Palin Quoted Antisemitic Author in RNC Speech

Perhaps you have confused Streeteasy with Huffingtonpost? This is a blog about RE.

Really - then why have all the posts from the past week from posters like TotallyAnonymous, Garjleg, Sizzlack etc been all about pushing the Republican candidate and not at all about real estate?

Whatever

WideStance - I'm a strong Obama supporter - but I agree that this is not really the right forum - your comments would also get a lot more of an audience on dailykos. (PS - remember this is a NEW YORK real estate site - Obama already has this state in the bag no matter what is said here.)

I really wish people weren't so ignorant and knew what the word 'Semite' actually means. Palestinians are Semites too...

Sizzlack - there you go. someone else posted the link that you have been asking me for.

Is this board an appropriate place to post misleading statements about Obama's tax plan? Seems like there are a bunch of posters who on a daily basis try to assert that Obama's tax plan will effect the economy when history over the last 60 years shows that the market and american incomes do better under Democratic administrations. Its a fact.

petrfitz -- take a cue from the GOP: it's much easier to scare people than to inspire them.

So what you mean to say is " . . . do worse under Republican administrations. It's a fact."

petrfitz -- take a cue from the GOP: it's much easier to scare people than to inspire them.

So what you mean to say is " . . . do worse under Republican administrations. It's a fact."

Everytime someone attacks S. Palin another voter moves to McCain. Stop and Obama will win.

new BBC/Globescan poll shows 22 countries prefer to see Obama elected. Last time around they preferred John Kerry. I feel their pain but you all should have picked my wife.

(ps this post isn't actually from the real Bill Clinton)

Julia says " Everytime someone attacks S. Palin another voter moves to McCain. Stop and Obama will win."

That is exactly what the RNC is saying while they attack Obama, Biden and "liberals"

they attack and win and they tell the democrats to not attack so you can win. get it? they dont want us using their own dirty tactics.

" What is always within our control is how we fight and bear up under pressure. It's easy to get twisted up in your head about strategy and message and optics. But what is already apparent is that John McCain is running the sleaziest, most dishonest and race-baiting campaign of our lifetimes.

So let's stopped being shocked and awed by every new example of it. It is undignified. What can we do? We've got a dangerously reckless contender for the presidency and a vice presidential candidate who distinguished her self by abuse of office even on the comparatively small political stage of Alaska.

They've both embraced a level of dishonesty that disqualifies them for high office. Democrats owe it to the country to make clear who these people are. No apologies or excuses. If Democrats can say at the end of this campaign that they made clear exactly how and why these two are unfit for high office they can be satisfied they served their country."

petrfitz....the attacks on palin are so over the top that it makes me gulp when I say I support Obama. The average walmart woman is furious with what the dems and their media friends are doing. The dems don't know when to stop and it's going to lose the election for them.

What attacks on Palin? Are they worse then the "Obama is a muslim" blatant lie attacks? Or the attacks from McCain himself that questions Obama's patriotism by saying he is more interested in "winning an election than winning a war?"

Seems to me that McCain put Palin a heartbeat away from the Presidency not because she is the most qualified to win the war but the most divisive and could help him win the election.

McCain is running the sleezy campaign and the one doing the attacks. He does not speak to policy or what he would do to help the economy. He attacks Obama and nominates Palin as a political stunt. He is also lying about her record and his as well.

"We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity."

Boy that is offensive.

ccdevi - why did she quoe a known anti-jew? couldnt she have paraphrased the sentiment? Why did she include a direct quote? Who put it in her speech? Is she reading him? Does she agree with his posts?

if Obama put a quote from anyone who had the least connection to the Muslim faith you would vilify him. And that is for a connection to a religion, the Palin situation is a connection to a known hate mongerer.

here is McCain using the phrase “lipstick on a pig” in a similar context about Hillary Clinton, in Iowa, in October 2008:

McCain criticized Democratic contenders for offering what he called costly universal health care proposals that require too much government regulation. While he said he had not studied Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s health-care plan, he said it was “eerily reminiscent” of the failed plan she offered as first lady in the early 1990s.

“I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” he said…

This is yet more proof that there is no bottom to the depth of Republican hypocrisy — or, apparently, to the McCain campaign’s incompetence.

