What are some of Sarah Palin's inaccurate statements while campaigning?

Answer 1

Andrew Sullivan and others have identified some statements that Sarah Palin has stated during the campaign appear to have been lies. Her supporters argue that these statements are not accurately characterized as lies. Below are some of the places where Governor Palin may have lied and some of the information about the controversy. 1. The Bridge To Nowhere. Sarah Palin ran for office favoring it, wore a sweatshirt defending it, and only stopped supporting it when the federal congress, Senator McCain in particular, went ballistic. She also was never in a position to say "no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere, as Congress killed the project before she took office. She kept the money anyway and favors funding Don Young's Way, at twice the cost of the original bridge. Opposing view This is not technically a lie because, even though she initially supported the bridge, she DID change her mind and reject it. Therefore, she did, in fact, say "thanks, but no thanks" to the "Bridge to Nowhere". 2. Her firing of the town librarian and police chief of Wasilla, Alaska. Opposing view To call Palin a liar on this is a stretch. Supposedly her "lie" was when she said there was no political motivation for firing Stambaugh and Emmons (though, interestingly, the article doesn't actually QUOTE Palin saying that). The "proof" that she "lied" was in a letter to the police chief, which Sullivan claims is a letter of termination, but in fact, only informs the chief of Palin's INTENT to terminate the chief. In any event, the reason for the intent to terminate the chief is "I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla". It did not say he was being fired because he didn't support her campaign for mayor. It was his lack of support of her effort to GOVERN that resulted in her intent to terminate his employment. 3. Pressure on Alaska's public safety commissioner to fire her ex-brother-in-law.

She has since been found by an independent legislative panel to have abused her authority in the "Troopergate" matter.

On October 10, 2008, the Alaska Legislative Council unanimously voted to release the Branchflower Report in which Stephen Branchflower found that firing Monegan "was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority," and that Palin abused her power as governor by violating the state's Executive Branch Ethics Act when her office pressured Monegan to fire Wooten. The report stated that "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired." The report also said that Palin "permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor's office [...] to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired." Opposing view The link below to the Troopergate story suggests that much of this may have simply been a misunderstanding. Besides, there is no PROOF that Palin lied. It MAY be true that she lied, and the investigation by the Alaska special prosecutor will hopefully reveal the truth in this matter. But as of now, by Sullivan's own words, there is absolutely no PROOF that Palin ever lied on this issue. Sullivan himself says, in summary, "your call", clearly admitting that the case is not closed. As for the Branchflower report, the quote above is accurate and very clearly says that Palin's actions were "proper and lawful". The part that is not in quotes, however, is misleading. What the report says is that Palin likely abused her power by pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten. Fact is, Branchflower couldn't PROVE any ethics violation, but he had to come up with SOMETHING incriminating on Palin for his political masters. So he took one of the allegations he couldn't prove and added the word "likely". The Branchflower report is noteworthy in completely FAILING to be the "October Surprise" that its architects clearly intended it to be. Branchflower's political masters are the the clearly partisan Alaskan legislative council panel of 10 elected Republicans and 4 elected Democrats. (Many Republicans hate Sarah Palin just as much as, or more than, Democrats because Sarah Palin exposes and fights corruption in her own party.) 4. Her previous statements on the causes of global warming. Opposing view This charge is based on a statement in which Palin denied "ever saying that there was absolute proof that nothing mankind has ever conducted or engaged in has had any affect, or no affect, on climate change". The quote that Sullivan used to "prove" this a lie was "I'm not a doom and gloom environmentalist like Al Gore blaming the changes in our climate on human activity." This second statement (actually first in chronological order) does NOT, in fact, directly contradict the first statement. Just because she's not blaming ALL of the climate change on human activity does not mean that she is not allowing for the possibility that some small part of climate change is due to human activity. 5. Alaska's contribution to America's energy supplies. During her interview with Charlie Gibson, Palin said, "Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States." It's simply untrue that Alaska produces anything close to 20 percent of the U.S. "energy supply," a term that is generally defined as energy consumed. That category includes power produced in the U.S. by nuclear, coal, hydroelectric dams and other means - as well as all the oil imported into the country. Palin would have been correct to say that Alaska produces just over 14 percent of all the oil produced in the U.S., leaving out imports and leaving out other forms of power. Opposing view The "lie" in question here is a statement by Palin that Alaska produces 20 percent of US energy. What she actually said was "nearly 20 percent" of the US's oil and gas. It appears that Palin misspoke here by including gas in the equation. Or perhaps she meant "gas" as in "gasoline" (which, after all, is what most people mean when they say "gas"), in which case, "gas" production comes from oil production, so she really was talking only about oil and oil-based products, not "natural gas". In any event, though oil production from Alaska has decreased in the last couple of years, it did, as recently as 2005, account for 18 percent of US oil production. I think that qualifies as "nearly 20 percent". Worst case, however, it was an ERROR, not a lie. The allegation above apparently cannot distinguish between "supply" and "demand". Energy supply most certainly is not the same thing as energy consumed. In any event, as the quote clearly shows, Palin was referring to only the domestic supply of energy. So imports are not included. As for using the term "energy supply", she most likely simply misspoke, and she really meant only oil production. But, again, this is at worst an error, not a lie. 6. The actual progress in constructing a natural gas pipeline from Alaska. Opposing view This is incredibly nit-picky. The "lie", apparently, was "And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence." If you want to parse the definition of the word "began", then no, actual construction of the pipeline has not yet begun. However, quite clearly, there has been a lot of planning put into this pipeline. So, yes, in some sense of the word, work on the pipeline HAS "begun". 7. When she said in her convention speech that Obama wants to "read terrorists their rights". This conflates Obama's support for prisoners having the right to challenge their detentions in court (filing a writ of Habeas Corpus, considered to be an important foundation of the rule of law) with the reading of rights under Miranda v. Arizona. Obama has never stated that Miranda rights apply to suspected terrorists. Opposing viewThe original entry here was that Palin lied about Obama's position on habeus corpus. And that is still what appears on Sullivan's site. (This is not the first time that the original poster has "changed" one of the "lies" when it was proven not to be a lie.) Palin didn't say anything about Obama's position on habeus corpus. And while Obama may not have said that Miranda rights apply to suspected terrorists, neither has he said that they don't. And his position on habeus corpus is consistent with the notion that suspected terrorists should be read their rights. For habeus corpus to apply in the manner that Obama says it should, a suspected terrorist would have to be treated as a suspected domestic criminal, and a suspected criminal has to be read his/her rights. So it's logically consistent that, if Obama believes in the right of habeus corpus for suspected criminals, he also believes in reading them their rights. In any event, the point of the possibly somewhat hyperbolic comment is that Obama is more concerned about the rights of people detained as suspected terrorists than about protecting America from terrorist attacks. Conservatives use "read them their rights" as a code phrase for this sort of wrong-headed thinking. 8. The use or non-use of a TelePrompter at the St Paul convention. Opposing view Palin said, "teleprompter got messed up, I couldn't follow it". No one has denied this. The closest that anyone has come is a reporter named Jonathan Martin, who stated, "the teleprompter did not break". There's a difference between "break" and "messed up". And, in any event, Martin has no personal knowledge of whether the teleprompter got "messed up", because he was not the person that was reading it. 9. Selling the plane owned by the Alaskan government on eBay for a profit.The plane was sold for a substantial loss and not via the online marketplace. Opposing view Palin said, "I put it on eBay". She never claimed that it SOLD on eBay, and she never claimed that it sold for a "profit".

