Of all the stories and rumors swirling about Soap Opera Sarah Palin, the one about her selling a jet on eBay is one of the least significant. But it's important because, along with the story about opposing the Bridges to Nowhere, it formed part of her introduction...her Creation Story for a national audience. And, just like her account of her position on the Bridges to Nowhere, her story about the eBay jet is so misleading as to border on fiction.

The Chicago Tribune: Palin claim on eBay plane sale doesn't fly
The Washington Post: Governor's Plane Wasn't Sold on Ebay

She listed it on eBay but it didn't sell. It was sold in the ordinary way, through a broker. And it was sold at a loss.

So, one of her campaign contributors bought the jet and received a steep discount. But, you might be asking yourself, isn't it a good thing that she sold the jet and rid Alaska of this ridiculous extravagance? Well, that's a mixed story. Alaska is huge...much bigger than Texas. Air travel is not a luxury for a governor of such a large state. But, more to the point, the jet wasn't just some toy.

There's an argument that by using the U.S. Marshals Service, Alaska has halved the cost of transporting prisoners. That's a good thing. On the other hand, the state of Alaska took a $600,000 loss on the sale of the jet.

What's more important than whether the jet saved or cost money, or whether it was justified or an extravagance, is that Sarah Palin's Creation Story is phony. She has a whole life to extol and the two pillars of that life that the McCain campaign chose to highlight have both turned out to be false. She supported the Bridges to Nowhere before she opposed them. She didn't sell the jet on eBay and she didn't sell it at a profit. The sale of the jet was always a gimmick. It was an unfair attack on Frank Murkowski that was turned into a stunt. And the Palins have used this to create a mythology about being crusaders for reform.

The American people have had enough shading of the truth from our public officials. We've been lied to habitually over the last eight years. For Sarah Palin to come out of the box telling lies and distortions about her record is a very bad sign. Lying about unimportant stuff that is easily debunked with a simple google seach? We've had enough of that. Enough!!

This page contained an embedded video. Click here to view it.

Promoted by Steven D

What is the meaning of `Israeli-occupied media' in America? Most Americans are unaware of how the news they consume is slanted by censorship and propaganda often intended to serve a particular governmental purpose, and one example recently came to the fore in a 60 Minutes episode when CBS clearly served the interests of a foreign country, Israel, rather than America.

It is widely understood by most observers that an attack on Iran would send the US into an economic tailspin that might take many years to recover from. Does Israel, the country served by the 60 Minutes segment described below, really care what happens to America?

This article was published on The Electronic Intifada, 18 August 2008, and was entitled, 60 MINUTES SERVES AS ISRAELI PROPAGANDA MOUTHPIECE. Its author, Ira Glunts noted that Philip Giraldi, in his 12 August article "America's Israeli-Occupied Media," published on antiwar.com, that the Israeli government is continuing its campaign to get the US military to attack Iran or at least give a "green light" for a massive Israeli bombing strike. In pursuit of this reckless and ill-conceived plan, Tel Aviv found a willing co-conspirator in the mainstream American media, which presented the Israeli world-view without criticism or qualification: CBS's 60 Minutes.

Bob Woodward has a new book coming out. It it, we learn more about George Bush's management style.

I'm watching a segment of Bill Moyers' Journal right now about the deployment to Iraq of New Jersey National Guardsmen. They all are expressing the opinion that they have better things to do than go on a second trip to Iraq. But they're going anyway because that's their duty. President Bush, ladies and gentlemen. Do you think Sarah Palin would be in those meetings? Are you ready for four more years of the same?

Carla says it, so I don't have to.

An Israeli Defense Minister and former Israeli Mossad agent who is now a "security consultant" were both in the news today, and both continue Israel's under the radar war drum beating campaign in the international media. First up Erud Barak:

Far more specific was Juval Aviv a former Mossad agent whose claim that he led a team to track down and assassinate the Palestinian terrorists responsible for the slaughter of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich was made into a Steven Spielberg movie. Now the head of an independent security firm based in New York, he was presented to various groups of Australian officials by independent Jewish organizations this week to publicly claim that Israel is already set on launching attacks against 3 out of 12 possible nuclear sites in Iran before Bush leaves office:

Bluster? Cheap talk? I don't know. But frightening all the same. And the current French President, Nicolas Sarkozy is doing his best to ramp up the warmongering talk, as well.