Julia: The average Walmart woman is getting totally screwed by the republicans, but is willing to endure more just because she can "relate." If the walmart woman doesn't mind the 6% unemployment rate, 4.00 gasoline, tax breaks and bailouts only to help corporate america, then she deserves another 4 years. And it's probably her son that be in Iraq for the next 100 years as McCain wants, not mine.

Sorry, I know this isn't the proper forum for this, but while I get the McCain supporter who is afraid his taxes will go up, selfish, but understandable, but the lower middle class--I just don't get it.

Please save this liberal mental masturbation for Starbucks.

petrfitz, please do not presume how I would react in any situation. Some of us actually think, you should drop your agenda and try it.

ccdevi - why are you justifying/excusing a direct anti-jewish connection?

I'd give that stupid bitch the benefit of the doubt. She probably doesn't even know what antisemitic means.

So Obama's past lies and distortions about McCain were acceptable? McCain never said he wanted combat in Iraq for 100 years, but Obama distorted the quote. McCain has gone against Bush on many major issues - the surge, campaign finance, torture, judicial appointments, tying tax cuts to spending cuts, etc., yet Obama still pushes that stupid "90% votes with Bush" nonsense (which isn't working). McCain never said you needed $5million or else you were middle class, but Obama distorted that too. Give me a break, both sides are stretching things, but it's the democrats that love playing the victim.

Be a little weaker in your convictions, Julia.

Make no mistake, many democrats in Congress shamelessly wanted us to fail in Iraq so they could gain more political power. I don't know if Obama had the same motivation, but he sure sounded like he did. They can't stand that they lost this as an issue in the election. This is why they opposed the surge even after it was shown to be working. Remember Gen. Petraeus' first appearance before Congress? The man should be commended as a hero and instead he had to deal with accusations that he was a liar (Hillary Clinton) and a traitor (moveon.org and NY Times).

actually mccain himself said that he voted over 95% of the time with Bush "more than most of his republican peers"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMvohE_otJ4&eurl=http://vodpod.com/watch/985335-mccain-proud-to-be-a-bushevik?pod=buzzflash

and he also did say the $5 million per year.

Just because you lie about him not saying these things doesnt make it true. Just like the lies that say Palin is a reformer and prepared to be President - they are also not true.

It would be manly of you to admit that McCain may win the election on his strategy of lying to and misleading the American people.

LIC - he also did say American troops could be in IRaq for 100 yers and that would be fine with him.

Petrfitz - you have gone off the deep end. There are arguments that are similar to yours. McCain actually said "90%", and the comment was not that it would be fine for a 100 years, but that was something that might be the case and that that might not be a bad thing. And he said it in the context that our troops have been in Germany and Japan for 63 years already and in Korea for 58.

Your insistence in taking them even a step further when it is verifiably false undermine your credibility (whatever shred you have left).

IOW, your true blue is showing.

petr, you are just as much of a joke and a liar as the people who push this garbage. We've had substantial numbers of troops in Japan and Germany since WWII. McCain made the analogy and said that he would not be opposed to a similar situation in Iraq as long as our troops are not in harm's way. Obama kept saying that McCain said he wouldn't mind the Iraq war lasting 100 years. A complete distortion.

McCain also said the $5million line as a joke. The question was to define "rich," and McCain's point was that he did not want to increase tax burdens on anyone, regardless of income. To use that to say that McCain believes you need $5 million before you can be considered rich is just a lie.

Keep posting your crap petr, you're turning more and more people to the McCain side with your obvious extreme left partisanship.

what "direct anti-jewish connection" would that be?

Fact - McCain did say that "it would be fine with me" if troops wer ein Iraq for 100 years.

Also with the entire country hurting, people losing thier homes and life savings, everything they have, why would you even joke about having to be worth $5 million per year to be considered rich? It was inappropriate and another example of McCains bad judgement and the fact that he doesnt get it.

Did McCain ever find out how many homes he owns?

Did McCain take back calling Palin the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard overseas?

Did McCain apologize for using the lipstick on a pig reference in regards to Hiliary's health care policy?

