Palin, “Banning” Books, Rookie Mistakes & the MSM
When I first blogged about the media interest in Sarah Palin’s 12-year-old inquiry into banning books at the Wasilla Public Library, I wrote, that this issue “so concerned her that an overzealous media [could] find no evidence that she ever pursued the matter after her initial inquiries.“
Something else occurred to me as I pondered the matter. Recall that her predecessor as Mayor (whom she defeated in 1996) had appointed the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, with whom Palin spoke about the matter. Emmons stayed on until August 1999 when she resigned, “two months before Palin was voted in for a second mayoral term.“
Okay, so this recalcitrant librarian removed, did then Palin, with apparently a more docile person in charge, act to remove any books? Um, um, well, um (as Obama might say), no. From 1999 until 2002 when Palin left office, there is no evidence of even a single challenge to any books in the Wasilla Public Library.
So, basically, we’ve got the media, left-wing blogs and various assorted Palin-haters dwelling on a rookie mistake by Palin. Let me repeat, if this issue were of such concern to her, why didn’t she try to remove any books from the local library once she had consolidated her power in her home town?
I wonder if the MSM has paid similar attention to Obama’s record.
AFTERTHOUGHT: Â Palin-haters seem more interested in the Alaska Governor’s 12-year-old inquiry than Palin herself ever seemed in “banning” books.
44 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Dan, great post. Nor is there any evidence of Palin as a mom of 4 kids in the Wasilla public schools that she tried to ban books in the schools’ libraries. Nor is there any evidence of her banning books through the state dept of education.
One side note: the quotes attributed to Palin’s first mayoral campaign manager indicting Palin and quoting verbatim conversations that were 13 years old, showed up on MyDemocratUnderground before the NYTimes article “documenting” Palin’s corruption was even published.
It’s all hat, no cattle on this one.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 17, 2008 @ 4:35 pm - September 17, 2008
Why is the media more interested in Sarah Palin buying a tanning bed than with the fact that Barack Obama’s economic advisers are the same people who cooked the books at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Or that Obama received huge donations from those institutions while blocking a federal investigation into their corrupt practices?
Comment by V the K — September 17, 2008 @ 5:14 pm - September 17, 2008
Eight-hundred-billion dollars of US wealth evaporated due to Lehman, Merrill and AIG this week. Say it to yourself, let if roll off your tongue, “….800,000,000,000 dollars“. Say it again to yourself, then look at Uncle Sully’s, or any of the Leftist Blogosphere sites and all you will see is rabid, vitriolic anti-Palin blather intersperced with wild accusations that McCain’s a senile serial-liar. Our dear brothers and sisters on the Left have lost their minds…..
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — September 17, 2008 @ 5:42 pm - September 17, 2008
I’m not a Palin hater, I’m a McCain supporter. Palin is irrelevant to my personal vote, although it looks like she may help my candidate get elected. But I have to say, while Palin clearly didn’t start any bonfires in the library, it creeps me out that she would even inquire about removing books, and then characterize it as a loyalty test.
Comment by Kirk — September 17, 2008 @ 6:30 pm - September 17, 2008
Dan, “inquiring” about banning books isn’t a “mistake,” rookie or no. It’s just wrong.
Comment by Jody — September 17, 2008 @ 8:06 pm - September 17, 2008
Fact: Palin has neither banned, nor ever tried to ban, *any* book.
Fact: Palin has never seriously asked anyone to ban a book. Her questions to the librarian were strictly hypothetical, “How would you react if…?”
Absent an explanation from Palin, here’s a good guess as to what happened. Some member of the community wanted to remove some book they found offensive. Palin probably told them, fine, I’ll ask about it, but don’t expect much. Palin asked the librarian hypothetical questions, got an official “no”, and took that back to the community member. Big freaking deal.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 17, 2008 @ 8:08 pm - September 17, 2008
Jody, first of all, “banning” is a misnomer. REMOVED is the technical term, and books are REMOVED from library shelves all the time, for all kinds of reasons.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 17, 2008 @ 8:10 pm - September 17, 2008
Second, Jody, here’s one of the (many) times when inquiring about removing books isn’t wrong: When it’s rhetorical / hypothetical, involving no actual book.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 17, 2008 @ 8:21 pm - September 17, 2008
Um, Jody, I already said, “it was a dumb thing to do.” But, the salient fact is, she hasn’t done it since 1996, at least 3 years before Obama’s last association with an unrepentant terrorist and we don’t see the MSM looking into that.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 17, 2008 @ 8:44 pm - September 17, 2008
Actually, the technical term is “Challenged.”
