Sarah Palin: Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

Ex-Gov. Sarah Palin doubles down on her false "death panel" claim. More at AP and CBS. Let's hope seniors are tuning her out.

Think Progress says Palin was for end-of-life counseling before she was against it.

< Can Obama "Fail" Like FDR and LBJ? Please? | Thursday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That's not some long-ago quote (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:41:13 PM EST
    -- that's just last year.  A good find by TP, and I hope it gets traction.

    But it just won't matter to too many of the health-care opponents and/or too many Palin followers.

    one of my less intelligent (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:47:18 PM EST
    co-workers was going off about "death panels" to some of us at lunch as we rolled our eyes.

    after coming back we decided on a path of action.  we went, in a group, to his room and stated loudly
    "your death panel has arrived Billy, lets take a walk"

    Well played sirs... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:56:56 PM EST
    our senators and reps should run that gag at the next townhall...

    Too bad the death panel counseling is off the table, I was kinda looking forward to hearing what the options were for my final solution...is it just lethal injection a la death row (no fun)or can you go out on a serious bender on Uncle Sam's dime...I was gonna ask for enough horse to kill a horse.


    Nicely done. (none / 0) (#8)
    by scribe on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:08:34 PM EST
    Jimmy:  you panel is ready.  Just go around the corner of the barn and they'll have their meeting table all set up over there.

    Kinda like telling the kids that you took their now-a-vicious-biting-menace-puppy  to a farm in country where he will have other dogs to play with and squirrels and rabbits to chase and all that.

    I think the Repugs are scared of the fantasy death panels because, in the main, they are the old, cranky f*rts who would be first in line were that fantasy to have any root in reality.  Kinda like Edward G. Robinson in Soylent Green.  Indeed, someone over at Huffpo noted that Grassley's might be making the big stink over them which he is making, precisely because he's getting into that age range....

    Go watch a movie, old guy.


    Just right (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:11:10 PM EST
    The sooner 'death panel' becomes a national gag catch phrase, the sooner Mrs. Palin will be rendered inconsequential.

    This entire "death panel" discussion is (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:25:17 PM EST
    ridiculous no matter who is talking about it. Palin is just proving that she's part of the right wing scare monger group.

    At this very moment, people across this country from every age group are being denied necessary care to keep them alive because the Insurance Carriers have decided it is too expensive to keep them alive. There are DOCTORS and NURSES on staff at every health insurance company designated as the drivers for what treatments will be allowed to patients who require exceptional care. They are tasked with making sure they deny care in favor of the bottom line for the company. Now, if that isn't a "death panel" I don't know what is.

    What the bill needs is a clause that says the patient and primary physician determine the treatments necessary and that the insurance company has no right to reject those claims.

    Not sure why this is always about Palin. It's really a flaw in our current system that needs to be fixed by the new plan.

    Disagree (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:32:45 PM EST
    Palin is just proving that she's part of the right wing scare monger group.

    Palin is more like the right wing mouthpiece. She is the one who carried the Hitler Death Panel meme to the public. She is assuming a leadership position.


    Isn't ignoring her the best way (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 04:02:43 PM EST
    to end her leadership? I'm sure there are plenty of R's out there saying these things...they just aren't getting the press.

    Good Luck (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 04:08:39 PM EST
    She supposedly just got an 11mil book deal. She has the spotlight, a well oiled PR machine, and the GOP backing her.

    Ignoring her is not going to make her go away, imo. At this point she is considered the #1 GOP contender for 2012.


    And, in 2008 it was Romney (none / 0) (#25)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 04:36:39 PM EST
    who had that position. He wasn't non-stop publicized for every dumb thing he said for 4 years leading up to the nomination.

    Even the R's won't put someone at the top of the ticket who no one pays any attention to.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 04:41:38 PM EST
    Palin is not as weak as Romney. Different kettle of fish entirely.

    Palin is different from any politician I have ever seen. She is farther to the right politically than Bush and a more formidable threat, even though she is retooled in Bush's image.


    On this we agree (none / 0) (#27)
    by Spamlet on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 04:53:10 PM EST
    But if the GOP is now largely a Southern white rump (lol) party, what do you think of Palin's crossover appeal? Can she get the so-called Reagan Dems, or are they too a dying breed? Some PUMAs have professed their Sarah love, but will that hold until 2012? And is she too crazy for the independents? IOW, how viable is she, really? Would it take a three-way race, as in the 1992 contest that put Bill Clinton in the White House?