Dangerous words to be bantering about for public discusssion. And frankly I don't see Iran's leaders backing down. Such talk only enhances their domestic political situation, since it deflects discussion of their poor economic performance with the threat of war and the generation of patriotic feelings among the Iranian populace, feelings which always seem to benefit the government in power. The longer these threats and counter-threats continue, the more likely, it seems to me, that Israel and the Bush administration will feel compelled to act, especially if Obama maintains a lead in the polls. Chance of any media in the United States actually reporting these allegations to the American public during an election campaign. Virtually nil. But it should be a topic on the front burner. At the very least, any Israeli strike on Iran will send oil prices into the stratosphere, likely triggering a global economic meltdown. Before we reach that point, I'd like to think that cooler heads will prevail. But this is the Bush administration we are talking about.

It's time for prominent Democrats to speak up against any attack on Iran. Which means Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Reid (and maybe both Clintons, as well). Past time actually. Unfortunately, Obama's performance in his interview with O'Reilly doesn't give me a lot of comfort.

(cont.)

Let me start by saying that I'm going to give the Log Cabin Republicans the benefit of the doubt that they choose their party and their candidate based on their political philosophy and not just their positions on LGBT issues. I said as much in a comment on a post at Independent Gay Forum that, to me, didn't seem to extend the same courtesy to those of us at the other side of the political spectrum.

As I said in my comment, I'll make a deal with the LCR and gay conservatives: I won't characterize you guys as self-loathing if you don't characterize LGBT Democrats and progressives as mindless, one-issue voters. After all, none of the people I know or talked to in Denver are supporting Obama/Biden soley on the basis of their positions on LGBT issues, but because we think that McCain/Palin is worse (or even dangerously worse) for the country on a whole range of issues from the economy to health care and foreign policy. It just happens that one candidate/party is better on LGBT issues than the other

Which brings me, belatedly, to LCR's endorsement of the McCain/Palin ticket.

I find this rather depressing.

The McCain campaign is literally going to try to sell Sarah Palin as a credible president without letting the press talk to her. For example, this Sunday, Barack Obama will appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, John McCain with be on Face the Nation, and Joe Biden will be on Meet the Press. Sarah Palin will be reading briefing papers in Alaska. Her only appearance on television?

Even Mark Halperin is mocking this campaign strategy. Ali has more.

It looks like Sarah Palin is going to be used more as a way to save congressional seats than any serious effort to win the presidency. Want evidence for that? John McCain cannot raise any more money for his presidential campaign because he is accepting public funding. So, why is Palin doing this?

Where is that money going to go?

Money for the RNC and state parties will have a tangential beneficial effect for the top of the ticket, but the real beneficiaries are going to be politicians further down the ticket. A weak McCain-Romney ticket threatened to cause a wipe-out of Republicans in Congress and in state government. Palin will turn out the base in key Republican areas and she'll raise a lot of dough. What she won't do is run a normal campaign. She won't be doing any media appearances except for fluff pieces. She'll be doing a straight sprint...'30 fundraisers in 60 days'...to raise cash. That's it. That's what she's for. There is a significant risk that this charade will collapse into an Epic Fail.

The strategy is an insult to every American. And then there are those scandals up in Alaska. Trust me on this...Alaska will supply bad news for Palin every single day of this campaign.

What we really need is more funding for Walter Reed Middle School of North Hollywood, California. I think we also need a fund to help John McCain and his staff to better understand all internet traditions.

According to the AP, Sarah Palin attended 5 colleges and universities in 6 years before graduating with a journalism degree. In order, the educational institutions which can claim her as an alum are: University of Hawaii at Hilo (for 2 to 3 weeks; it's not clear she ever actually enrolled there); Hawaii Pacific University in Honolulu (one semester); North Idaho College (a 2 year school) for two semesters; University of Idaho, for one year; Matanuska-Susitna College in Palmer, Alaska (1 semester); and lastly back to the University of Idaho for 3 semesters before graduating.