Much past repairing broken bindings, there really aren’t any good reasons for removing books from Public Libraries.
In December 1996, Emmons told her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman, that Palin three times asked her — starting before she was sworn in — about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose. That’s an awful lot of “rhetoricals.”
I know! Palin must be a big Simpsons Fan!
“What would you say if I asked you to remove some books?”
“No”
“What about now?”
“No”
“Now?”
“No.”
“D’oh! You’re fired. (TODD, TELL HER IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BOOKS.)”
Oh, that Sarah. Wacky fun she is.
Comment by Jody — September 17, 2008 @ 8:57 pm - September 17, 2008
Dan, dumb is locking your keys in the car while it’s running. “Rhetorically” inquiring three times about banning books? That’s another league altogether.
Seems as though many publications did, and didn’t find much of anything there. Massive conspiracy or non-story? Sir William of Occam is having a sale on razors. Can I pick you up one?
Comment by Jody — September 17, 2008 @ 9:06 pm - September 17, 2008
Jody, how lame. What’s next – quotes from bubble-gum wrappers? And no, the term is REMOVED, because as I said, books are REMOVED from library shelves all the time, for all sorts of reasons.
More to the point: What’s your basis for thinking Emmons firing was about not removing books? had something to do with the books? Here is what the Boston Herald had to say:
Did Stambaugh have anything to do with books? Did Felton? Did Dvorak? Did Cooper? No, no, no, and no. Palin was generically cleaning house of the previous administration.
The Herald says the election victory over the previous administration was “hard-fought” – so clearly, there were some issues there and Palin may have had perfectly valid reasons to clean house. And Emmons, the librarian, was a key supporter of the defeated administration. Surely you can admit, Jody, that Emmons of all people would therefore have an ax to grind, in her accounts? Eh, can you?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 17, 2008 @ 9:11 pm - September 17, 2008
(#12 continued) To find the proof one way or the other, then, perhaps the best course is to check the pudding, so to speak. Here is how GPW put it:
Here is how I put it:
But Jody, by all means continue making up (or believing) fairy-tales about wicked witches out to steal your life(style), if you need to.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 17, 2008 @ 9:33 pm - September 17, 2008
And I love how Jody quotes a story from February 19 — well before the Obama campaigns attempt to ban and censor the release of records detailing Obama’s associations with Ayers.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 17, 2008 @ 9:35 pm - September 17, 2008
Jody, you keep returning to the 1996 incident, so basically you help make the point of this post.
Thanks for the WaPo link on Ayers. Didn’t know they had looked into this, but it seems to be from their blog and not from the paper’s regular edition.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 17, 2008 @ 9:35 pm - September 17, 2008
Of minimizing censorship? Dan, as a fellow writer, I’d think you be more upset about Government’s attempts, no matter how “rhetorical,” at removing information placed in the public sphere from that sphere. If Government, before or after being sworn in, can “rhetorically” inquire about removing books from a local public library, then they can do the same about removing GayPatriot.Net from the blogsphere.
Comment by Jody — September 17, 2008 @ 11:18 pm - September 17, 2008
Jody, it happened twelve years ago. As this post indicates, she was, as of 1999, in a greater position to ban books from the library. and she didn’t.
Hence, I call it a rookie mistake. She didn’t try it again.
I’ve had a number of people inquire about removing Gaypatriot from the web. Some have offered to pay me to stop blogging. But, if we were removed from the web, we would have a tough time finding an outlet for our views.
Were the books removed from the library, there would be other ways to get them. And please note, I’m just contrasting the situations; I don’t think the books should have been removed.
Amazing, Jody, you dwell on something that happened 12 years ago and essentially ignore the point of the post. Let me repeat:
Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 17, 2008 @ 11:28 pm - September 17, 2008
Sure. And surely you can admit that, having been rejected three times from “rhetorically” censoring books from the library, might be the reason you fire someone, no matter how you coach it? Palin didn’t fire every department head on taking office.
After a community outcry, the librarian was re-hired less than a week later. The librarian endured until Palin was re-elected several years later, reportedly because she couldn’t face having to deal with Palin for another four years. Neither you nor I know what occurred during that time.