Will American troops be in Iran too for 100 years after McCain "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bombs Iran?"

the direct quoting of an Anti-semitic writer in her acceptence speech. Notice that she only attributed the quote to "a writer" that is proof that she knew he was anti-semitic and she still used his direct quote.

petr has a habit of ignoring points that make him look stupid and then trying to change the subject, usually with more dumb points of his.

LICComment: wrong on the issues and wrong on LIC. Probably bought LEH shares with spunky, too.

Petrftiz = WideStance

no doubt about it

I love how WideStance makes two posts and then disappears and who shows up...Petr!

and for the record Petr I am done with you...I exposed you as a fraud at least 3 times in the last week (Jew Hater, Alaska NG, Book burning) so I'm finished...enjoy having a debate with yourself.

and Im still waiting for you to post that video of McCain or Palin telling people she commanded troops overseas....

but I wont hold my breath

Sizzlack - you can see from the first post that Palin has a big problem with the Jewish community. I am not saying if any of it is true, but what is true is that she has a problem.

It is also a fact that she called the town librarian up and asked how she would go about banning books. If the librarian hadnt stood up to her who knows what would happen. Do we want a book banner a hear beat away from the Presidency? Sizzlack provide 1 bit of truth that she didnt inquire about banning books.

Will the stock market correct itself before the election to correct for McCain openly wanting to "Bomb, Bomb, bomb,bomb, bomb Iran?"

The bombing of Iran would send the world oil markets into a shock, most oil producing countries would dump the american dollar, in turn causing our already fragile economy to plummit.

When would the market start to correct if it looks like Iran bombing McCain wins the Presidency?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

"She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term."

"One accusation claims then-Mayor Palin threatened to fire Wasilla’s librarian for refusing to ban books from the town library. Some versions of the rumor come complete with a list of the books that Palin allegedly attempted to ban. Actually, Palin never asked that books be banned; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication. The librarian was fired, but was told only that Palin felt she didn’t support her. She was re-hired the next day. The librarian never claimed that Palin threatened outright to fire her for refusing to ban books.

It’s true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla’s librarian, on at least two occasions, three in some versions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition each time. But, as the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman (Wasilla’s local paper) reported at the time, Palin asked general questions about what Emmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned. According to Emmons, Palin "was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons' position would change if residents were picketing the library. Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny, who was at the meeting, corroborates Emmons' story, telling the Chicago Tribune that "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' "

Palin characterized the exchange differently, initially volunteering the episode as an example of discussions with city employees about following her administration's agenda. Palin described her questions to Emmons as “rhetorical,” noting that her questions "were asked in the context of professionalism regarding the library policy that is in place in our city." Actually, true rhetorical questions have implied answers (e.g., “Who do you think you are?”), so Palin probably meant to describe her questions as hypothetical or theoretical. We can't read minds, so it is impossible for us to know whether or not Palin may actually have wanted to ban books from the library or whether she simply wanted to know how her new employees would respond to an instruction from their boss. It is worth noting that, in an update, the Frontiersman points out that no book was ever banned from the library’s shelves.

Palin initially requested Emmons’ resignation, along with those of Wasilla’s other department heads, in October 1996. Palin described the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all of them (except one, whose department she was eliminating) to retain their positions. But in January 1997, Palin fired Emmons, along with the police chief. According to the Chicago Tribune, Palin did not list censorship as a reason for Emmons’ firing, but said she didn’t feel she had Emmons’ support. The decision caused “a stir” in the small town, according to a newspaper account at the time. According to a widely circulated e-mail from Kilkenny, “city residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin’s attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter.”

As we’ve noted, Palin did not attempt to ban any library books. We don’t know if Emmons’ resistance to Palin’s questions about possible censorship had anything to do with Emmons’ firing. And we have no idea if the protests had any impact on Palin at all. There simply isn’t any evidence that we can find either way. Palin did re-hire Emmons the following day, saying that she now felt she had the librarian’s backing. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned.

