Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Her resignation couldn't possibly be a product of her breathtaking incompetence, reckless impulsivity, or unwillingness to face challenges or adversity. Nope, it's gotta be the fault of those evil libs. Nothing a conservative does is ever his/her fault, don't you know.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 11, 2009 10:21 AM

I've filed at twenty FOIAs in the last week for material relating to my thesis research. As for the "need" to "respond by a strict timetable," Fund would be wise to file a FOIA and see how fast they get to it.

Posted by: history punk | July 11, 2009 11:24 AM

Ed,

I definitely do not feel sorry for the State of Alaska nor Palin. And I think FOIA is a wonderful thing.

My complaint was entirely the way you countered the claim: you compared filing a request with responding to a request. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Posted by: foole | July 11, 2009 11:47 AM

Are we supposed to believe that the Governor herself was having to deal with the FOIAs?

Posted by: James Hanley | July 11, 2009 12:04 PM

James Hanley stated:

Are we supposed to believe that the Governor herself was having to deal with the FOIAs?

I have seen Palin's type before when I was a corporate warrior chartered with consulting on how to fix broken factories. Not a lot given I was in the tech industry and therefore almost always from factories with a pre-tech culture.

Palin is the classic example of someone who is both ignorant of the tools required for the job title and with an extremely rigid and therefore brittle worldview. They can't deal with nuance or facts that challenge their worldview and react in a very irrational manner when their worldview is publically found wanting. They do not know what they do not know and don't have either the interest or the capability of educating themselves.

Couple those attributes to Palin's utter disdain for actual work and you've got a classic example of someone grasping at straws to rationalize their perfect inability to operate in a manner consistent and beneficial to the interests of the operation they're chartered with administrating.

We are after all talking about someone who does not read, even when it pertains to information required to execute her duties.

When I encountered these types of managers, my advice was always the same - fire them. It was amazing how grateful those effected by these types were when the act was done; you would also not believe how many previously ugly, yet hidden issues cropped up after such a cleansing. If they portray themselves poorly in public like Palin does, what they're hiding can often be far worse. I look forward to such stories coming out of the Alaska Governor's office after she's left the office.

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 11, 2009 12:29 PM

I'm with you there KoI, I'd certainly put Sarah Palin high up in the list of incompetent US elected officials. But I doubt she would have worked hard enough to rise to the true heights of incompetency of which she was capable.
However I am willing to be convinced by evidence to the contrary. Hit me! ;) - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | July 11, 2009 12:34 PM

KofI @ 11 - Certainly Cheney's lies serving under Bush Jr. had bigger ramifications to the country. But his entire legacy is not one of continual dishonesty like Palin's - not even close; only because we prevented her gaining access to the power that Cheney seized from, or was tolerated, by Bush and the Congress.

I have complete, and arrogant, confidence that Palin as President would yield far more dishonesty and far, far, far more damage to the national interest than Cheney. In fact I find Palin's nomination to VP to be one of the greatest risks to America's interest we've ever encountered, with perfect cognizance of the damage done by Cheney that will cost us generations to repair. As an ardent student of both Cheney and Palin, I emphatically stand my post #9.

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 11, 2009 12:56 PM

I loathe and despise Cheney but the thought of Palin in (or close to) the Oval Office scares the crap out of me.

Yes and no -- she could do a lot of damage, but even damage is work. I see no evidence that she would put up with even a month of the totally-scheduled life that Presidents endure.

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 11, 2009 1:33 PM

Ed,

Foole is on to something. The big question here is, were the 150 FOIA requests filed to her office or are they counting all FOIA's for the entire government?

Now if all or even most of those were to just one office, receiving that many FOIA requests in 9 months is ridiculous. I work for a federal agency that gets FOIA requests routinely (less since Bush left office) and they are a pain in the ass. For each one, every staff member who was associated with whatever the issue is, has to go through all their files and email archives and submit the ones that are related to the issue. They then undergo legal review, where lawyers look for things that are exempt under attorney-client privilege. Then management looks it all over for redundancies, irrelevancies (e.g. emails like, "are you available on Monday for a conference call"), and other items that can be culled. After all that, administrative staff compiles everything they get from all the staff members, then then have to convert everything to PDF, index it all, and in some places, make hard copies of everything. (Some places are actually stepping into the 21st century and the courts allow CD's)

That's for each FOIA request. So if one office gets 150 (or something similar) in less than a year, it's pretty much going to prevent them from doing anything else. It locks up your regular staff, your legal staff, management, and admin folks.