So while absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, on either side, what evidence is known is that on three occasions, then Mayor Palin broached censoring books — and was rebuffed by her librarian. If you think that “only” attempting it three times speaks highly of her character, wunderbar. I don’t.
Comment by Jody — September 17, 2008 @ 11:32 pm - September 17, 2008
What you privately, legally, contract to do or not do is your business. However, if the Government steps up and seeks to silence your blog? That’s mine. And it’s wrong.
“I don’t see why you are making such a big deal of it…. I only tried to kill him once. After I got caught, I never tried it again. And besides, it was all rhetorical anyhow…”
Comment by Jody — September 17, 2008 @ 11:44 pm - September 17, 2008
Considering the article you link to insinuates but doesn’t find fact, that the documents in question aren’t public property (which means neither you nor I have a right to see them no matter how much we might want to, and that there is no evidence of any wrong-doing on Obama’s part, you are just being petty, ND30.
Comment by Jody — September 17, 2008 @ 11:51 pm - September 17, 2008
Jody, this isn’t murder we’re talking about. It’s politics. So, if you’re going to hold her accountable for something she did in 1996, I assume you’ll hold Barack Obama responsible for campaigning with an ex-gay zealot last year?
So, basically you’re saying that once someone makes a mistake, they can’t act to correct it, they can’t change their mind?
By your standard now, anything Barack Obama ever said or did can and should be held against him.
Recall again the point of the post. When she had consolidated her power in Wasilla, with a new librarian in place, she didn’t inquire about removing books.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 18, 2008 @ 12:13 am - September 18, 2008
It’s censorship we’re talking about — a Government Agent using their power to decide what is and is not appropriate for the Public to read about. That’s serious sh*t, Dan. She got slapped back after enquiring three times, in public and in private, about removing books that she, for whatever reasons, noble or otherwise, found objectionable. The fact that she didn’t get to do it, the fact that it never made it any further was because she had a librarian say “No” AND because she couldn’t get rid of the librarian.
It’s no minor thing, no “rookie” mistake, to inquire about censoring. Books, literature, ideas are the essence of Liberty. I put no stock, no faith nor trust in people who think they have the power to remove Ideas placed in the Public Square from it.
I’ve seen no evidence that she “changed her mind.” I see evidence that she got caught and weaseled out of it by saying “It was rhetorical.”
It’s not the same thing as a “whoopsie.”
Comment by Jody — September 18, 2008 @ 1:11 am - September 18, 2008
Did a bit of research on Troopergate. There doesn’t seem to be much there there.
Comment by sonicfrog.net — September 18, 2008 @ 1:30 am - September 18, 2008
“Dan, “inquiring†about banning books isn’t a “mistake,†rookie or no. It’s just wrong.
Comment by Jody — September 17, 2008 @ 8:06 pm – September 17, 2008″
Please dont’ force your warpped morality down my throat.
Comment by Vince P — September 18, 2008 @ 1:54 am - September 18, 2008
Hell, if you wanted to get rid of a book from a public library, all you have to do is check it out and never return it. It’s not like there’s a library police (thinking of Dr. Johnny Fever’s telephone police) who will come knocking on your door.
Jody’s clearly hysterical. If Palin had really wanted to do so, it would have happened one way or the other.
Can’t ban books, but you sure as hell can do your best to ban Conservative radio and websites.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 18, 2008 @ 2:59 am - September 18, 2008
What’s more, why do I feel like I’m buying porn when I pick up a copy of National Review at the book store. Why does the chump behind the counter glare at me like that? The guy at Blockbuster doesn’t give me looks when I rent gay cinema.
Not that I care, mind you. Just something I’ve noticed.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 18, 2008 @ 3:01 am - September 18, 2008
One more:
Speaking of which, why is it that Coulter, Hannity, Levin etc. books are always facing backwards at the bookstore?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 18, 2008 @ 3:05 am - September 18, 2008
Dan, censorship isn’t a “mistake.” It isn’t a mark of “inexperience.” It’s a willful act to remove an Idea placed in the public sphere, from the public sphere. It’s anathema to a Free Society.
And she “inquired” about censoring not once, not twice, but three times — and was told “no” each time. When confronted on the issue? She didn’t apologize, she weaseled. “I was just kidding.”
It’s not a great mark of character.
Comment by Jody — September 18, 2008 @ 3:07 am - September 18, 2008
TGC, what are you, the Conservative Seinfeld, now?
