, the Frontiersman, which has been around since 1947 and is not a biased source like HuffPost or something I would hesitate to use here. Second, the passage of the state law is in the public record. It comes back to passing a reality check - why would it have been necessary to pass a state law unless local governments were refusing to change this policy on their own. The final credibility comes in the statements from the Wasilla sheriff. Palin appointed this person because he supported her policies and views, unlike the sheriff he replaced who was from the prior administration. This edit is not about Palin's personal life - it's about the policies her administration supported in her capacity as an executive. This is entirely appropriate because the McCain/Palin ticket stresses Palin's "executive experience" as a key qualification, so objective stories about her record as an executive and the policies enforced by her appointed staff are important and deserve to be published. If you don't agree with this, then refute it wth evidence, don't censor it. --DinsdaleP 13:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
Whatever, I said earlier I will not delete it, again. Mark my words, it will be deleted. Conservative sources take preference. We report true stuff here not made up criticism. -- 50 star flag.png jp 13:54, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm all for truth, and as I said, I added two pro-Palin contributions to this article before I added any criticism. In the case of the rape-kit story, tell me what I've made up about it. --DinsdaleP 14:06, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
I am not going round and round on with you on this one. I didn't add Obama snorts cocaine to his page, I guess that makes it righteous too. -- 50 star flag.png jp 14:08, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
Whether you added it or not, the Obama article does mention his cocaine use. BrianH 11:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Just want to mention this concept. The fundamental difference between JP's Obama example (although if you want to put it in his article that he experimented with pot and cocaine, have at it. He publicly admitted it. It's in the public domain) and this issue is that this has to do with her policies as a politician. That has every merit of being openly discussed and published considering that it is her policies that will ultimately effect the country were she ever to become president. The problem is that people don't seem to see the difference between personal smear (this candidate did drugs, that candidate had an affair) versus abuses of power (this candidate used his position as mayor to get his son out of jail for DUI, that candidate used government money to buy a playstation). The former really has no importance, what is private is private (hence no-one discussing Palin's daughter. That's her personal life, not important in the election) while the latter has every bit of importance. --AndrasK 16:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

"Troopergate"

three Democrat legislators in charge of investigating Palin

The new addition to the "troopergate" (if that's what it's actually being called) reads much too much like a news headline (see: "something you will hear more from the McCain campaign as the investigation continues"). I think it should be removed. If not removed, it should at least be edited to fit within the whole paragraph. Who is French? What is Branchflower? For that matter, what is "Troopergate?" These all need to be introduced before they are used familiarly. HelpJazz 23:46, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

It shouldn't be that hard to understand but if you want to explain further, go ahead and edit without removing.--50 star flag.png jp 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Since you were the one who wrote it, why don't you be the one to make it up to standard? HelpJazz 12:55, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Stop censoring truthful, cited edits

I hate edit wars, so I'm making this case again in the hope of resolving this issue professionally. People may not like the fact that when Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the policy in place was to charge the cost of rape-test kits to the victims, and it continued until state law banned the practice in 2000 while she was still mayor. This is not a liberal smear, it's a fact. Her administration knew of the victim-pays policy, and her hand-picked sheriff defended it in the article. The cited news article doesn't come from a fringe source, but from the local Wasilla newspaper. The story was published in 2000, so it's not a smear pulled together in September 2008 because she's now a VP candidate.

The simple fact is that this is part of her record, and it's proper for any candidate's record to be published for the public to assess, especially the policies she supported as an executive when her "executive experience" is being touted as central to her qualifications.

I'm challenging the editors who find this truth about her record unflattering to stop dealing with it through censorship, and to respond with research and evidence instead. If they believe that Palin was unaware of this practice even as her sheriff publicly defended it, then find the evidence. If you want to claim that this was only about policy because no women were actually charged for rape-kit tests while Palin was mayor, then find the evidence instead of assuming that was the case. I'm not out to smear Palin - I've added two positive edits two this article before adding this negative one. That's not attacking her character - it's being open-minded, balanced and sticking to the facts when editing an encyclopedia. Hopefully I won't get 90/10 blocked for this, but I want the Palin article to be informative and fair, unlike the joke that is the George W. Bush article here. --DinsdaleP 11:08, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