Of course the question here is, is that reason to resign? No, and the rest of the article is pretty silly. But my main point here is that FOIA requests are not some walk in the park like you make it seem.

And there's always the possibility that her office received so many FOIA requests because they were doing a lot of wrong things. If that's the case, they have no one to blame but themselves.

But believe me, there are times when groups who don't like what you do will bombard you with FOIA requests for no other reason than to keep you from doing anything else. It's very vindictive and shitty, and it happens more than you would think.

Posted by: Jason F. | July 11, 2009 2:09 PM

KofI stated:

what evidence do you have of her repeatedly lying? I am not saying it does not exist I just need to see it.

I am stunned, seriously, that anyone who follows the news and is not religious can't see her lies. Almost everytime she's in the media, I'm not exagerating, she's lying. Search Ed's website with keywords like Biden, Palin, debate, and should you find a post thread where I counted way more lies by Palin in the VP debate than I've ever encountered since I started counting lies told in non-primary presidential/VP debates in 1980.

In addition, here are only a few of her lies which are tracked by Andrew Sullivan. I suggest reading his blog daily to become informed on Palin, Iran, and Bush's torture policies. No one covers Palin better than him in terms of being an information broker of straight news, analyses, and opinion.

KofI - I suggest doing your own research from now on when asking for validation of the obvious.

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 11, 2009 2:24 PM

Jason F., You forgot the last line in dealing with FOIAs; take a big black marker and run it across every line, randomly skipping a few words here and there. (Just kiddin'!)

Posted by: James Hanley | July 11, 2009 3:14 PM

Michael Heath,

Have you really counted lies in VP debates since 1990 are were you being sarcastic? If this is true then I withdraw my objection to your contention being ridiculous but I still think it is bold in the light of some of the real scum that have run empires in history.

My concern is more general with all the accusations of Christians being liars that is grounded in the "Liars for Jesus" line of thinking. I am no David Barton fan or Religious Right kind of guy but I do think the vast majority of those I have known and ran with before were honest. Deluded is not the same as being dishonest.

Have you done a detailed study of Hitler, Mao, or Stalin the same way that you have with the VP Debates? There power(along with that of most kings in history) was based totally on lying to people. She is surely unqualified and seems to be a liar. But to put her in their league seems to be hyperbole.

As far as my lack of knowledge about the obvious with Palin, I only give so much of my time with discussion of modern politics. I see no difference no matter who is in there and can only take so much of the back and forth without getting sick to my stomach.

I want to reiterate my sincere respect for your intellect and thoroughness I see in your comments here. This particular one seems like a stretch when one says the worst in history. Maybe you were just referring to modern History were you?

Posted by: King of Ireland | July 11, 2009 3:47 PM

Let's remember that Palin wasn't filling these requests herself. I'd be willing to bet her immediate staff doesn't do it either. The only thing slowing her down was her IQ and her dreams of grandeur outside Alaska.

I'm not surprised she hates the media. Interviews show her to be the incompetent frootbat she is. Case in point, She thinks the white house has a Dept of Law with the authority to dismiss court cases. That's just a throw away line but it betrays an astounding miscomprehension of how our government works.

Posted by: Brian | July 11, 2009 4:38 PM

Michael Heath stated;

"Regarding famous authoritarians who utilized propaganda:
Palin lies far more frequently then any of them."

Do you have similar evidence like the VP debates for this? Or is this just an educated opinion based on that data? I know you were not trying to equate her with Hitler but it could come across that way. Assuming she did achieve that level of power(and she still might) do you think she could do as much damage as the dictators I mentioned?

Michael Heath stated:

"Here is an example of the first lie I found her telling. In a written survey she took for the religious right anti-woman's rights leader Phyliss Schlafly's organization, Eagle Form or something like that, they asked Alaskan gubernatorial candidates if they supported "under God" staying in the Pledge. Palin's written answer was that since the founders supported that clause in the Pledge, you betcha she did as well.

The Pledge was not created until the late-19th century and "under God" was not formally added until the 1950s. In a written response - meaning she had no problem providing an answer she received via Barton-like propaganda or wasn't sure she knew but wrote it anyway in spite of her opportunity to first do some research given it was a written survey."

This is exactly the general problem I am addressing and tried to address in Ed's post a while back about why her people love her so much. It is the problem I have with Chris Rodda's title to the book. In my opinion the above is a mistake not a lie.