    No Chance (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 04:58:22 PM EST
    I do not think that she has a chance of winning the POTUS against Obama in 2012. But I do see her as the rallying point for violence, hate, and even a proto fascist movement in the US.

    She needs to be watched, imo.


    McCarthy in high heels? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Spamlet on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 05:01:42 PM EST
    Nah (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 05:20:39 PM EST
    More like Ernst Röhm in high heels, imo.

    I don't think she has a chance of winning (none / 0) (#31)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 05:15:36 PM EST
    either...it causes nightmares to think of what the media would do. Could they find time to expose the policies being enacted in-between the important stories about what color her shoes were that day?

    She can't win...another GOP candidate might be able to.

    I actually think she is going to find herself disappearing into the same black hole that Guiliani did last year. Whatever appeal she has will expire once she really starts talking.


    Disagree (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 05:24:58 PM EST
    Guiliani is too obviously self serving, also horrible treatment to his wife, and cross dressing...  Italian... way to many skeletons in his closet. The GOP was smart to keep him at bay.

    Palin is quite different. Anyway we will see, she will be around for some time imo.


    Romney (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:48:46 AM EST
    Will be the nominee in 2012, barring any weired revelations.  He's attractive, been in business, saved the SLC Olympics, been a governor, has family ties to the Midwest and auto industry, and not hated by the media. The evangelicals are over the Mormon issue, especially if it means a chance to win.  And it's going to come down to the economy in 2012, and if he don't have a huge turnaround, and after the debacle which will be the health care (insurance) reform, Obama is going to be swimming upstream without a paddle.

    Palin will make some noise for a while, but if she runs, will be out with Biden and Dodd numbers soon into primary season.


    I meant (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:49:20 AM EST
    if "WE don't have a huge turnaround"

    Disagree (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:34:46 AM EST
    The only reason Palin will not be the GOP nominee in 2012, is if the Republicans [wisely] decide that they cannot win. Then they will wait until 2016 to run Palin against Hillary.

    Not so long as she has (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 04:31:49 PM EST
    national political aspirations. Until she gives those up, it's important to expose her for her lies, lack of qualifications and experience and extremist views.

    How does one become a member of a (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by JSN on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 06:19:41 PM EST
    county death panel? Are the members appointed, elected or is it like a jury?

    This is all new to me the only time I have every read about a death panel was in a Larry Niven science fiction novel. In that case the death panel members were henchmen of the local dictator.

    Palin and the death panels are (2.00 / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:01:04 PM EST
    really just attention get'ers.

    It isn't the end of life counseling.  That is fluff. After becoming engaged the more thoughtful will look at the $400 billion to be taken out of Medicare to finance Obama's health care planS and realize that the result has to be a reduction of care. That, plus the increasingly well known comments of Obama's health care adviser and the understanding and knowledge that seniors already have that Medicare rules can cause problems bring them right back to "Death Panels

    Well She Succeeded (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:46:40 PM EST
    The language about end of life counseling has been removed from the Senate bill, so as to avoid "confusion".

    Not surprising (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:15:08 PM EST
    To quote Somerby:

    In one way, it's odd to think that we liberals may get our keisters kicked again. It's odd because our side is so brilliant, while the other side is such a gang of laughable wing-nuts. We liberals love to point this out, often failing to ask ourselves how it is that the gang of nuts keep beating the gang that's so brilliant. Daily Howler

    Maybe that is a question worth considering.


    Lies, Propaganda and Dishonest Tactics (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:22:12 PM EST
    How did Hitler gain power in Germany? It was not because he told the people the truth.

    Very hard to combat tactics that exploit the religious masses, people who are suseptible to fear mongering etc.

    Heck, look at what the GOP did after 9/11. They got the majority of Americans to support a war in Iraq which had Zero to do with 9/11 on no evidence, and lies.


    The point was not that the Republicans (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:32:56 PM EST
    were telling the truth. The point was that this is not anything new and the Dems have not developed a good strategy against the lies, propaganda and dishonest tactics.

    So? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:52:19 PM EST
    Why should it matter what they think?

