I just deleted a thread I had written that had a list of books Palin allegedly tried to ban in Wasilla, as Mayor. I was watching CNN and nearly spit out my dinner when I saw that they reported the list appeared to be false – so I ran upstairs to take down the thread.
That said, I’d be remiss not to point out this to readers. It’s an opinion piece written by a writer who grew up in Wasilla and who lived there while Palin was Mayor. In it, he had this to say:
She did try to use her power to ban books. Wasilla’s popular public librarian rightly objected, and the community rightly backed the librarian. The books were never banned, though Mrs. Palin did fire the librarian for not agreeing with her political views, then rescinded the firing after it was clear she’d made an unpopular decision. Sarah Palin’s behavior is revealing: in a state as isolated as Alaska, in a town as small as Wasilla, books are vital to the culture and to the education of its residents. The small town values I learned growing up included attending story hour at the public library. Those values most certainly did not include trying to ban books that the mayor’s church friends didn’t think other people should read.
Emphasis mine. So, we have it on good authority that she did try to ban certain books from the Wasilla public library. The list that went around – which, when I posted it, was with the understanding that 3 (!!) people confirmed it – is likely to be false, given that at least one or two of the Harry Potters weren’t written at the time. That said, there was some kind of list and she did try to remove the librarian, before she didn’t, unless the writer I linked to was completely making it up. I tend not to be that cynical.
I hope this information is helpful and something comes of this, but if not, I’ve heard this advice repeated before and I think it sound: people don’t vote for a VP, they vote for a President. It’s fine to post on Palin as issues come up, but we’ve got to keep our eye on the ball. I include myself in that criticism.
… books, the odds are pretty good that she had specific books in mind since it was a small town library to begin with. I wonder… what are the odds it was Harry Potter? I’d love to know what the real deal was. Is it too much to hope that there would be journalism happening on this subject anywhere?
after the CNN story, I don’t think any media source is going to touch this story with a 10 foot stick. It very well could be that part of the list was accurate and, as it was floated around, republican operatives threw in a few obviously false ones to the mix and suddenly the entire subject is dead. But until we have some serious evidence pointing out the fact that she did this – and the list of books with it (otherwise, there’s nothing for people to cling onto) – the banned book story is pretty much dead.
<
p>I’m still hoping it gets a little life breathed in it, which is why I wrote a new diary, but we’re going to need a herculean amount of evidence at this point for the media to ever latch onto this again.
…, that would definitely breath life into the story.
Come on. Seriously. Throw some heat.
<
p>That is as lame a smear as I’ve read:
<
p>
<
p>A guy writes on a blog that the mayor tried to ban books, and to you that’s ‘good authority’?
<
p>Here’s one: Mayor Menino was once abducted by aliens. Hasn’t talked properly since. There ya go. I typed it; it’s good authority. And by good, I mean if you would like it to be true it’s good. And by authority, I mean I own a computer.
Unlike the guy on the blog, I have absolutely no reason to believe one word coming from you. There’s a big difference there.
<
p>I’m not cynical, so I take the guy’s word for it. I reported as much here. People can feel free to draw their own conclusions. If you think the guy’s some star bucks sipping freak who’s never even been to Alaska, but is good with the word, feel free. But such opinions reflect on you – and they reflect poorly.
Where people say things I want to Believe.
<
p>
Snopes.com has the scoop.
… specific and just framed it as a ‘hypothetical’. Not much there I guess, but still telling is that she’d bring up the issue in the first place. In the context of a campaign, bringing up the issue of banning books is probably either the result of actual specific complaints (perhaps in the AoG) or an attempt to stoke an ‘identity’ issue.
because I specifically said the list was debunked in the diary. However, along with other things she’s successfully dodged so far, there’s something to it. She absolutely contemplated banning books and very likely faced a somewhat public spar with the town librarian.
<
p>No one’s actually said she banned the books, only that she was at the very least questioning it. Nothing that’s been said since has changed that fact, only diverted attention from it.
because the link was useful.
A 4 because I used the word ‘debunked?’ I think you’re being petty.
<
p>You quote some relatively unknown sports blogger who offers absolutely no specifics in saying “She did try to use her power to ban books.”
<
p>And then you conclude:
<
p>
<
p>Perhaps you need to revisit your own advice and “keep your eye on the ball.”