The simple fact is she did not put in the law, did not campaign for it, did not even discuss it. It was one of many, many, many laws that was on the books. I asked you how many times, if any, a victim had to pay for her own kit testing. You ignored it and merely reinstated the information.
Her sheriff specifically said the new law would make it so they couldn't bill the insurance companies or the perpetrators of the crime. He never said wow, I wish we could bill the victim. The information you are trying to force in was and is a red herring and your continued reinsertion hoping that people will see it as they come to our site is inappropiate - and you know it. Learn together 10:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
So why did you revert DP's last talk entry under this heading?Jirby 00:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
Second the question. Also, hasn't Andy usually turned off editing by "unreviewed" editors by this time of night? Surprised I could comment... Human 01:50, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Request for an edit to this full-protected page

Hi, I ran the article through MS Word's spell checker, and it found one minor grammatical error. I would appreciate it if a sysop could correct this in the article.

The error is in the third paragraph of the section titled "State Economy", The second sentence of that paragraph reads:

These critic include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money'."

It should say

These critics include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".

Thanks!

Samtheman 11:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Reversions regarding the Troopergate investigation

I'm not goint to re-insert anything, but wanted to respond here as to why I added the comments about partisan criticism. The current lawsuit to stop the investigation is being brought by five Alaskan state Republicans who claim that the investigation is "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan" [1]. What's more important, despite an initial pledge by Palin to cooperate fully with the investigation, the current official statement from her campaign is that she is now "unlikely to co-operate" with the investigation. Palin campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan has said the Alaska state legislative probe had become "tainted" by partisan Democratic politicians seeking to target the Alaska governor. [2]

Since accusations of Democratic-driven partisan bias are coming from the Palin campaign, and not just Alaskan Republicans with a grudge, I felt it was important to objectively point out the bipartisan nature of the panels guiding the investigation. Republicans are in the majority on some of them, and joined in unanimous votes for some aspects of the investigation. What then, is improperly biased about showing the factual breakdown of the votes by party as I did? That's the official record, not spin. --DinsdaleP 11:55, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Palin asked the probe to acknowledge a rule of law before they began, and they refused. We all know what is going to happen from a legal standpoint - nothing. She is well within her right to do what she did. The question is how much innuendo outside of legal issues will be presented to attempt to hurt her. With the pictures with the Obama campaign and the "October Surprise" comment made by Palin's opposition her concern is certainly understandable. It has long been acknowledged that Palin has a feud with the entrenched Alaska GOP who are not happy with her exposing their corruption. That makes your count of Republicans and Democrats meaningless. When you are someone who exposes corruption in government regardless of party, that can happen. Learn together 16:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, if you're correct in figuring that the inquiry would be a witch hunt at this point because both parties in Alaska have a grudge, then she's got problems, all right. If she goes ahead it could get ugly, and if she tries to kill, delay or withhold info from it then she loses a lot of the reformer/maverick image she's cultivated. It'll be an interesting couple of months between now and the election, that's for sure. --DinsdaleP 16:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Suspect sentence

This was added to the last paragraph of the Personal Background section before the page was protected:

"After given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child."

This does not match what Gov. Palin has said about Bristol's pregnancy. In fact, it seems to be a subtle attempt to falsely introduce the idea that abortion was considered. This seems even more likely considering that the editor who put the sentence in was just caught posting false information. Jinxmchue 13:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't think it's editorial license to discredit the Palins, just reporting of story-lines from the time. Back on 9/2, a CNN report stated that "The McCain aide emphasized that Bristol decided to keep the baby, a decision "supported by her parents." This was also described as "A brave choice" in a 9/1 story on the Christian site SacredScoop. The point is taht when this was first announced in the official statement from the Palins, it was characterized as matter where Bristol decided to keep the baby and marry the father, with the family's support. The rest remains the family's private business, but while the campaign has not hesitated to use this as an example of Palin being true to her pro-life values, it's never been described as anything other than a choice Bristol was able to make for herself. --DinsdaleP 16:19, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Problem

I uploaded a picture of Sarah Palin meeting with members of the National guard. The section on foreign policy says "the governor is not briefed on situations." But the picture I put in has Palin being briefed by the troops (or at least that's what it said on the governor's website). Which is true? Chippeterson 22 September 2008

What this images [3] implies at the very least is that, as governor, she is being briefed on the troop movements of her state's national guard brigade relative to an excersize going on at the time the picture was taken. But standing behind her is someone with the rank of colonel; senior officers in all branches of the military are trained in foreign policy, and to think she's not being briefed about the subject at any time is just plain wrong. Karajou 14:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)