This is what used to be known as “splitting hairs”:

September 7th, 2008

One of the compelling anecdotes about Sarah Palin is that she auctioned off the Alaska governor’s jet on eBay after taking office — a swift move made by a reformer hoping to clean up the excesses of her predecessor.

But in fact, tadalafil thumb the jet did not sell on eBay. It was sold to a businessman from Valdez named Larry Reynolds, who paid $2.1 million for the jet, shy of the original $2.7 million purchase price, according to contemporaneous news reports, including a story in the New York Times.

Dan Spencer, the director of administrative services for Alaska’s Public Safety Department, said that the Republican speaker of the Alaska House, John L. Harris, brokered the deal.

What happened? It appears that, as promised during her bid for governor in 2006, Palin did try to sell the plane on eBay but that doing so was not as easy as it might have sounded. After putting it up to auction, there was one serious bid, in December 2006, and it fell through. Still, the Westwind II was sold about eight months later, achieving Palin’s goal of ridding the state of a luxury item.

Seriously, what’s the point here?

She DID put the jet on ebay.

She herself has never said she “sold” it on ebay.

And she DID sell it as part of her reformer gig.

WTF is this supposed to prove? That the people around her can get their story wrong?

And even if they’re deliberately lying…WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?!!!

Is the sale LESS genuine because there were no takers on ebay?

Come on. I know you can do better than this. Don’t you have any belly pictures of Bristol to shop around?

Entry Filed under: Politics

6 Comments Add your own

  • 1. capper  |  September 7th, 2008 at 11:22 am

    And even if they’re deliberately lying…WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?!!!

    It makes a difference because it adds to the pattern of their lying about every damn single thing, whether it be a big issue or a small issue.

    After eight years of that crap, it’s time for something different.

  • 2. folkbum  |  September 7th, 2008 at 11:35 am

    She herself has never said she “sold” it on ebay.
    But McCain does say that. Here’s him in Cedarburg the other day: “You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on eBay– and made a profit!”

    I suggest that it’s another sign that McCain did not so an adequate vetting job. If all McCain knows is her own blustery spin–rather than easily learned facts–then what does that say about McCain’s judgment? And what does it say about McCain that he keeps telling the story even though it has long been shown false?

  • 3. elliot  |  September 7th, 2008 at 11:56 am

    I actually have a post coming up about lies in politics.

    And I am bothered by some of the exaggerations and untruths on the Republican side.

    (I’m sure some of my friends will come and point out a few whoppers from the other side as well. But leave the bloggers out of it. I think it’s better to compare the two campaigns.)

    Mostly, I don’t get it. The real story is good enough in most of the cases…why push it to the point that it can be challenged? In the end, it’s just counterproductive.

  • 4. folkbum  |  September 7th, 2008 at 4:31 pm

    Mostly, I don’t get it. The real story is good enough in most of the cases…why push it to the point that it can be challenged? In the end, it’s just counterproductive.
    This is, in my opinion (which should be everyone’s!) the single biggest failing of the Palin roll-out. It is perhaps because it was rushed after McCain caved to the extremists in his party and canned the Lieberman pick, but for whatever reason, Palin could have been a hundred times more compelling if they had repackaged her correctly.

    The “bridge to nowhere” is a perfect example. When she says, as she does now, “I told Congress ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ “ she’s lying through her teeth. A redemption story–i.e., “I supported the bridge until I saw what a monumental disaster such earmark budgeting was becoming, saddling my five children with debt they could not possibly repay and sucking resources from more important goals. Then, in a moment of deep soul-searching and prayer, I turned around and refused it, and have cut Alaska’s earmark requests in half”–is not only more true(ish), but is also significantly more moving. (It would sell better if she had also refused the money, not just the specific direction to build a bridge with it.)

    Instead, they are resorting to tales that are false, and create, upon debunking, a sense of Palin as probably more dishonest and corrupt than she is.

    To me, of course, this all suggests that McCain & Co. have no business making presidential decisions, since they can’t get the campaign decisions even close to right.

  • 5. jj  |  September 8th, 2008 at 11:56 am

    Why does everyone think that McCain was going to put Lieberman on the ticket. Give the old sailor some credit here folks. He knew Lieberman would not create the excitement that Palin would. I like Joe, but he is a bit on the bland side, ya’ know.

    I’m thinking Sec State for the fine Senator from CT.

  • 6. elliot  |  September 8th, 2008 at 12:01 pm

    He seems sort of bland for Secretary of State, but I’m not sure what else would be appropriate for him and I think McCain definitely wants him in the cabinet.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.