Comment by Jody — September 18, 2008 @ 3:17 am - September 18, 2008
Three times in 1996, Jody. 1996. That’s twelve years ago. Before Barack Obama had even started serving his first term in the Illinois Senate.
You can call it whatever you want, Jody. But, she made no willful act to remove anything. She posed a question, but never acted to removed the books.
And you have yet to address the fundamental point of the post to which you attach your comment–if this were an issue near and dear to her heart, why didn’t she follow up, especially in 1999 what that pesky librarian was out of the way.
And anyway, even if she did removing any of the books, it wouldn’t have been censorship.
Jody, you keep repeating your same point over and over and over again. And I keep alerting you to what I actually wrote about.
By your standards then, Barack Obama regularly seeks advice from unrepentant terrorists and still exposes his daughters to anti-white bigotry.
Did it ever occur to you that she may have realized her actions in 1996 were inappropriate? I mean, Jody, let me repeat, there is no evidence she inquired about removing any books since 1996.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 18, 2008 @ 3:19 am - September 18, 2008
Jody, seems the spam file regurgitated some duplicate copies of yours. You say in #22 there is no “no evidence that she ‘changed her mind.’”
Um, Jody, let me ask again, did you even read the post? She didn’t pursue the matter for her next six years in office–even after the librarian with whom she had the run in stepped down.
You claim in #18, we don’t know what occurrred “during that time,” so you’re going entirely on supposition here. Entirely. If I made such assumptions about Barack Obama, saying neither you nor I know if Barack Obama still associates with unprentant terrorists, I’d expect you’d read me the riot act.
What we do know is that no books were banned while Sarah Palin was Mayor. And if there were evidence Palin pursued the matter after 1996, you’d think the librarian would come forward with it.
So, you’re judging her by a mistake she made 12 years ago. I guess that means you won’t be voting for Barack Obama because of the prominent role an ex-gay zealout played in his campaign events last year. It speaks to his character–and happened while he was running for president.
And note again, the point of the post. She didn’t pursue the matter after 1996. And no books were ever removed from the Wasilla Public Library.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 18, 2008 @ 3:39 am - September 18, 2008
Jody, you may wish to reread the article I cited.
Mr. Kurtz is a conservative writer who this week forced the University of Illinois to finally open its records on Sen. Obama’s association with William Ayers, the unrepentant 1970s Weather Underground terrorist.
The University of Illinois is a public university. Therefore, its records must be made open to the public. But you support and endorse Obama’s attempt to ban and censor those records from ever being released.
Why do you support government officials like Obama being allowed to ban and censor public information about them from being released?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 18, 2008 @ 3:42 am - September 18, 2008
First, I hate your spam filter.
Second, I read your post — and disagreed by pointing out that censorship isn’t a mistake.
Third, my bit in post 18 was in response to your “Why didn’t she try it again?” question: We have no idea what occurred on the down low when she hired her new librarian. And you’ll also note, in post 18, right I after I raised that argument, I point out how weak it was, how that question falls both ways, and how, in the end, we can only then discuss what is known: On three occasions, after being elected to office, Palin inquired about censoring books and was told “No” by a Librarian she ultimately couldn’t get rid of. I disagreed with you that this was a “rookie” mistake.
So, no, I’m not judging her by a mistake she made 12 years ago. Censoring… attempting to censor…inquiring about censoring…is not a mistake, it’s not an error that occurs from “…defective judgement, deficient knowledge or carelessness.” It’s quite the deliberate act. You don’t “accidentally” inquire about censoring… on three different occasions.
Oh, and did I mention I hate your spam filter?
[Jody, you're not the only one. Makes more work for me. As to the content of your comment, well, um, this defective judgment was 12 years ago. So, you're basically saying that someone can't change in that space of time? That she didn't inquire again about removing books suggests to me that she had learned. And that was the point of the post. And recall, yet again, she did get rid of the librarian and didn't inquire about removing books with her successor. --Dan]
Comment by Jody — September 18, 2008 @ 4:56 am - September 18, 2008
Dan, your spam filter ate my post again. Grrr.
Comment by Jody — September 18, 2008 @ 4:58 am - September 18, 2008
I support Obama’s — and your — right to keep your private educational records private. While I might want to read them, I don’t have the right to read them. It’s his option to release them or not. If he choses to demand that McCain (or Clinton, at the time) release every last document without he, himself, responding in kind, then it reflects the naked politicing and sound bite seeking that it is. At the end of the day we still aren’t entitled to see his records.