This is common in these circles. Some guru makes a claim based on the fact that he says he is a guru and convinces others he is and by word of mouth this is not questioned.
To come question the guru is rebellion and witchcraft. So people just each up what they say and go around repeating it without critical inquiry on their own to confirm it or form their own opinion.

80% of the kids indoctrinated into this stuff never question it so they go to college and one ridiculous thing is proven wrong and they begin to question it all and throw it out. This is an actual stat from inside the ranks from a guy named Barna. These people can be very hard to talk to(Ed calls is cognitive dissonance) and are very irrational at times.

BUT they are not liars. The are mostly sincere and seek to go good. I know well meaning people who are passionate about what they believe can do great harm. I can see where you are coming from with Palin, Revelation, and doing something stupid. Sincerity does not equate to being right I well understand. This is not a lying though in my mind.

As far as Palin and this "lie" it proves she is ignorant more than dishonest. As far as the others that Sullivan said some could be put in this category and others probably not. My issue is that the "liar" slander is thrown around so much on this site and others like it I do not trust it.

To solve the problem it has to be disagnosed correctly. To diagnose ignorance as dishonesty and perhaps even evil motives can do great harm. We have being having this same debate at American Creation(JON Rowes blog) and I have stated numerous times that both sides seem to be locked in a propaganda war and truth loses out.

I am not accusing you of this. I disagree with you on this but I find you the most balanced and objective person who comments here. You are also very informed. Just something to think about.

Posted by: King of Ireland | July 11, 2009 5:09 PM

I disagree, KOI. Just because many social conservatives have been indoctrinated into their beliefs (either from birth or from a particularly vulnerable place in life) does not mean that they do not frequently engage in self-conscious dishonesty. I think that, for many of them, deliberately lying is seen as acceptable when doing so advances a particular policy or argument. Call it "Lying for Jesus," or just the end justifying the means, but the fact is that social conservatives lie damn near all the time, to the point that dishonesty is pretty much expected of them. Now, it could be argued that their entire discourse has become so steeped in dishonesty that many of them can't genuinely navigate through what is true and what isn't, but that does not excuse the general lies and delusions commonplace amongst them. Palin is simply one of the very worst of the lot. As Michael Heath stated, he had counted over forty separate lies uttered by Palin during the Vice Presidential debate. Over forty lies--that's a few too many to extend her the benefit of the doubt. I do not believe that Palin "seeks to do good," either. Some social conservatives may genuinely be operating from a place of good (though misguided) intentions, but Palin ain't. I think that, given the chance, she is willing to bend the rules and the laws to implement a society congruent with her regressive beliefs. Her behavior as mayor of Wasilla demonstrates this.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 11, 2009 6:05 PM

KofI - I can understand the argument the pledge is not a lie, my primary point there was more about the damage delusion does, which is similar to simply lying. I rarely get caught making an assertion that's not accurate and accurately framed. I do not find it difficult at all to validate my assertions either, I know when I'm confident in what I know and when I need to do some research first.

I also know, having grown up fundie, that they know deep down they're lying to themselves, that's why they do the "I'm can't hear you" stomp when confronted with people like me. So if you parse these out individually, yes one can cogently argue it is not a lie. However, from a systemic perspective, which is how I always try to address issues, it's lying since they've submitted themselves to an approach to gathering information they know is intellectually dishonest and will repeatedly produce untrue assertions.

Here is the best example of her lying that came out just prior to her resignation, that very week in fact. Palin asked Steve Schmidt, the McCain Campaign Manger to put out a statement from the Campaign regarding her husband's membership in a secessionist movement. Palin recommended that Schmidt craft a statement that claimed that Todd Palin merely filed out a registration form wrong, meaning to distinguish himself as an independent, rather than a member of the political party named the Alaska Independence Party, "AIP". Palin also claimed that the AIP was not a secessionist movement. Palin's claimed motivation was that she was experiencing increasing pressure from the press regarding this issue (I wish), and needed to "put this issue to bed", especially given her enormous lie that then Sen. Obama "palled around with terrorists" (another enormous lie by Palin).

Schmidt responded in an email leaked to CBS. Schmidt validated with Palin's own press staff that the media was not hounding her on this issue (Lie #1). Schmidt also noted that Todd Palin was a member for seven years (Lie #2) and that the AIP's whole purpose of being was well known to be a secessionist movement (Lie #3). This is a good example of Palin the liar wanting to join the big leagues of the guys you mentioned earlier who were world class propagandists.

