I have lived in Alaska for years, and am very familiar with Sarah Palin... both as the Mayor of Wasilla and as the Governor of the State of Alaska. The Republican Party is presenting a "Very" whitewashed view of her life and policies. They are combining a modicum of truth with a great deal of deliberate distortion. Because of Alaska's relative remoteness, few people really know what really goes on here. After all, don't most Alaskans still live in igloos?

In truth, Sarah Palin is a very charming personable woman who is utterly ruthless in her political ambitions. She has proved very astute at sniffing the political wind, and adjusting her policies to suite the political climate. She adamantly opposes "earmarks", but was known to use them extensively in both of her administrations. As the Mayor of Wasilla, she hired the well know Anchorage lobbyist Steve Silver (at $40,000/year + expenses) to lobby "Uncle" Ted Stevens... which apparently was money well spent, as the earmarks started to roll in. She later hosted fundraisers for the same Ted Stevens (now under federal indictment)... and as Governor, requested and secured over $255 million in federal funding utilizing the same Ted Steven's considerable influence. She says she opposed the "Bridge to Nowhere", but is on record many times over as having fully supported it. It wasn't until Mr. Stevens was federally indicted, that she suddenly "opposed" it... though she kept the money that was allocated for it.

Sarah Palin once said, "In the spirit of full disclosure, I’m a commercial fisherman in Bristol Bay, and my daughter’s name is Bristol, so that probably tells you right there where my heart is. I will not ever support something that risks one resource over another." Recently, she utilized her position and state resources to oppose a proposition that would have limited the chances for a potentially devastating pollution of the same Bristol Bay area and its multi-million dollar fishing industry.

Sarah Palin characterizes her style of government as "open and transparent", but it's anything but. She is under a current legislative investigation into alleged ethics violations, which she is doing everything in her power to block, or at least delay. In fact, she has hired a private attorney at state expense ($95,000) to defend her and her staff. Even when she was the Mayor of Wasilla, she had the reputation for using her position to avenge perceived slights or crush resistance. In her book... you're either "with her" or "against her" - no middle ground. Not surprisingly, most "Againsts’" were summarily terminated - usually with extreme prejudice.

Sarah Palin's views on wildlife and resource management date straight from the days of buffalo hunting and timber barons: "Predator control is not a matter of science, but of people's needs." In her case, the "people" she's referring to are primarily members of the Alaska Outdoor Council (the AOC), a well-heeled private hunting organization that she herself is a member of (and who coincidentally, contributed quite generously to her campaign for governor). Wildlife groups have nicknamed her the " Killa From Wasilla" (her home town) for her remorseless stance on predator control, polar bears (they aren't endangered!), and her utter disregard for other sensitive environmental issues.

Sarah Palin's local nickname is the "Barracuda", and she compares herself to a "pit bull wearing lipstick". Unfortunately, pit bulls are known for making unprovoked attacks on innocent people and animals. In retrospect, perhaps the comparison was an apt one.

I hear that "Heart" wants their music back... so, I guess the "Barracuda" will have to find a new theme song.

Question: Many people have been asking precisely which books Sarah Palin was trying to force the removal of from the public library in Wasilla. I have been unable to find this out, and would be greatly curious if anyone happens to know. Inquiring minds, you know.

NorthStar quotes Sarah Palin as follows: "Predator control is not a matter of science, but of people's needs."

LeRoy: Sarah certainly doesn't seem to be very 'keen' on science. I wonder if she was trying to ban Darwin's On the Origin of Species.....

to a site listing all the books that Sarah Palin objected to and wanted to get banned. Evidently the only acceptable reading material in her eyes is the Bible.

<link>

Also, there is some more information about this in what is becoming the widely circulated email from Alice Kilkenny, a community activist that lives in Wasilla and knows Sarah Palin personally. And for anyone willing to dismiss her as a kook, this is legitimate and she was also interviewed on NPR on Friday. She was more thoroughly vetted by the media than Sarah Palin was vetted by the McCain campaign.

<link>

Northstar, I'm afraid your post has the quality of a professional hatchet job. a little too slick, too long, too well proofread (not one typo) etc. I did look at your link about the book banning and I see that you provided no proof for your list, which was ridiculously extensive. You suggest that she wanted to ban Chaucer for goodness sake! And your proof is only hearsay, someone said that some said that she wanted to do this. Please, that is not even close to good enough.

lubbesuh: I apologize for being an Alaskan resident with a college education, and one who’s Mother was a former English teacher. Apparently, old habits die hard. You were mistaken… the post/link about the book banning was not mine, but I did find the poster’s link to Alice Kilkenny’s e-mail [http://www.crosscut.com/polit­ics-government/17341] to be particularly informative. I was aware that Sarah Palin had attempted to terminate the head Wasilla librarian for not ascribing to her wishes, but didn’t know the full details. A hatchet job… I don’t think so. If what I said troubles you, then do a simple Google records search. Most (if not all) the information that I presented should be readily available online. If you’re an ardent Sarah Palin supporter - reassure yourself… do a check and prove me wrong. Or… open your eyes and realize that I’m 100% correct. What I truly am is: a VERY concerned United States citizen, who is VERY afraid of a Sarah Palin being but a literal heartbeat away from the Presidency of the United States. If I am right… wouldn’t you be???

I did check your link.....OMG another BLOG.

I also did some google trying to get to the bottom of this, especially since this book list contains books that are favorites of even the most extreme right winger....I guess that includes me, being a Christian and all.

I have found nothing so far but questions and allegations, and of course, more BLOG links.

Blogs are opinions at their best and rumor at their worst....NOT NEWS and FACTS. It is a shame so many are begininning to treat them as such.