10. What Alaska's state scientists concluded about the health of the polar bear population in Alaska.Palin claimed that the there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the polar bears were in danger, when state scientists concluded the opposite (See "Sarah Palin and Polar Bears" link below) Opposing view(thanks for the updated link) Palin's lie, apparently was, "based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials ... there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future". Sullivan claims that the wildlife officials "discovered no such thing", based on a story in the New York Times. But, curiously, neither Sullivan's site nor the NYT story have the text of, or a link to, the "comprehensive review by state wildlife officials" in question. The actual text of that document, obviously, is crucial to the establishment of Palin's statement as a "lie", yet no one seems to be able to produce that document. The only thing they can say is that certain e-mail messages (not the review itself) show that "state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger". It doesn't say which state scientists, nor that all of them agreed. But it is the review itself that is at issue here, not the emails. What does that review say? I don't know, and neither, apparently, does Sullivan. Because, you can bet, if he had found the text of the review, and it confirmed his opinion, he would surely have included a link to it. 11. Engaging in trade missions with Russia. In her interview with Katie Couric, Palin stated that while governor, members of her government had trade missions with Russia. However, no public records of such trade missions could be found and her spokeswoman declined to give a response. Patricia Eckert, who works in the governor's Office of International Trade, confirmed that Palin had not held meetings with Russian officials during her term. The closest interaction she cited was when the Seattle-based Russian consul general attended a reception for the diplomatic corps that Palin hosted in Fairbanks.(See "Palin's trade missions with Russia" link below.) Opposing view (again, thanks for the updated link) First of all, Palin's statement in the interview with Couric was "We have trade missions back and forth." Who is "we"? Perhaps she was referring to her state (Alaska) rather than her administration. In context, in fact, that's exactly how it appears - as a reference to her state's dealings with Russia. In any event, the statement cannot be taken as proof that Palin stated conclusively that she herself, or any member of her government, engaged in trade missions with Russia. This MIGHT be categorized as Palin (like all the other politicians) craftily dodging the question (if, in fact, there were no such missions), but it is NOT a lie. Second, the source referenced admits, and I quote, "a politician from Russia's Far East did in fact meet with Palin in Anchorage, and urged her to come to Russia." Looks like a diplomatic meeting to me, though there's no way of knowing, from this brief mention, whether the meeting included discussions about trade. Sources * See Related Links