For comparison, here's Obama's post high school education:

In the years between graduating from Columbia and entering Harvard Law, Obama was a community organizer in the South Side of Chicago. Upon graduating from Harvard Law Obama worked as a civil rights lawyer and taught classes at the University of Chicago Law School. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, never worked at any newspaper as a journalist. Reportedly she served a short stint as "sportscaster for KTUU in Anchorage" after graduation. Make of that what you will.

Update [2008-9-5 11:38:55 by Steven D]: For those who think we should avoid comparisons with Palin and Obama, and focus on McCain, here is my answer. Showing how poorly qualified Palin is compared to Obama is an attack on McCain. McCain has been touting his judgment, his experience, and his devotion to serving his country. Yet in his most important decision to date as his Party's nominee, what did he do? He chose the least qualified person imaginable as his Vice President, a person one heart attack or stroke (or whatever) away from being our Nation's most powerful office holder, for reasons of political expediency (i.e., to shore up his support among the radical right wing of his party). He had the Council For National Policy (a vehicle for enhancing the power of the Radical Right within the Republican Party) vet her and sign off on her selection as his running mate, for Christ's sake!

What did we like best about Obama's speech at the DNC? That he went after the Republicans and McCain hard for his lack of judgment, his impulsiveness and his poor temperament. Well, what better way to attack McCain than to attack his poor decision making in choosing Palin as his Veep? And how do we show McCain used poor judgment and acted impulsively, hastily, without due consideration for the good of the country? In large part by showing that he chose a person who isn't fit to be President.

Dear Puppet Ruler Prime Minister of Iraq: Join the club. The club of what, you ask? The club of people whom BushCo, Inc. has been focusing its all seeing eye upon. You see, Bush may have helped install you in office, and Bush may claim to be your bestest best friend, and he helped you ethnically cleanse Baghdad, and beat up on your major Shi'ite rival. Muqtada al-Sadr, but he still doesn't trust you with all his Iraq's oil:

(cont.)

I would like to know this, this morning :

How many people actually watched John McCain's speech last night?

I didn't. As soon as the NFL football game on NBC was over and Brian Williams' misshapen head popped into view, I changed the channel to ESPN to catch the second half of a fairly decent college football game. I had no desire to watch John McCain reading from a teleprompter, much less for the instant analysis from the talking heads which followed. I commend BooMan for his due diligence, but I had no desire for, and little interest in, whatever McCain might say. So who here had the television turned to Johnny Mac, and who did not? Fess up.

Coming off the high of watching my beloved New York Giants stomp on their heated rival Washington Redskins, I found it impossible to focus on John McCain's speech. He's the worst orator I've ever seen win a nomination of a major party. Dan Quayle gave much better speeches. Lloyd Bentsen gave better speeches. Joe Lieberman gave better speeches. Ralph Nader gives a better speech. John McCain is terrible and he's boring. I had to watch some of the post-debate coverage to even learn that he allegedly broke with the Bush administration and his colleagues in the Capitol Building. I had the sound on during his speech. I was looking at the screen. I didn't absorb any message at all except that John McCain was once captured in a war and that he suffered terribly as a result. He didn't even manage to offend me. He didn't even manage to make me feel uncomfortable. He was simply there...on the screen...mouthing words that signified nothing.

But he did actually deliver a speech with clauses and sentences and applause lines. There's even a transcript. Chris Matthews seemed to be overly impressed with this part.

As for me, I was watching this part of the speech and I had the volume on, but I didn't even notice it. It meant nothing to me. It was such obvious bullshit that it didn't even register as something significant. When I read it in the transcript it had only marginally more meaning. It means that John McCain is going to run against Washington, including his own party and his own party's leadership over the last eight years. But John McCain can't deliver that message. Maybe Sarah Palin will be more successful with it, but John McCain can't get away with it.

And so, my friends, it will just be a slow, painful, offensive nine weeks before we can say goodbye to John McCain. And we'll also say goodbye to so many of his colleagues that he is now condemning with false rhetoric.

A Tribber's response to John McCain's speech.

Nuff said. Game over.