    This is one of the most infuriating things about Obama's approach to this business. He should just go out there and tell the Palin/Repub.folks, "Look, we're trying to get you the very best health care possible. The Republicans have decided that huge bonuses for the insurance company executives are more important than you. So, in spite of their betrayal to you, we're going to do it without them. Let them lie, let them squirm, let them scare; I'm the President of all the people, and I'm not going to let you down. We're all going to get sick; we're all going to get old. As your President, there's nothing more important in my mind than this: If you get sick, the one thing you won't have to worry about is getting the best medical care possible, without going broke in the process. Certainly that's the one thing America, the greatest country on earth, can promise its people. They will fight to their last breath to see that the executives get the highest pay on earth; I'm going to fight to see that you get the best health care on earth."

    "The battle lines have been drawn; you decide who's on your side, and who's on their side."


    Agree (none / 0) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 04:21:55 PM EST
    Smart move (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:18:33 PM EST
    it can always be passed as part of some other bill, when the furor has passed and it's no longer susceptible to this level of demagoguery.

    And after we've sent all the Republicans who don't support it to the death panels, of course.


    She's an easy target (none / 0) (#5)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:51:25 PM EST
    So I have little to add as well.

    My mistake is that I think America is smart enough to know not to listen to her.

    But that is a mistake.

    Politico (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:31:41 PM EST
    Has an interesting take (well, Roger Simon, has an interesting take), and I don't think he's completely off-base:  The WH wants the crazy protestors to show up.  Of course, the WH has badly handled the PR on this, so maybe now they want them to go away, but knowing Rahm, this is exactly what he's hoping for.

    The networks are treating health care town halls the way they should be treated: as summer stock. They are theater. They are what Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo calls "right-wing performance art."

    The White House needs confrontational crowds. Instead, it is getting "friendly" crowds.

    Why are Obama crowds so polite? Some suggest it is respect both for Obama as an individual and for the office of the presidency. Others suggest that the presence of several dozen armed men and women carrying weapons and speaking into their sleeves has a chilling effect on disrespect.

    I don't know what it is. I do know it is bad news for the White House.

    As White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said, "I think the public looks at screaming, swastikas, attacks. ... It's not a persuasive argument. If anything, it is the opposite."

    Exactly. Which is why the White House needs it.

    Are you really going to pay attention to a town hall that talks about cost containment, employer mandates and fee-for-service vs. capitation-based reimbursement? Or are you going to pay attention to a town hall that talks about how a death panel is going to put your grandmother on an ice floe with just a boning knife and a three-day supply of beef jerky?

    The Media You Have (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:36:37 PM EST
    One story is exciting. The other is a yawn.

    Obama does not need the violence, threats, and swasticas. The news media needs them.


    White House did say the protests (none / 0) (#18)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:37:51 PM EST
    are the American way.  But again forgot to tell Biden that was going to be the meme of the day. :-)

    Or Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 04:34:34 PM EST
    Hoyer or Reid

    Town hall protesters are "evil-mongers," says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

    Reid coined the term in a speech to an energy conference in Las Vegas this week and repeated it in an interview with Politics Daily.

    Such "evil-mongers" are using "lies, innuendo and rumor," to drown out rational debate, Reid said.

    "It was an original with me," Reid said of the term. "I maybe could have been less descriptive," he said, adding that "I doubt you'll hear it from me again."

    Nevertheless, Reid worked in the word one more time during the interview.

    "I feel I haven't done anything to embarrass [my children]," Reid joked. "Except maybe call somebody an evil-monger."

    What Simon skirts (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 05:01:48 PM EST
    is the fact that his own party "needs them" and cant get anywhere without the yahoos that think, as Bill Mahr reminded us the other day, Iraq attacked us on 9/11 and that Christianity is an older religion than Judaism.

    And yeah, alot of those people are the same people that are comandeering these protests.


    "Burn her down"? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Roz on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:33:17 PM EST
    Do you mean that literally? Or metaphorically, like "death panel"?

    however it was meant (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:43:50 PM EST
    I just saw that comment and deleted it. Thanks for pointing it out. It was inappropriate.

    But Hasn't Baucus, (none / 0) (#37)
    by bob h on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 05:24:22 AM EST
    in taking the end of life counseling language out of the Senate bill, handed her a great "victory"?

    Perhaps his intent was to quiet her down. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by easilydistracted on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 07:51:58 AM EST
    Sarah, you no longer have reason to fear a purported "death squad." Your boogeyman is gone so go sit down and shut up.

    It won't work but perhaps that was his intent.


    Actually, she does have reason to fear (none / 0) (#39)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 08:35:11 AM EST
    the death panel...if we continue as we are under the denial of service process private insurance now uses.