I certainly do not approve of book banning, It scares the hell out of me no matter who wants to do it. Thats why I was so outraged in the 90's when books by Rush Limbaugh and other conservative authors were being banned from school libraries by liberals....LIBERALS for God's sake!!!! and those reports were not from blogs they were found in the likes of National Review. You may hate the magazine because it is conservative but you certainly cannot describe it as a forum for hack journalists. So it is not a problem with the far right only but also one that has been practiced by the far left who have a proud history of censorship on college campuses and now want to introduce "the fairness doctrine" for the sole purpose of eliminating conservative voices in talk radio. The mechanics are not the same as outright banning but the results are. Radio stations who's sole consideration is profit know that there is no market for liberal talk shows and the forced introduction of them will drive away audiences for half of the listening time. Just look at in debt Air America. This will lower sponsor "buys" during these slots, eliminating profit and forcing the stations to close or change their format to sports or music. It is a strategy of censorship under the guise of "fairness" strongly supported by Nancy Pelosy and many Democrats.

Do you support and justify this?

I will continue to try and find a factual report on this issue. And in all honesty, if it turns out to be true it will seriously affect my opinion of Gov. Palin. I cannot at the moment say it would change my vote, there are other issues after all, but it would force a much harder look at this ticket.

"one who’s Mother was a former English teacher"

Ouch.

What state resources did Gov. Palin deploy in opposition to Prop 4?

Measure 4 banned large mines from discharging harmful amounts of toxic substances into salmon streams... specifically into Bristol Bay - the site of a multimillion dollar salmon fishing industry. A site, incidentally, that Sarah Palin had not only previously promised to protect, but which she even named her daughter Bristol after.

The State, aka Sarah Palin, allocated $25,000 in state funds to "educate" the public on the value of mining in Alaska, and placed a highly biased analysis of the measure on the State Department of Natural Resources website. She also placed ads in major local newspapers with the banner heading, "SARAH PALIN OPPOSES MEASURE 4!!' with links to the same state website.

After numerous complaints, APOC (the Alaska Public Offices Commisson) ordered the state to shutdown the DNR website... as by law, the State is not allowed to take a non-neutral stance on a ballot issue. Even so, Palin left the banner ads in place throughout the voting, but the links to the DNR pages became inactive.

Palin did much the same thing on Measure 2 which was placed on the ballot with the intent of reestablishing the ban on aerial wolf hunting. This time she allocated $400,000 in state funds to "educate" the public on the value of predator control with similar ads being placed in local papers and on TV spots. The state web page for the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (which she controls) also offered a highly biased and misleading view of predator control. The Measure was defeated by a slender margin, a defeat which proponents largely attributed to Sarah Palin's active and hostile involvement.

I know what Prop 4 is.

What sources can you provide that support the claim that Palin (not, for example, the DNR itself, or some other agency or entity) did the things you say?

Some good information can be found in the Anchorage Daily News:

For the $25,000 earmark - see:

<link>

For the $400,000 earmark - see:

<link>

The first link says it was an initiative from the legislature.

The second isn't about Prop 4.

QUOTE (from link marked $25,000): "Lawmakers writing next year's capital budget included $25,000 for the governor's office to educate the public on Alaska mining and regulation and provide information "to influence the outcome of an election on initiatives affecting those mining activities." THIS WAS DONE AT SARAH PALIN'S OFFICIAL REQUEST. Sara Palin completely controls/approves what is written on the State of Alaska website. And, she certainly put her name on the banner ads against Measure 4.

The Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) ruled that it was contrary to the state constitution and illegal to take a non-neutral stance on a ballot measure. That's why they ordered that the links to the state web pages concerning Measure 4 be removed.

Are you saying that Governor Sarah Palin had no idea/responsibility about what was going on? Numerous reports would indicate otherwise, so I'm not exactly sure what you are asking.

By the way, as I had mentioned previously, the second link concerned the $400,000 she allocated from state funds to educate the public on Measure 2. Don't you find the similarity between the two actions just abit coincidental?

Are you suggesting that Sarah Palin, as Governor... had no direct involvement with any of these issues... or, are you just requesting copies of actual e-mails and/or directives?

You made this claim:

"...she utilized her position and state resources to oppose a proposition that would have limited the chances for a potentially devastating pollution of the same Bristol Bay area and its multi-million dollar fishing industry..."

I asked you to support it-- here is my specific question:

"What state resources did Gov. Palin deploy in opposition to Prop 4?"

Again... I'm not sure what you're asking. You don't consider:

• Using the Alaska State website to promote your own personal views... though (by law) the State is required to remain neutral. Instead, the information placed on the state website was heavily prejudiced against Measure 4... a website which was officially approved by Sarah Palin. (Later ruled illegal by APOC)
  
• Authorize payment (with allocated state money) for banner ads, promotional literature, and TV spots opposing Measure 4.
• Uses the office of Governor to fight the Measure: "GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN OPPOSES MEASURE 4". - Banner ad heading
  

What do you consider using state resources?

"the information placed on the state website was heavily prejudiced against Measure"

I understand some people think so. I haven't seen the content, and can't judge.

"a website which was officially approved by Sarah Palin"

There may be proof of this-- I haven't seen it.

"Authorize payment (with allocated state money) for banner ads, promotional literature, and TV spots opposing Measure 4."

As with the above, I haven't seen the ads, literature, or TV spots, and also haven't seen clear information that documents the expenditures you claim or the Governor's authorization for them.

"Uses the office of Governor to fight the Measure: "GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN OPPOSES MEASURE 4". - Banner ad heading"

Didn't see the banners, don't know who produced, placed, or paid for them.

That's why I asked.