Dispatches from the Creation Wars

More Details from Palin Tell All Book

The details just keep coming from the leaked manuscript of Frank Bailey’s tell-all book about Sarah Palin. The thing is full of quotes from emails between Bailey and both Todd and Sarah Palin and it apparently shows some very interesting things. Like this, about that perfect marriage:

Sarah Palin appeared to trust Bailey and confided in him on all topics, including family matters. In an email, Palin told him that Todd was working behind her back on the Troopergate affair, writing to Bailey: “We’re not like normal couples, Frank. We don’t talk.”

Bailey writes that the Palins had marital problems and that Todd would even steal his wife’s BlackBerry “in order to read her emails for emotional clues” before emailing campaign headquarters during the 2006 Alaska gubernatorial campaign to “relay his wife’s demeanor,” good or bad, to the team. Bailey also alleges that Todd even accessed Palin’s email without her knowledge, and if he saw something that worried him, he would call Bailey with his concerns.

Bizarre. But this is hardly surprising:

Bailey writes that Palin drafted her own letters to the editor during her run for governor and sent them in under supporters’ names. Palin relayed the first one in an email to Bailey:

“Dear Editor,

It’s been a pleasure watching our life-long Alaskan gal, Sarah Palin, campaign for governor these past six months. I am impressed with her leadership skills, experience, ethics, and energy. And I’m most impressed with how she communicates her message that is connecting with so many Alaskans. Sarah tells it like it is and is obviously not your typical politician. She doesn’t just go with the flow or test the waters with political polls before taking action. It’s clear Sarah is committed to just doing the right thing, even if her Republican Party bosses try to punish her for it,” the letter reads in part.

Bailey alleges the letter was the first of many they wrote in supporters’ names, to be sent to Alaska newspapers. Bailey writes “nothing struck me as wrong” with the faux letters, even though the campaign had become what he calls a “letter-manufacturing plant.”

And in one particularly un-self-aware moment, Palin begins an email string with Bailey saying, “I feel like we are the last of the innocents,” before encouraging the fake editorial letters:

“Good idea about the letters to the editor. Guys–let’s remember to tell people that when they offer to help but don’t know what to do. They can loan us their names for a letter, and they have to be ready to confirm that they authored the letter when all those various newspapers call them for confirmation.”

And this:

Although Bailey acknowledges helping encourage the Palin veepstakes chatter by emailing with the Draft Palin bloggers, he was surprised when his boss is tapped to be John McCain’s No. 2. “No question this would be an exciting choice, but did McCain and his people know just how exciting?” he writes, adding that very little to no vetting of Palin was conducted before she was chosen.

Bailey writes that in the early days of the campaign, the Alaska governor “went into a panic” because she didn’t remember what her public stance on sex education was. Palin “ordered” him to examine the Alaska Family Council campaign survey from 2006 to find out whether she was in favor of abstinence-only education, he writes.

“When I found out Sarah had indicated she supported abstinence-until-marriage education and explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support, we realized an unwed pregnant daughter made that position potentially embarrassing. We focused on the word explicit to downplay Sarah’s opposition.”

And this is likely just the tip of the iceberg.


  1. #1 A little common sense
    March 1, 2011

    Reply to #44 Posted by ibwilliamsi and aped by several others:

    “A Little Common Sense” – If you honestly don’t care where PRESIDENT OBAMA was born, educated or worships, why do you insist on calling him by his middle name? To inflame? Methinks you doth protest too much.

    Inflame? No, merely to be provocative. Is that a crime? If so, please censor the name-callers on this blog, if only in the interests of proving your impartiality.

    Barack Hussein Obama is a boob, an inept fool. He’s made more spoken gaffes than Dan Quale and George W. Bush put together.

    So he “misspoke” when he stated that he’d been in 57 states? So what? Has he “refudiated” that yet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrsBKGpwi58

    His great-uncle? That’s not what he said. He said uncle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV1sxq8mqvA

    Drugs? Hard drugs? So it’s okay that Obama used illegal drugs if others have, too? What nonsense! Obama, by his own admission, is not eligible to purchase a firearm in the United States. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jlEPSewLuk&feature=related

    He did promise no lobbyists in his White House, but his staff is meeting with lobbyists across the street so the visits don’t show up on the White House visitor registry.
    “Refudiate” that, why don’t you? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50081.html

    Doesn’t matter what his middle name is? I agree, but why then did he claim to be Muslim? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M&feature=related

    And would it make a difference if he really was Muslim? Yes, because there would then always remain a question about his ability to be impartial. Like his impartiality in the Cambridge Police incident. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/07/obama_cambridge.html
    Or his impartial support of the pay-off to the black farmers. http://www.theroot.com/views/white-house-signs-farmers-settlement
    Or his impartial dedication to the SEIU (a.k.a. Obama’s SA). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ1NJaCtIkM

    There’s truth in the old adage about a leopard’s spots.

New comments have been disabled.