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 11, 2009 7:12 PM

KofI - your last post is a perfect example of why I stopped having a dialogue with you soon after you started commenting in this forum.

I never stated Palin was the "worst liar of all time". In my first comment on this thread in Comment #9 I stated, "Gov. Palin is easily the most dishonest elected official I've ever encountered both in modern times and my reading of history". In subsequent comments I posted I repeatedly clarified that in reference to the frequency rate of her lies, i.e., everytime she speaks publically, and not to the damage they did.

In addition, it appears you did not read the Andrew Sullivan link given you equate my evidence to a small handful of harmless lies rather than the examples I provide here and Sullivans 30-something validated collection. No, I assert and provided emprical evidence supporting her continuously lying, providing mere anecdotes illuminating my assertion with the exception of Sullivan's 30-some validated whoppers and my count of her lies during the VP debate. If you disagree, provide evidence. In fact, find five speaking engagements on video or their transcripts and link to them, I'll bet right now I can find at least three lies that can be easily validated as lies in each one.

Ed has continually posted her lies. Andrew Sullivan posts several every week Palin shows up in the national news. In fact her resignation announcement is full of lies, often because one assertion directly contradicts another in that very speaking engagement, e.g., "I'm quitting because I'm not a quitter", or her ad nauseum claim that she works hard for the people in Alaska and will continue to do so when they've never had a gov. who avoided work as much as her; in fact she didn't even work the following Monday after her resignation in spite of the fact she's providing little time for her Administration to make a shocking, unplanned transition to the Lt. Gov. Her announcement also had her at home rather than at her office in Capitol. "Working hard" as an executive, I know because I was one, is 50 - 100 hour work weeks. I doubt Palin works 30 hours a week.

So you can have your opinion, but if you want it to have respect, I suggest basing it on verifiable facts as I did presenting numerous links here that all support my assertion, to your zero citations I might add. I'm even making it easy on you by allowing you to pick your own five speeches; all I ask is that they not mere snippets but substantial enough (several minutes) to provide opportunities for Palin to make an argument.

I firmly stand by my assertion: Palin lies more than any elected official I've ever encountered. In fact, I don't believe it's even close.

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 12, 2009 12:16 AM

KoI -- STOP BEING SUCH AN INSUFFERABLE ASS!

Sorry for shouting, but, really!

Michael Heath -- I once again find myself agreeing with almost everything you've written. The only exception is that you are being way too conciliatory to KoI. In this thread, he is acting as a concern troll. He should therefore be stomped.

I agree with your 'hidebound manager' perspective -- I've advised many times that such individuals need to be fired. Often they are 'promoted sideways' to a safe and ineffective sinecure, which does no apparent damage, but indicates that such behavior is a perfect path to a financially rewarding career. Not what I'd ever recommend.

I also found myself in massive agreement with your 'hard working executive' -- 50 to 100 hours PLUS TRAVEL. I remember weekends as time that I could do my own things -- now it's when I travel to or from more distant meetings (so as to be able to start by 8am Monday, or finish no earlier than 6pm Friday) - or when I get my 'leftover' work done in planning for the week, or reading what my reports sent me on Friday.

I really enjoy what I do. I make certain I take vacation. But it really is a 100% commitment, and not something you can do without significant effort and energy. I laugh whenever conservatives talk about how difficult the job of governor is. I simply describe my previous day... and let them come to the appropriate conclusion.

So - Michael: Bravo, sir! You write with passion, intellect and knowledge - much as I would wish to write, had I the time and energy! Your comments bring me to Ed's blog, almost as much as Ed's posts!

Posted by: TonyC | July 12, 2009 2:42 PM

"Give it up, please. Defending a minor point of semantics makes you look like an idiot. You are clearly better than this. Pick a better argument."

This is not semantics. He made a statement and only partially backed up the first half. The second half is an exaggeration. Much like many that the Palin's of the world make. Michael seldom does this as I have stated many times that is why it shocked me enough to point it out to him.

I still see no empirical evidence from history about the frequency of Hitler's lies. I also reiterate that he changed his statement the second time as my last comment points out. I think the majority on this site need to think about all the rhetoric. It makes people on here look like idiots quite often. This is a bubble and most agree here. When others not in the bubble chime in and point out some blind spots people go nuts.

The whole "liar" thing is exaggerated. It makes many of the arguments presented on this blog less effectual because of the rhetoric. They are good arguments that are needlessly tainted.