And Kurtz had the University open it’s files on Obama’s interactions with Ayers on public panels the University set up. That’s a different thing altogether than Obama’s personal, educational records.
Why do you support government officials like Obama being allowed to ban and censor public information about them from being released
I don’t. Now that I’ve answered your question, answer mine: When did you stop beating your spouse?
(Does it register how asinine your “Why do you…” questions sound?)
Comment by Jody — September 18, 2008 @ 5:00 am - September 18, 2008
“Dan, censorship isn’t a “mistake.†It isn’t a mark of “inexperience.†It’s a willful act to remove an Idea placed in the public sphere, from the public sphere. It’s anathema to a Free Society.
Comment by Jody — September 18, 2008 @ 3:07 am – September 18, 2008 ”
That’s why so many of us fear Hussien and Stretch Pelosi. They’re a naked threat to freedom.
Comment by Vince P — September 18, 2008 @ 5:05 am - September 18, 2008
In the other thread, Jody never addressed my point about the Democrats’ efforts to censor The Path to 9-11, even when the Democrat majority leader of the senate made threats against the broadcast license of the ABC network. It seems his opposition to censorship is selective.
For the record, even though I oppose any kind of political censorship, I think moral issues are a proper place for communities to decide for themselves what is acceptable and what is not. Unfortunately, Jody, and his cohorts on the political left feel the opposite way, and we unfortunately have a Supreme Court that gives more free speech protection to pronography than to political speech. That’s effed up, in my opinion.
Comment by V the K — September 18, 2008 @ 7:17 am - September 18, 2008
I support Obama’s — and your — right to keep your private educational records private.
No one asked for Obama’s educational records. They asked for the files on “Obama’s interactions with Ayers on public panels the University set up”, which the Obama campaign and its government cronies in Illinois attempted to block and censor.
Now, again: Why do you support government officials like Obama being allowed to ban and censor public information about them from being released, such as Obama’s interactions with Ayers on public panels the University set up?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 18, 2008 @ 11:54 am - September 18, 2008
By the way, just in case you’re confusing matters: people HAVE called for Obama to release his grades and his attendance records from universities, especially Columbia. Kurtz’s inquiry is completely different.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 18, 2008 @ 11:55 am - September 18, 2008
Fair enough. I was mistaken. If they’re public documents about public proceedings paid for with public funds then they should be opened.
I didn’t see anything in your link or in a quick search of the web to show that the campaign opined one way or the other on the matter. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it here.
Possibly, but there’s no evidence in the link you posted, or for that matter anything I saw on a quick google search, to show that the Obama campaign had a role in it. Sure, they could have called up the University and said block the release of the information — and Palin could have told Wasalia Librarian #2 what books to buy, not buy and not replace. At this time, there’s no evidence that either thing occurred, so honestly you have to count it as personal speculation.
You certainly can’t draw conclusions from it.
Now that I’ve answered your question, please answer mine: When did you stop beating your partner/boyfriend/spouse?
Comment by Jody — September 19, 2008 @ 7:19 pm - September 19, 2008
I do? Really? You mean because I don’t answer you, on the comments of a blog post, your conclusion is correct? You are a deceptively intelligent human being, V.
Of course! Now I understand! I apologize. You are a Betazed! Your spurious leaps of logic, composition fallacies and inane conclusions make so much sense now in light of your empathic abilities. In pursuit of your duties as the Resident Ship’s Counselor of GayPatriot.Net do you wear the short skirt or snappy leotard?
Comment by Jody — September 19, 2008 @ 7:33 pm - September 19, 2008
Yeah, um, you’re still not condemning censorship when it comes from Democrats.
Comment by V the K — September 19, 2008 @ 9:02 pm - September 19, 2008
Not condemning to you, V. There’s a difference.
Comment by Jody — September 19, 2008 @ 11:10 pm - September 19, 2008
[...] They’ve made an issue of her lunch receipts and lost their own lunches when they found out that just after her first mayoral election in 1996, she inquired about removing books for the local public library. Â Of course, they neglect to point out that she never banned a single book, even after the librarian who responded unfavorably to her inquiry stepped down. [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Why Aren’t National Media Descending on Chicago? — September 25, 2008 @ 3:37 pm - September 25, 2008