<
p>Sourceis a PDF: http://www.cityofwasilla.com/M…
<
p>Note that it doesn’t say that the mayor didn’t inquire about banning books, just that none were banned. They’ve also released lots of records from the time when Palin was mayor at this link:
<
p>http://www.cityofwasilla.com/i…
no one’s ever said he banned books – only that she tried. In fact, the original stories were that she tried and failed – which fits in perfectly with the town’s vague statement. No records? Well, sure, but did she contemplate it?
It’s the typical Republican trick – deny something that hasn’t been alleged and change the subject.
couldn’t think of the term off my head, but that’s it =)
This has confirmed my suspicions.
<
p>The “story” was trumped up—-CNN reported that it was BS, but because some lunatic (allegedly) stated that this is what Palin did—-you buy this entire fabrication hook, line , and sinker and then expound on it as if it were in deed fact. Will you identify this person making the charge and identify the alleged librarian and post her statements?
<
p>Do you realize that what you are doing borders on insanity?
<
p>This is like Dan Rather and the GW Bush draft dodging caper. “The story was fabricated , but it’s the truth.”
The story was vetted through the originating source ( what about three source corroboration Dan) What—-? The story was is a lie—but we are sticking to its veracity.
<
p>Hey Ry power–I’m saving this one—you wonder why folks think the democratic party is full of lunatics?—It’s because you are blinded by hate.
I never claimed she banned books. In fact, I alleged that she didn’t. WOW!
<
p>Moreover, it would not be the first time that Republicans have killed a story that probably had some truth to it. It’s happened many times before. It’s one of the things they’re actually best at. Does that make this story true? No, but there’s certainly documented evidence that she at least thought about banning books in the past – as Mr. Lynne pointed out. I don’t know what she did or did not do – and I never claimed to, especially in this thread. Before you lay accusations and insults at me, I suggest a few more minutes of effort on reader comprehension.
<
p>…fake but accurate?
The point of this diary is to show the fact that she did, indeed, at the very least discuss with the librarian about banning books. Allegedly, the librarian almost lost her job along with it. Goes right along with the cop who she fired as Mayor of Wasilla and the head of the State Police, who she fired as Gov because he wouldn’t fire who she wanted to be fired. She has a continuous problem of firing people because she doesn’t agree with them and that, sir, is a problem.
<
p>More on point, a commenter on that towleroad blog I linked to in the diary summed it up better than I just did – in easy words so you can understand it.
<
p>
<
p>Hope that clears it up for ya..
Especially the word “allegedly”.
<
p>oogity boogity!
This is a story unto itself.
…the latest Factcheck entry analizes, and mostly debunks, claims made about Palin. Personally, I don’t even favor teaching “both sides” of the evolution/creation controversy as if they are of equal academic worth. Besides, the Supreme Court found this unconstitutional in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987).
In case anyone really actually is interested in the truth.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>The actual list of books Palin wanted off the library shelves has not been found, but unless Stein is lying, she did try to ban books.
Straight from the local newspaper story at the time of the issue:
<
p>
This pretty much sums up my diary. The “disbunking” of the book-banning never really took place, despite popular opinion. Yes, the list wasn’t accurate. It looks like from those quotes a list may have never existed.
<
p>Yet, no one ever claimed or even alleged that actually she banned the books – only that she tried to, and therein lies a big difference. The foundation of the story is actually accurate – and backed up by numerous sources that Bob just pointed out. She was very interested in banning books – and looked willing to play hardball in order to do it.
<
p>It’s just that the McCain campaign has (somewhat successfully) been trying to cover that up with the fact that the original list was innaccurate – trying to damn the whole story with it. There was a name someone gave to the Republicans when they tried to do this kind of thing, but I can’t remember it. Yet, it’s a very common tactic that the Republicans are very good at taking a story that’s on the whole accurate, yet use some sort of tiny detail that was distorted and try to discredit the whole, damn entire thing in the process – or they’ll go after the person who’s saying it and try to discredit the story by lynching the story teller. They have a knack for putting the tiniest detail in doubt in flipping the whole thing around to how the liberal, elitist media is out to get them. I’m quite frankly sick of it – and especially at how good they are at doing it. At some point, the media’s going to have to call them on it.
You may draw your own conclusions, but I don’t think they should include “She was very interested in banning books – and looked willing to play hardball in order to do it. “