Posted by: King of Ireland | July 12, 2009 7:00 PM

KoI: Michael appears convinced of his argument; if not, he is apparently ok with his statement being taken as hyperbolic. On matters of opinion, it really doesn't matter that much. Michael (and Andrew Sullivan, and others) uses the word "lie" to describe many of Mrs. Palin's statement, many of which I would call differences of opinions (she has made many statements which were flat out untruths, of course, but I would characterize a lot of her statements as "spin," not "lies").

That being said, your insistence on taking Michael's opinions literally is misplaced. Michael Moore says sillier things in his sleep. When you are comparing Mrs. Palin to Hitler or Mao, it really doesn't matter who is worse; the fact of the comparison is all one really needs to know.

I have been an exponent of friendly and respectful discussion on this blog for a long time. In general, it is better to disagree in a friendly manner.

Unfortunately, Mrs. Palin has made it clear that no disagreement from her positions is tolerable. "He has sown the wind and reaps the whirlwind." So be it.

Posted by: kehrsam | July 12, 2009 8:58 PM

kehrsam stated:

I would characterize a lot of her [Palin's] statements as "spin," not "lies

What I define as a lie is a much higher standard than most people's, it's being purposefully deceptive, regardless of whether everything stated is technically true or framed as mere opinion. For all but the best critical thinkers, "spinning" something to purposefully deceive results in the same outcome as flat-out lying. Using that standard I think Sullivan's list contains all lies that Palin told (he doesn't claim it's anywhere near exhaustive nor is it even close).

I've found many people in both public service and elsewhere that can meet this test - including many in public service acting as elected officials. In fact a primary reason I left the GOP after 30 years as a member was their recent aversion to being forthright as a defining attribute of the party. My attraction to considering more of liberals had to say was their attraction to a nuanced form of honesty - even when being transparent bit them in the ass.

Honesty as a cultural attribute between industries also varies greatly - my dealings in the tech industry were and are far more honest than they are in the real estate business even though the money and ramifications are much more enormous in the former (millions/billions in tech vs. hundreds of thousands/millions in real estate at the level I play at, which in the latter is far from the top of the food chain).

Frankly I've found it's really not that hard being honest. Given that every encounter I've had where Palin's spoke for more than a couple of minutes serves up a multitude of lies, I do not claim my assertion of her propensity to lie exceeds anyone else I've ever observed is hyperbole given the tyrants described previously certainly generated a lot of propaganda and their share of lies were far more devastating to humanity than Palin's (as I mentioned previously, in addition I never claimed my observations were anything other than my own observations). But the aforementioned tyrants were also not always dishonest in their inter-personal dealings, where again, Palin is a serial liar who I've observed lies continuously; even in her inter-personal dealings as we experienced when her emails were hacked into during the campaign and the stories from the campaign trail now emerge.

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 12, 2009 9:51 PM

Michael Heath and KoI: I don't have a problem with either of your presentations of the issue. My point was merely that your descriptions of Mrs Palin are not mutually contradictive. She may not be the lyingist politition of all time, but the fact that she is in the discussion is not a positive. Peace.

Posted by: kehrsam | July 12, 2009 10:54 PM

First, a variation on a very old joke:

How do you when Sarah Palin is lying?

When she opens her mouth.

Palin's main problem is that she makes stuff up on the fly to fill what would otherwise be the sound of crickets in the woods (or waterfowl mating on the water). Maybe she learned this habit from one of the communications classes she took at one of those colleges she attended. Or maybe she learned it in high school: just say something that sounds like you were paying attention in class instead of doing your nails or daydreaming about bagging a moose. It's the shotgun approach to scholastic achievement. Just say a lot of crap and hope the teacher can give you at least partial credit.

Palin is a bubblehead who has managed to wink and grin her way to public office. (Since she is a good Christian woman, I doubt she would go much further than winking and grinning. Dancing I am sure is out of the question.) Maybe deep down inside she knows she's just making shit up, as someone here suggested. But she also seems to have no moral compunction about making shit up, as if she figures it doesn't really matter.

I would love to have a heart-to-heart collegial chat with Palin's former teachers, just to see if my hunch is correct. It's not so much that she is lying, or repeating misinformation, but she's filling the air with words in a vain effort to sound either intelligent (fail) or well-informed (fail again).

And since I am filling the Internet with random hypotheses culled from my years as a teacher, maybe she was the princess in her family, the cute little girl who could get away with murder by looking and sounding adorable after the fact.

Posted by: wheatdogg | July 13, 2009 11:45 AM