So what about that list of books targeted for banning, which according to one widely e-mailed version was taken “from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board”? If it was, the library board should take up fortune telling. The list includes the first four Harry Potter books, none of which had been published at the time of the Palin-Emmons conversations. The first wasn't published until 1998. In fact, the list is a simple cut-and-paste job, snatched (complete with typos and the occasional incorrect title) from the Florida Institute of Technology library Web page, which presents the list as “Books banned at one time or another in the United States.”"

thanks for confirming that she wanted to abuse her power to ban books

"It’s true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla’s librarian, on at least two occasions, three in some versions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition each time"

just who we need in the White house!

wow if that librarian hadnt stood up to her I wonder what books she would have banned? Catcher in the Rye no doubt.

you have pathetic comprehension skills. She raised a hypothetical question. Something you do constantly.

"As we’ve noted, Palin did not attempt to ban any library books."

did you even make it this far into the article? doubtful

Absolutely true...Palin is a conservative and that's my point...stick to the facts about her rather than about her daughter, or who gave birth to the baby, etc. There's enought about Palin's record and beliefs that will turn voters off. It's the ugly artcles that are helping her.

Sizzlack - what would happen if I called up someone and asked a hypothetical situation like "how would I go about killing Sizzlack?"

In your logic that is totally acceptable?

you need to stick to your meds psycho. Yea that is a hypothetical question but why you chose that one is beyond me...but does fit your personality to a tee.

and that had to be a first for Streeteasy.

Petr has now made a semi death threat.

"Notice that she only attributed the quote to "a writer" that is proof that she knew he was anti-semitic and she still used his direct quote."

I guess you could label anything as "proof," whether its at all persuasive proof is another matter. Its not an interesting quote at all so its hard for me to imagine she would use it unless one of the following were true: (1) she (and probably the person who actually wrote the speech) did not know the writer's background, or (2) she knew of the background and she specifically wanted to be associated with this guy. She's running for office. Which do you think is more likely?

petrfitz, regarding the "pig & lipstick" quote -

McCain was criticizing Clinton's policy. Obama was criticising the candidate herself.

This is not hypocracy.

uptowngal...that's a point I didn't know thanks

uptowngal - you are good at spreading lies. Julia it seems that you are incredibily eager to accept the lies being spread:

Obama was quoted as saying, %u201CThe other side, suddenly, they%u2019re saying %u2018we%u2019re for change too,%u2019 %u201D Obama told the crowd. %u201CYou can put lipstick on a pig. It%u2019s still a pig. You can wrap up an old fish in a piece of paper and call it change. It%u2019s still going to stink after eight years. We%u2019ve had enough.%u201D

So his remark was directly about the McCain campaigns message of change. He even used the word "change" twice. Were is he criticising Palin herself?

He wasnt. He was criticising the McCain campaigns bogus message of change. Like McCain used it to criticise Hiliary's health care message.

Uptowngal - please post a retraction to your misinformation.

The other side, suddenly, they're saying we're for change too,' Obama told the crowd. "You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. You can wrap up an old fish in a piece of paper and call it change. It's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough"

His quote again without the gcode garbage.

Also if you are in the mood to criticise horrible comments made about woman I am surprised that you didnt bring up the following:

John McCain in 1998 rude remarks about teenage Chelsea Clinton in front of all the Press at a Republican Dinner:

Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”

– Sen. John McCain, speaking to a Republican dinner, June 1998.

Hmm - attacking a child that is not in politics and how his campign is making up lies about a comment Obama never made.

That's not change we can believe in.

Petrfitz why for the zillionith time do you not post links to your quotes?
Did you ever attend high school or college? Do you know what a source is?

and telling uptown girl that she is spreading lies is the pot calling the kettle black if Ive ever seen it...again your hypocrisy is truly mind blowing

sizzlack: I have no idea whether the story about John and Cindy McCain is accurate or where it originated. It has been copied and pasted many times, without clear attribution. Here's an example: http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2008/07/no-not-really.html

My mistake. It's from Schecter's book, and was reproduced by Wonkette in April:

http://wonkette.com/376849/mccain-called-his-wife-c+word

hooray we have a source! danka

Oy! And I thought this was a REAL ESTATE website . . . hmm. Why not move this argument over to Politico or some other POLITICAL website? By the way - why is everyone bothering with this - Obama is clearly going to take New York and New Jersey no matter what you guys say.