FACT CHECK: Palin's book goes rogue on some facts (AP "Fact Checks" Palin's book - LOL)

Associated Pravda ^ | 11-13-09 | Calvin Woodward

[usconservative]

Oh she has the left afraid..they have Levi as their special correspondent now..

With this basic fact, you pose an interesting propisition for the American public to ponder.

Just who are we to believe: a man-child who's profiting from his "celebrity" by posing naked and showing his hoo-haa in a skin magazine marketed towards "women" but well known to be "read" primarily by gay men;

OR

Sarah Palin, an accomplished woman who despite the 'feminist norm' has lived her morals and values and puts God, Country, Family first?

I'll take Sarah Palin's word any day.

[usconservative]

Ten - count 'em - ten writers assigned to this. I wonder how many AP fact-checkers were assigned to fact check "Dreams of My Father?"

It's clear NONE have been assigned to 'fact check' the White House's specious claims the other day that by spending nearly one TRILLION dollars the Obama Administration has 'created or saved' more than a million jobs since the worst recession since the great depression.

Surely if the AP or anyone else in the lamestream media had actually done their jobs as an adversarial press, they'd have gotten to the bottom of why we have double-digit unemployment as a result of Obama's failed "economic" policies.

In short, hey AP: Fact check this:

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Fact-Check This (About Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue)
Power Line ^ | November 13, 2009 | John Hinderaker

[Steve_Seattle]

If this is the best they could come up with, the book must be fairly truthful. Most of these "gotchas" involve ambiguities and matters of emphasis, matters of opinion, matters of degree, or minor imprecisions. An army of fact-checkers could come up with lists like this - or even much longer lists - for virtually any politician, including Obama and all of the Democratic congressional leadership.

For example, Palin's pricey hotel accomodations at one event in the Big Apple - where accomodations tend to be pricey across the board - do not undermine her generally frugal manner when traveling as governor. Again, compare her behavior with virtually any politician. And the dispute about the content of the the Vogue interview is a "he said/she said" conflict of memory, and not even a total conflict at that.

[steve-b]

The most significant point:

PALIN: Boasts that she ran her campaign for governor on small donations, mostly from first-time givers, and turned back large checks from big donors if her campaign perceived a conflict of interest.

THE FACTS: Of the roughly $1.3 million she raised for her primary and general election campaigns for governor, more than half came from people and political action committees giving at least $500, according to an AP analysis of her campaign finance reports.

[TitansAFC]

-—”The most significant point:

PALIN: Boasts that she ran her campaign for governor on small donations, mostly from first-time givers, and turned back large checks from big donors if her campaign perceived a conflict of interest.

THE FACTS: Of the roughly $1.3 million she raised for her primary and general election campaigns for governor, more than half came from people and political action committees giving at least $500, according to an AP analysis of her campaign finance reports”-—

I thought the same thing when I saw it, but it appears to be a bit of an indulgence of what is said in the book (which we’ll soon see).

Apparently, this is a twist much like the Reagan quote mixing, purposefully putting two different things together to make it sound like she was saying something else, then calling the something else a “lie.”

She apparently claims that she had more numbers of small donations than large, most of those small donations coming from first-time donors. The “Fact Checkers” have merged this to make it sound like she said that she got the majority of her money from small donors - an impossibility for running for a statewide or national office (as anyone who has paid attention to politics for more than the last week knows). Nobody who has ever run for statewide office would make the claim the AP is pretending she made.

Just more intentional AP blurring.

[steve-b]

Sounds like it was a clintonesque statement (technically true but misleading) on her part, then.

[TitansAFC]

-—”Sounds like it was a clintonesque statement (technically true but misleading) on her part, then.”-—

I don’t think it was at all misleading. If the AP had not decided to twist it, everyone would simply understand it as it was meant to be understood: most donors were small donors, and many of those donors were first-time donors. It is only when the AP tries to change her claim to be that she received the majority of her money from first-time donors (which she did not claim) that it even becomes a careful read.

But (In true AP fashion here), now that you’ve stated she’s in the same league of deception and lies as Bill Clinton, and have deemed the AP an entirely credible fact-checking source, I’d just like to rebuke you by saying that the AP is, in fact, unreliable at best - and partisan. Also, Bill Clinton parced the words, he didn’t have them parced on his behalf. Nobody needed to change what he said to make him a liar.

See how that works?