The Truth About Sarah Palin

What is behind the criticism of Governor Palin? Is the media going "out of its way" to destroy Palin, while ignoring (or under reporting) Obama and Biden? And if so, why? Is America getting a full picture of the real Sarah Palin?

Recently, a piece by Bryon York (a fantastic journalist who appears in National Review) was misquoted by CNN's Drew Griffen. Griffen not only misquoted the story during an interview with Governor Palin (that was seen by millions of people), Griffen admitted during the interview that he had not researched the story before "confronting Palin." If that is what passes for "investigative journalism" at CNN, they should have their legal department draft a standard "oops, we screwed up letter" that can be sent out in the future. CNN/Griffen later "recanted" the story, but the damage was done.

So if CNN was wrong, what is the real story from Byron York? Bryon York did real journalism, and provided a clear picture of the true leader that is Governor Sarah Palin:

NRO - Bryon York: How Palin Governed

From Bryon's piece:

" a look at Palin's 20 months in power, along with interviews with people who worked with her, shows her to be a serious executive, a governor who picked important things to do and got them done — and who didn't just stumble into an 80 percent job-approval rating."

"She had four principles she wanted to bring to the process," says Joe Balash, who served as Palin's special assistant for energy issues. "One, to have competition. Two, to have clear and objective measures of progress, because with a massive project like that it's going to be years before any dirt turns. Three, there had to be a commitment to expansion [the pipeline would have to be big enough to handle more gas in the future]. And four, it had to be done without surrendering the state's sovereignty."

"the Anchorage Daily News reported that the pipeline deal "sealed the popular Republican governor's second major victory in two years against not only her opponents in the Legislature but also major oil companies Palin sometimes has poked publicly." Her approval rating soared."

"she became convinced that fellow commissioner Randy Ruedrich, the head of the Alaska Republican party, was conducting party business on the commission's time. Palin filed an ethics complaint against Ruedrich, leading to a long and contentious investigation. In 2004, Ruedrich admitted guilt and agreed to pay a $12,000 fine, which was the largest such punishment ever in Alaska."

"Still, it's fair to say that overall, Palin's time in office, from her swearing-in until the moment John McCain picked her to be his running mate, has been a success. And from her handling of the issues she has tackled, it's possible to see a pattern in the way she approaches governing.

First, she hires well. "There was a pretty good team of people assembled right away to come in and start with her big-picture principles and develop a process and legislation to carry that out," says Joe Balash. "I would say that her management style is to give her staff, her cabinet, a pretty long leash, but with very high expectations — and she's not afraid to tell you that you didn't get it right."

Second, she is involved with details on some big things, but not on everything. "When it comes to issues that she cares about, that she knows the public cares about, she's got all kinds of time and prioritizes things in a big way," says one insider who has worked with her and asked not to be named. "For the mundane tasks of government . . . say, regulations for the Kenai River, she instead looks for recommendations from her cabinet and the regulatory agencies, but she's not going to get in and argue specific details."

Third, she is dead set on fulfilling campaign promises. "There was this absolute expectation that if it was an issue that had been talked about during the campaign and there was a particular commitment that she had made, then we had to live up to it, no matter how difficult," says Balash, "because her big thing was restoring the confidence of the public in state government."

The unfair reporting and mischaracterization of Governor Sarah Palin will go down as one of the darkest stains in American political history. The character assassination and deceitful attempts to diminish Governor Palin's many accomplishments is insulting and pathetic. Worst is how many Americans stood by and did nothing.

And what of these attacks on Palin based on her distorted "lack of experience" or the naive belief she was only selected because she was a female. The New York Times said it best:

"Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become President? Surely Ronald Reagan does not subscribe to that maxim. Or where is it written that mere representatives aren't qualified, like Geraldine Ferraro of Queens? Representative Morris Udall, who lost New Hampshire to Jimmy Carter by a hair in 1976, must surely disagree. So must a longtime Michigan Congressman named Gerald Ford. Where is it written that governors and mayors, like Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco, are too local, too provincial? That didn't stop Richard Nixon from picking Spiro Agnew, a suburban politician who became Governor of Maryland. Remember the main foreign affairs credential of Georgia's Governor Carter: He was a member of the Trilateral Commission. Presidential candidates have always chosen their running mates for reasons of practical demography, not idealized democracy. One might even say demography is destiny: this candidate was chosen because he could deliver Texas, that one because he personified rectitude, that one because he appealed to the other wing of the party. On occasion, Americans find it necessary to rationalize this rough-and-ready process. What a splendid system, we say to ourselves, that takes little-known men, tests them in high office and permits them to grow into statesmen. This rationale may even be right, but then let it also be fair. Why shouldn't a little-known woman have the same opportunity to grow? We may even be gradually elevating our standards for choosing Vice Presidential candidates. But that should be done fairly, also. Meanwhile, the indispensable credential for a Woman Who is the same as for a Man Who - one who helps the ticket."

That was the New York Times position in 1984 regarding the pick of Geraldine Ferraro. Funny, I did not see the same support for Palin, or forceful condemnation against the false piety by those currently trashing Palin. Daniel Henninger said it best in is October 23, 2008 piece - “The stoning of Sarah Palin has exposed enough cultural fissures in American politics to occupy strategists full-time until 2012. We now see there is a left-to-right elite centered in New York, Washington, Hollywood and Silicon Valley who hand down judgments of the nation's mortals from their perch atop the Bell Curve.”

How Sarah Palin has been treated should be a wakeup call to everyone, but especially women. You are free to consider yourself a unique individual, deserving of equality and fair play, and worthy of being judged on the merits of your accomplishments, SO LONG as you fall inline with those on the Left (Democrats, NOW, NARAL, etc), and walk lock step with their ideals. Outside of that, you will be belittled, your family insulted, your accomplishments downplayed, and your success attributed to matters beyond your control.